Steven C. Boone

Anamorphic would have helped, even in digital. Or notching up the contrast and converting to b&w.

Oh believe me, I'm with you. I just wanted to know how much actual resolution I'd be getting at each squeeze factor, as it's something to consider in planning shots. But not even the aspect ratio is as important an anamorphic characteristic to me as the visual texture. Thanks again.

Yes I'm aware. I happen to be working with an unusual lens, a DO Industries "Close Up" anamorphic that focuses within 2 feet. It's my cheap alternative to getting anamorphic close-ups without diopters. For whatever reason it squeezes 1.75X. I most prefer 2X lenses over 1.3X because there seems to be more anamorphic "character" the higher the squeeze factor. The 1.33X lenses I've seen tested all seem rather lackluster in texture. And a lot more expensive than a well-kept vintage projection lens.

Thanks so much, Stuart. I can live with those numbers. Another question for this math dropout: What resolution figure might I arrive at with a 1.75X squeeze on the same crop sensor?

Thanks to both of you for the very helpful answers. It sounds like I'd end up with an image that would still hold up on large displays and moderately sized cinema screens. As enthusiastic as I am about using modest equipment to deliver a cinematic look, I still want to leave my director with as many options as possible in the finish.

Hello, I'm shooting a microbudget short with a couple of old 2X anamorphic lenses. I would prefer to use the crop sensor (APS-C) Nikons and Sonys at my disposal but recognize that the 2X squeeze would un-squeeze at a much wider than standard 2.35:1 ratio. What I'd like to know: Cropping the sides to 2.35:1 in post from the un-squeezed footage, exactly how much resolution would I lose? And is there a resolution figure (i.e. 1080p, 720p) one could draw from the resulting crop?

I have a Yaschica Sound 20XL Super 8mm camera in perfect condition in original box with manual, mic w/stand and fresh batteries. A solidly built camera with real weight to it. But it is an automatic that shoots only at 18fps. I need a silent camera with manual aperture/focus/zoom controls, along with variable frame rate up to at least 24fps. Looking for a Canon XLS, Beaulieu, Nikon R10 or any silent Super 8 camera in good functioning condition with manual controls. This might sound like an uneven swap, but I understand that there are a lot of Super 8 enthusiasts out there who might have an excess of silent cameras, no sound model. The Yaschica is also available for sale at $100 cash.

um, never mind. I got the specs. Just as I thought, this is as low grade as it gets, despite the sturdy body. Fixed focus, 18fps, auto exposure. Maybe I'll get $10 for it....

I have just been given a 25 year old Yashica Sound 20XL Super 8 in pristine condition in the box, never used. It seems to run as well as the day it was manufactured, but I have no idea if it has any practical use. Any specs on this camera? Even the instruction manual seems kind of vague, but I assume it runs only 18fps. I'm not sure if it can do single-frame, but I doubt it. The camera seems very rugged and hefty, unlike any other consumer Super 8 camera I've come across-- more like a Bolex, in fact. What should I do with this camera (besides ebay)? Good enough for a music video?

And in conglomerate-driven Ho'wood since the 1970's, unfinished business, subtext and ambiguity have been siphoned out of even their most "serious" prestige pictures. You get everything the movie's about in the first five minutes, mostly in voiceover or exposition spoken by characters. Folks aren't looking back to the 70s and the late silent era out of mere nostalgia. Those were times when the art form reached a peak of sophistication only to devolve rapidly with the introduction of new technologies and shifting business priorities.

On top of everything, overbearing sound design/mixing/scoring destroys even movies that have been thoughtfully composed, lit, art directed. For over a decade now NLE's in the hands of folks with no sense of what good coverage or classical editing techniques can do... have been destroying mainstream audiences' palates. But the way each gesture or transition is met with with some kind of thunderous underscoring nowadays compounds the crime. Lumet's Find Me Guilty was a shocking, refreshing anachronism this year. Fluidly choregraphed master shots and cuts that resounded rather than jerked you from one universe to another. Even Spielberg and Scorsese have forgotten how to be this nimble and economical. It's a bad year when an Almodovar melodrama is about the subtlest piece of work in consideration for major awards. Random gripes.

A good, consice article on his process: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_oneman_pipeline/ Maybe the warmth comes from post, but he also had a skylight filter on the lens at all times. No 35mm lens adapter, but his close framing when wide and controlled, fluid movements when long were as cinematic as any ol DOF tricks. You hardly miss it.

