Jesse Bekas

I DP'ed a shoot in a theater once. I made a DVD copy of the footage that was gonna play on the screen in that scene. I played the DVD through a video projector about 40 feet from the talent, pointed it at them, and softened the focus on the projector. It worked extremely well.

I don't have much experience lighting steam and smoke, but I was under the impression that, like rain and snow, it was best lit from the side, and not from in front or behind.

Oh, John, you're right. My comments were not directed toward the PAL system, just the convoluted NTSC. Really, what if any advantage is there of using interlacing (besides compatability with past formats)? Why is there a HiDef interlaced format? (if this is too off topic, feel free to tell me to save the interlace/progressive, NTSC/PAL topic for another thread)

Obviously, much of the reason many people (the non-professional public) like 16:9 so much more than 4:3, is that they have been programmed by public theaters to expect 16:9 as being of the highest quality, as if 4:3 television programs are of a lower quality. While professionals realize this is untrue, we must try to appeal to the largest audience to be as fiscally successful as possible. This is similar to the way everybody goes nuts for 24P, when in fact 30P is probably a better format/frame rate. However, one actual advantage 16:9 has over 4:3, is that it more realistically recreates the aspect ratio of human vision. The funny thing about that is when people discuss the "real" look of 60i, vs. the "narrative" or "fantasy" look of 24P. Now we should say that the "real" look would be 60i, 16:9, and the "fantasy" look would be 24P, 4:3!