George Ebersole

It's a mobile cloud app. Thanks, but never mind.

Last I heard Adobe stuff ran into the $1300 range. I'm seeing a bare bones edition for $89, and a midway version for $500 or $600. Where can I get the $20/month version, and is it legal?

I want to say "Excalibur" that would be the closing shot ... either "The Vikings" or "13th Warrior".

Cannery Row

Right now just personal junk I want to post on YouTube or Vimeo.

Has anyone ever used any of Cyberlink's editing or other production software? Is the money I save by buying their license as opposed to Final Cut pro worth it?

I'll have to play it back again. I think I may have been to focused on the edges of the screen and not really looking at the "meat" of the image.

What's interesting is that after I eyeballed the aspect ratio with the software to correct the image in playback, some of the exteriors looked squeezed. Which, to me at least, says that they were possibly using more than one type of lens.. So yeah, in retrospect the differences are certainly magnified.

Wait a minute, Rebecca's a B&W pic. Or am I missing something?

Late 1960s or early 1970s, but I can't think of the film.

When you mentioned shutter angle I thought you were shooting film. There's an old trick that sometimes could clear up flicker by taking advantage of the cycle rate on power feed you were using. It probably won't work with digital.

What kind of camera were you using?

Ultimately what you want is the image you want to present to the audience, and the more information you can capture, then the more information you can work with, no matter if it's photo-chemical or electronic. So yeah, I'm also curious why there's still any argument over it. Pre-90s a lot of DPs I knew didn't like the final product because you lost a couple of generations worth of information through editing and duplication. Take that for what it's worth.

Yeah, I guess I can see that. Heh, it's like Jason Robards saying "The stivil population" in "Tora Tora Tora" instead of "civil population". You wonder if they can go back and loop it with the correct word. Sure, they could fake his voice, but ... well, it's like a flaw that people know is there. Whatever. It's not my movie. *EDIT* p.s. I tweaked the aspect ratio on the playback software, and it looks better to me. Just an FYI.

Good point. The more I think about the more this is how I remember seeing it on TV during the 70s and 80s; the credits are shown letterboxed as per the DVD and bluray, but then the image is corrected (squeezed) after the opening plane crash sequence. As to why? Well, ... I get the sense that the producers and crew overlooked it because perhaps they felt the director wanted this as some kind of artistic flare for the film, when I think in reality it was just a simple error during production. So ... for dudes like me it's one of those "hey look, that's a mistake" kind of thing. I mean, it's not that big a deal, but one wonders if perhaps the production team (surviving members at least) wouldn't want it corrected. just me. I guess maybe it's a non-issue for most people.

But doesn't that assume that the distorting the image was intentional? I can't see why they'd want to do that. My sense is that it was simply overlooked. And I seem to recall that broadcast prints had corrected images. Maybe I'm not remembering that correctly.

"Sophies Choice" ?

Thank goodness, it's not my imagination. IMDB, under the technical specs, says that the Japanese aspect ration was 2.21 to 1 verse the standard 2.35, and I thought maybe someone swapped out the wrong lens during the scan. Anyway, it's actually annoying the more I view it. I'm tempted to send an old fashioned letter to Universal, but it's not like they'd listen to me, and even if they did I doubt they'd correct the problem. Oh well.

Both my DVD and Bluray copes of "The Guns of Navarrone", to me, don't look right. The actors and overall image look somewhat round or squashed. Notably David Niven, who has a very thin face, has a more full face here. The same with all the other onscreen talent. Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I just imagining it?

#2 looks like "The Time Machine" by George Pal.

I thought maybe you posted a VHS scan. Final answer; "Throne of Blood", otherwise I'm stumped.

"Sword of Doom"? It looks Japanese to me.

"Hidden Fortress" ?

I did. I'm not sure what you're getting at. *EDIT* I re-read the thread, and I still don't see a problem here.

I've read a few bad screenplays at Zoetrope.com, but most of the stuff there is (or was) posted by seasoned professionals. As for formulaic ... well, define formulaic. Most films are about the guy getting the girl and/or beating the bad guy. Ever since Amazon studios opened its doors for business activity on Zoetrope has dropped off a lot, but I think traffic has picked up some.