This movie is more of a historical landmark to me than so many of the other so-called digital landmarks. I saw this last night at the Film Forum in New York, sparkling 35mm print. This was pure cinema. It completely explodes the myth that you need to originate on HD to get a convincing transfer to 35. 24 frame progressive scan trumps high resolution. In hard midday sunlight, magic hour and everything in between, this film is as gorgeous as Days of Heaven. With complex sound design to match. Everybody on this board should see it ASAP.

I guess you're missing my basic point, which is that it would be nice to see 24P trickle further down the resolution chain. I know some artists of lesser means who could do something amazing with such a camera. Your Hi8/Digibeta comparison, which I assume is meant to ridicule my suggestion, is off the mark. If you had said maybe a Digital 8 that shoots at 24P--never mind the format's paltry pixel count--you'd still have your joke but you'd be much closer to what I'm talking about.

Look, all I want is a cheap Super 8-styled 24P camera... that shoots digital video. Whether it records to the fading mini-dv format or to a small on-board hard drive, don't care. I just want to run around like Guy Maddin with a little pistol-grip camera-- without the processing/telecine headaches of Super 8 film. Something like the dvx-100a or b, but in a body like this: I'm not an engineer or optics genius-- just tell me who to write to to get this camera made. Am I the only one seeing this?

I've brought up something similar before, but how about a mini-dv camcorder under $1000 that sports an ordinary single CCD and a body design styled after a good Super-8 film camera--complete with pistol grip? And manual focus/exposure/shutter. It would be a beautiful hybrid ancestor of pixelvision and Super-8 for those of us who dig low-res, no-budget beauty. What are the practical/commercial obstacles to making a camera like this? Where do I send letters begging for this camera to be made? Does this make any sense?

Just watched the Criterion disc after seeing it at NY's Film Forum along with Sansho the Baliff, Life of Oharu, Story of the Last Chrysanthemums and Street of Shame. All five have changed my life, altered my perception, etc. but the Ugetsu disc is an education. Never payed any attention to Kazuo Miyagawa before. The man shot Mizoguchi's greatest films, along with Kurosawa's Rashomon and Yojimbo and one of my favorite widescreen color films ever, Kon Ichikawa's crazy Kagi (Odd Obsession). Who knew? Anyway, it's hard to find stills that capture the beauty of Ugetsu, since a lot of it has to do with movement and sound. But Miyagawa's use of shadows and highlights--goddamn:

yep, absolutely. I see nothing wrong with the tweaks and adjustments necessary for home video release--a whole 'nother medium. That's inevitable and mostly desirable. Lucas's crimes are in the '97 theatrical re-releases and the prequels, where it wasn't a matter of clean-up but of defacing his own work. Subjective notions, yeah, but from where I sit the pimped-out editions are gaudy trash, big screen or small.

Well, I appreciate that they fixed the blotchy garbage mattes, so long as the original elements are there. What hurts with Lucas is all the OTHER stuff, the doodling over his originals with digital characters and virtual camera moves. Couldn't even leave THX-1138 alone--and that's a film I would show to any would-be low-budget genre auteur to illustrate how to build a world with the simplest of design elements, shrewd use of depth of field, focal lengths, exposure, etc. Even that film, he had to go back in and scribble on it. The man is insane.

Hyams movies are typically pretty dumb, talky and shallow, but I haven't seen one film of his that wasn't visually striking. Outland and Running Scared are entertaining mainly for the way the actors move through all the smoke and backlight. Simple pleasures. Anyway, he'll be up for a critical reconsideration in a few years. Remember who told you.

any articles on the cinematography? amazing stuff.

Roughly the first act of Wong Kar-Wai's "Days of Being Wild" has no score--one of the most efficient, elegant examples of exposition I have seen. Also, "A Woman Under the Influence"-- if I remember correctly.

Your friend should get rid of this anomalous 100a, then, since it has no 24p. I'll give you an address where he can send it (my house).

Ditto. Never came across another soul who had the same silly dream. I watched those films obsessively as a kid. The classic ones are as poetic and thrilling as any cinema out there, especially with the Facenda narration.

Saw it in a gorgeous print at MOMA around 1999(?). Standing room only. Could not believe my eyes. But it is on DVD. http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=IMA005925