|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: cinamascope advance notice???
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-02-2014 05:56 PM
Can you cite me any examples of widescreen feature films having been broadcast or published on VHS in letterboxed versions (i.e. not panned and scanned) on any significant scale before the late '80s / early '90s?
Sure, you will find people who made films from the '60s to the '90s lining up to endorse "directors' cuts" on 16:9 consumer digital media now, and more often than not claiming to have been bitterly opposed to panned and scanned broadcast/VHS when their work was originally released. But even megastars like Spielberg clearly didn't feel strongly enough about it at the time to veto the practice, or even voice prominent opposition. About the only one I know of who did was Sydney Pollack, who fought a Danish TV station through the courts to stop them from broadcasting a panned-and-scanned version of Three Days of the Condor.
From the mid-60s onwards most major Hollywood features had at least some TV money involved in their financing, and everyone involved in making them knew that broadcasts (and later rental VHS) in 4:3 would form a major part of the revenue they earned. Production of the 4:3 version was an integral part of the production process. At the very least, the "shoot and protect" method was used on set (this is covered at length in virtually every cinematography manual published from the '70s to the '90s: there is also a comprehensive article by Walter Lassally about it in Image Technology in the mid-90s), and in the case of some more complex shots, separate shots for the 4:3 version were taken.
The practice of condemning panned and scanned versions as going against the filmmaker's personal vision, inauthentic and otherwise "bad" essentially began as marketing hype by arthouse video publishers selling letterboxed VHS and laserdisc editions (Criterion and Artificial Eye being two who were pushing this line hard in the 1990s). I'm not trying to suggest that panning and scanning is ideal or best practice, but I am suggesting that simply buying the advertising hype for letterboxed videos uncritically is not something that serious historians should be doing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-02-2014 09:26 PM
No; I'm suggesting that artistic intent is not always the sole determinant of originality. To revisit my original quote from your article:
quote: Michael Coate
Coate: Should ’Scope films continue to be letterboxed for their ancillary-market releases? Is a 16:9 pan-and-scan acceptable?
Belton: Letterboxing of 'Scope films for display in non-theatrical venues is necessary to preserve the aesthetic intent of the original.
Hall: Yes, to the first question; no, to the second question.
I've got no problem with someone expressing the view, as a private individual, that they prefer to see a movie that was created and initially distributed in any given aspect ratio in that aspect ratio, without reformatting to fit another exhibition medium (not least because it's one I hold myself). I do have a problem with a professional academic claiming that unless this is done, the movie lacks originality - at least, without defining what they mean by original.
Widescreen was at least in part a product differentiation response to TV. This is ironic, because at the time the technology went mainstream, Hollywood was in decline and its production arm needed major investment from the TV industry. The reformatting (panning and scanning) of major Hollywood movies for broadcasting from the 1960s onwards wasn't, in most cases, an afterthought, done without the knowledge of the people who made the film and by people unconnected with the original production. It was a planned part of the movie's distribution and release cycle. One obvious early example is the Laurence Olivier VistaVision Richard III - the money to make it was largely raised by an advance sale for broadcast to NBC. 30-40 million people saw that broadcast: many times more than ever saw it projected in a theatre. I am not aware of Olivier, Korda, Otto Heller or anyone connected with that film voicing any significant opposition or regret at it having reached such a big audience on TV.
If I were to see a panned and scanned, 4:3 version of that movie, and in b/w, by what criterion am I seeing something unoriginal? I am not seeing what the theatrical audience saw, but I'm seeing a closer approximation of how another audience - and a much larger one than saw it theatrically - will have experienced it. One is not "better" than the other - they are both evidence of how different audiences have experienced the movie in different ways during its history.
The privileging of artistic intent goes back to the French critics of the '40s and '50s, who slapped the label "auteur" on the work of certain directors they liked, and claimed that the work of a director with what they regarded as a strong personal vision is more culturally valuable than other kinds of filmmaking. Half a century later, that label has been appropriated by studios, video labels and arthouse distributors who are looking for ways to make new money out of old movies. Aspect ratio fetishism is simply one way in which they're trying to do this. Professional film historians, however, should be able to see through this and analyse the phenomenon objectively, whereas in the case of your interviewees, they appear to be parroting the fanboy rhetoric without any pause for objective critical thought.
