Boone Hudgins

The extended version was way better. Actually, it's excellent. It's the biggest turnaround I've ever had with a movie, I think.

Occasionally people initial their first name when they usually go by their middle name. Literally nobody calls me by my first name, but I starting signing M. Boone Hudgins when I started getting asked if I was using a family member's credit card, etc. I figure it's the name I'd use professionally because it takes from the "nicknamey" quality of the name Boone. It was seven demons. And you're confusing the story of the woman that washed Jesus' feet with her hair and tears, and Mary the sister of Lazarus who anointed Jesus' feet with oils before his death. Bible stories get mixed together all the time, however.

I don't think it's disdain, I just think he likes the idea of doing everything he can himself. Even if he's not doing all the operating, there's probably still some pride involved in doing it. Whether or not that pride involves giving himself a credit for it, that's his business. Especially if he also credits his other operators. It seems like he's interested in a rough look that comes from one guy doing everything, and that's what he's getting. Personally, I thought he was a better director and editor when he was trying to do less, but that's my problem. And, didn't Stanley Kubrick try to take Dalton Trumbo's writing credit for Spartacus?

Brazil, Time Bandits, and Raging Bull are good examples. I like the three blade aperture look.

I saw what appeared to be a large grid over some shots that were shot on the Genesis. Some shots had that digital shutter smear, too. But I forgot about it after a while.

Apple has the trailer up. It looks really good. Didn't particularly notice it was video until the second time around. http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/thequiet/hd/

That's interesting (and good) to hear. I thought a couple of times during the movie that I'd be more excited about seeing something shot with the D-20 on the big screen...maybe with anamorphic lenses. I'm hoping somebody's going to be working on that here soon...

The film print I saw was not that great, but that aside it looked fairly good, I thought. I noticed the noise in some of the shadows, but it wasn't really that bothersome. Only a few things made it look noticably like video, like one shot had some digital-looking posterized clouds, and there were quite a few strange-looking vertical flares. I thought only lower-end video cameras had that vertical flare, but it seems to be a common mark of video chips.

Do the T2.1s have the same sharpness dropoff as the T1.3s wide open?

In the January '04 issue of American Cinematographer, Lance Acord says he usually rated the 5263 at 1,200 ISO, but that he was able to underexpose the midtones two stops for night scenes.

Strangely enough WXGA monitors, 1280x768, are 16x10, or 1.66:1. I don't get that.

Well, it's the fact that it's a grid of circles reflected in the eye that looks odd to me. Maybe when you're caught up in the action and not paying attention, you could mistake it for bright cloud cover reflected in the eye or something. Or just not care at all.

As far as Jack Black goes, he has played serious roles before. Not that big of deal. The full trailer is out in HD at Apple, and it looks a lot better than the teaser. Although it was odd to look into people's eyes and see space lights reflected when they're supposed to be outside. Does this happen a lot and I just never noticed?

Even with a lot of diffusion, and apparently S4s, the trailer still looks pretty sharp. In HD anyway. I like the look though. It seems very true to the period, though I can't quite explain why.

Michael Chapman played a doorman in House of D. He was in two scenes, I believe, and had quite a few lines.