Max Jacoby

Some years ago I had a lady from TV licensing on the phone. I explained to her that I was not using my television to watch programs and hence did not want to renew my license. I did have the antenna unplugged already, and she merely suggested that I also remove the frequency memories. Otherwise they were fine with me just using my TV to watch dvds and not paying for a license. It's like I said, they'd like you to believe that if you have a Tv you must have a license, when in fact that is not the case.

You only have to pay for a license if you're using your television to actually WATCH (and record) the programs. If you're merely watching dvds and playing consoles, there is no need for a license, despite what the TV licensing company would like you to think. I actually have a serious aversion to this company. Their own information literature is very ambiguous about when you actually do need a license. They are obviously hoping for people to think that they need to pay for a license even if they're not using their television to watch programs. Their threatening ads in the tube and other places (Pay either £130 now or a £1000 fine later) really show how they look down on anyone who does not have a license as a potential criminal. I always ignore their mail (they have me registered as not needing a license, but after 3 years or so they contact you to check up on you). If someone came around to check, you are under no obligation to let them in, they have absolutely no legal power, despite acting like they do.

I think it's around £150 a year. Not that I'm paying for one myself, I think that's way overpriced for a mere 5 channels and I don't watch television anyway.

JDC had Xtal Express Anamorphics, which are adapted Cooke S2/3s. Not sure if that's the ones you mean, but you can get them through Panavision.

What's your source on that if I may ask?

You should try Ulrich Seidl, he makes very good films, especially his latest one Import/Export.

Yep, you can tell from the way the highlights clip that it was shot on a digital camera.

Thanks for the extensive info Jason! Like the look of the 2nd and 3rd still. Definitely some of the best Red footage I've seen so far, goes to show that the talent behind the camera is more important than the format a film is shot.

The film was shot anamorphic, on older lenses, C and E series, so the flares come with the territory. But you can tell that they were looking to get flares, or at least not trying to avoid them.

The Samuelson quote makes specific reference to Primes with a back adaptor, but I have never seen those lenses anywhere.

Christian That's some very interesting info! I saw La Dolce Vita some years ago in an old print and it didn't look good at all. I was under the impression that a lot of it was shot on a zoom lens, which would have explained the low con, soft look. There is a very interesting article on the restoration of Lola Montez on the website of the AFC In that article by Samuelson on anamorphic, he mentions some rear-anamorphot prime lenses that the Japanese designed. Have you ever heard of those? Apparently a lot of the Hong Kong films were shot on them. I have seen some of these films and even on dvd some shot stick out as incredibly soft.

John As far as I'm aware shooting 2K means you only use the centre of the sensor, not the whole 4K area. So cropping it even more might not leave you with a whole lot of resolution anymore.

None. Even as an 18 year old location PA I got something. It wasn't very much though, but at least it was something.

So you're still buying HD-Dvds? ;)

I think you're describing what I consider a b&w image with good contrast. The nice thing about whites in b&w is that they are slightly grainy (unlike color neg), especially if they bloom at the same time. I think achieving this is mostly a matter of exposure and use of the zone system, always making sure that you have at least one overexposed white reference in the shot.

Cate Blanchet has amazing skin, and she has one of those faces that you can film from any angle, she always looks good.

I'm just thinking that efx shots are usually shot on wider lenses, so that you can actually composite something into it. Obviously one can do them on the 180mm as well. I'm just in general a bit vary of the information dispensed in AC and ICG.

I hate that triangular bokeh also. Only place it ever looked good was in that Depeche Mode video. But keep in mind that on wide shots it won't be visible.

On a 180mm then.

Just read the article in the AC on the Genesis film in Dante Spinotti lit. He also seems to be fine with shooting with a 360 degree shutter. I seriously wonder how everyone thinks they can get away with that, even 270 gives noticeable smear.

There is a shot article in this month's ICG magazine that does not go into much detail at all. They quote Kaminski as using 5274, but then there is a picture with a camera that is labeled as being loaded with 5217.

Kubrick died during the post-production of Eyes Wide Shut. AI was going to be his next film, in fact he initially wanted to make it before EWS, but then decided that he had to wait a bit, to let the CGI catch up with what he had in mind. Spielberg stepped in after his death, not sure who asked him, probably Kubrick's family, but the reason is that previously already Kubrick had suggested that he produce the film and Spielberg direct it. Nothing came of that, Spielberg only accepted to do the film after Kubrick's death. I wish he had kept his hands off it though.

It would have been very hard for them to 'clash' since Kubrick died before the film was made.

Yep that article seems to be a bit misleading, when I first read it, I also understood it like ELCAN did all the work. Like I said (and not to be petty!), the Academy Award that people from Panavision got, specifically gives them credit for the optical and mechanical design.

They got some really fake looking CG backgrounds there in the beginning. The lighting on Nicole Kidman is so obviously mismatched, I wonder if that is done on purpose.