One final thought: I find it interesting that no-one that I am aware of has gone into print criticising the growing practice of panning and scanning Academy ratio material vertically to fit widescreen TVs. A couple of years ago there was a BD rerelease of The World at War, a pioneering historical documentary series from the '70s, and the first to integrate archive footage with commentary and interview on such a large scale. It had all been panned and scanned into 16:9, complete with claims on the box and in advertising that this was in some way enhancing it. To me it was unwatchable - heads cut off at the nose, you name it. I couldn't find any reviews criticising it for this. However, I suspect strongly that if this had been an early Hitchcock film, or a Fritz Lang silent epic, or even a famous early TV drama by someone who became a big name director later, that the critics would have been screaming blue murder. But it was "just" newsreel, military and amateur footage mainly, and so no-one cared.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 01-03-2014 04:56 PM
quote: Leo Enticknap
Can you cite me any examples of widescreen feature films having been broadcast or published on VHS in letterboxed versions (i.e. not panned and scanned) on any significant scale before the late '80s / early '90s?
In the early 1980s, 20th Century Fox released home video versions of many classic films under the label of "Magnetic Video" which became Fox Home Video later IIRC.
Every single Scope film was cropped or pan-scanned.
Some titles (from memory, as I have no machine to run the old Betamax* tapes even if I dug them out):
Planet of the Apes (1968)
The Omen (1976)
The Sand Pebbles (1965)
Our Man Flint (1966)
The Boston Strangler (1968)
M*A*S*H (1970)
I recall a shot from The Omen with Gregory Peck sitting on a park bench, waiting for somebody. He is on the right of the scope frame, on the left there is just out of focus blur with a person approaching until he finally comes into focus.
In the Magnetic Video version, it's all cropped to 4:3 and the original shot is cut up into two separate shots showing one large head (Peck) and a completely blurred formerly left half of the scope image.
The pan-scanning looks very similiar to those 18-minute Super 8 "digest" prints of the Fox titles, so I suppose they may have come from the same 16mm P-S preprint.
Until the mid-1990s, many pan-scanned masters were delivered to European TV stations all the time, I recall musicals like The Unsinkable Molly Brown or Funny Girl cropped and scanned with very mechanical, unnatural looking pan movement.
* BTW, the Magnetic Video tapes were also available in VHS, but they first appeared on Betamax.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-04-2014 12:15 PM
Interesting. So the bottom line is that there was a period of around four decades during which 4:3 was the industry standard for TV and 1:1.66 or wider was for the theatre. For three of those four decades, panning and scanning (or in some cases even cruder - just static cropping) was a routine and totally uncontroversial practice. It wasn't like, say, colourisation, opposition to which on artistic grounds started to be expressed the moment it started to be done. It wasn't until 1985 that anyone was really interested in recreating theatrical aspect ratios for non-theatrical screenings.
I'd guess that a number of factors then came together: the launch of a spate of video labels specialising in arthouse and archive titles in the late '80s and early '90s, the continuing growth of film studies at university (creating an educated audience who would want to buy these things), the attempted relaunch of the laserdisc as a premium quality alternative to VHS around 1990 (plus the music industry trying to muscle in on the initiative by rebranding it "CD Video"), the emergence of big screen, CRT back projection TVs in the early '90s, hifi stereo on VHS becoming a more standard feature as the decade wore on, and finally the DVD's launch in 1997 and the gradual change to widescreen broadcast TV.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-08-2014 01:51 PM
Thanks. Results of some brief Googling:
Several sources claim that Amarcord, in January 1984, was the first consumer video publication of any description to have been letterboxed, with Manhattan and The Color Purple following closely afterwards. There are also various accounts online to the effect that Woody Allen insisted successfully on a "no panning and scanning" clause in his contract with the production company for Manhattan (e.g. here, post #9). As a result of this, broadcasters refused to show the film for many years, and its initial letterboxed video publication was on a niche, high quality and expensive format (CED).
The reason I singled Spielberg out in my earlier post was reading an account (in this book) of the release and promotion of Jaws, which states that a major TV ad campaign was created, under Spielberg's supervision, both for the theatrical release and the first TV broadcasts of the movie; and that this set a precedent for studios taking an integrated approach to the theatrical > home video > broadcast release cycle. Nowhere is any opposition to panning and scanning mentioned, and the technical literature describing post-production during that period also suggests that panning and scanning was routine, uncontroversial and an integral part of the post-production process.
It was not like colorization, which provoked a storm of protest the moment Ted Turner started to do it, and was ultimately rejected by audiences. Quite the opposite in this case: it was letterboxing that audiences initially resisted (I seem to remember reading somewhere that early broadcasts and VHS releases of letterboxed movies caused people to call up TV repair men suspecting that their sets were faulty - can't remember where, though), hence Manhattan not making any TV sales because of Allen's insistence on preserving the 'scope ratio.
What seems to be emerging from this thread is that things started to change around the mid-80s (and interestingly, the first letterboxed titles were all arthouse ones, including Spielberg's first movie as director to which that label could be applied), but it wasn't until the early '90s that letterboxing became firmly linked to the ideas of authenticity and authorial/artistic intent, largely thanks to the start-up of several arthouse video labels that pushed the idea proactively. In Britain at least, it wasn't until the DVD came along that you were more likely to see a widescreen movie in a non-theatrical setting letterboxed than panned-and-scanned. Even the 16mm prints distributed to film societies, universities etc. were frequently panned and scanned (though for many titles, anamorphic prints were available as well).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sheldon Hall
Film Handler
Posts: 3
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 01-16-2014 02:22 PM
The fanboy parrot speaks!
I’d like to address the points made by Leo Enticknap regarding answers given by John Belton and myself to interview questions posed by Michael Coate, reproduced above. Please accept my apologies in advance for the length of this response, but Leo raises a number of issues that need to be addressed individually. I’m speaking here on my own behalf but I think I can defend John’s position too, especially as he was the particular target for criticism. It seems to have been assumed that we spoke in unison with our answers, but as Mike’s introduction to the discussion makes clear, the ‘roundtable’ was a virtual one: we answered questions separately via email and only when I saw the published version did it become clear that there was a remarkable degree of concurrence. For the record, I broadly endorse John’s view that letterboxed versions of films on home video and TV are ‘necessary to preserve the aesthetic intent of the original’, though I now regret having not elaborated on my own reasons for answering as I did; I had assumed that they were obvious, which was clearly not the case!
Leo makes an interesting but contradictory argument. First, he states that prepared-for-TV versions of theatrical films (at least those made since the mid-1960s) do in fact represent the director’s ‘original artistic intent’ and so should not be a cause for concern. But later he goes on to state that the very idea of artistic intent is dubious anyway, its influence being all the fault of the French and accepted with equal alacrity by gullible academics and by Hollywood and elite video distributors, which saw a way to make a buck out of it. This implies that the real source of ‘originality’ is not the filmmaker but the industry, which demands certain kinds of product to satisfy a given market. Historians, Leo implies, should be wise to this and should not offer a naively auteurist (or merely fannish) preference for one kind of product over another, but should instead recognise the legitimacy of these other products as historical artefacts which carry the imprimatur, at least in some cases, of filmmakers themselves as well as having been seen by past audiences. (I trust I am not misrepresenting his case.)
Neither John nor I are ignorant of the participation of filmmakers in the preparation of alternative versions of films for non-theatrical markets. Indeed, we have both written about it. I contributed a chapter entitled ‘Alternative Versions in the Early Years of CinemaScope’ to the book John and I co-edited with Steve Neale, Widescreen Worldwide (2010). John wrote about the history of both panning-and-scanning and letterboxing in his monograph Widescreen Cinema (1992) and also in an article for Sight and Sound (Winter 1987-88) entitled ‘The Shape of Money’.
The book that Leo so helpfully cites (Film into Video, 2nd edition, 2000) is not, as he implies, a ‘comprehensive’ account of the way in which filmmakers prepare TV versions of theatrical films during production, but is instead a how-to manual for telecine operators. Its historical content is negligible, the production process is omitted almost entirely, and no actual films are listed in the index let alone analysed, but it does contain the following observation: ‘Although the pan and scan process is subjective and alters the director’s original picture composition, it does deliver the full-screen image desired by television networks and [video] rental distribution organizations.’ (p. 45)
For anyone seeking both historical context and practical analysis, I can however recommend Steve Neale’s chapter ‘Widescreen Composition in the Age of Television’ in his collection Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (co-edited with Murray Smith, 1998). Steve examines in detail scenes from several post-1970 films staged and composed with TV at least partly in mind. I am currently writing a book – apologies again for the plug! – entitled Armchair Cinema: Feature Films on British Television, which will discuss, among other topics, the presentation of films on TV in the UK, which often differed from that in the US and elsewhere (letterboxing, incidentally, was commonplace in European broadcasting long before it caught on in Anglophone countries).
Both Steve and John make a number of the points that Leo makes about economic forces shaping technology and aesthetics and about the involvement of filmmakers in creating versions of films acceptable for TV broadcast and, later, home video distribution. However, in his Sight and Sound article (admittedly written after the fashion for letterboxed videos was underway – a fashion in no way discredited by the fact that it was a form of high-end product differentiation) John also quotes or cites a number of filmmakers objecting to panning-and-scanning for aesthetic reasons; they include Elliott Silverstein (representing the DGA Creative Rights Committee), Milos Forman, Martin Scorsese and cinematographers Nestor Almendros and Joseph Biroc. All of these were concerned about the artistic compromises entailed in converting or composing theatrical films for subsequent TV viewing. Indeed, Scorsese gave this as the reason why he had made no anamorphic ’scope films to that point. John also quotes former editor Ralph Martin, employed by Warner Bros. to supervise panning-and-scanning, as saying that the process was often done quickly, in virtually real-time conditions, by a camera operator rather than by a film’s director or DP.
Mike Coate asked Leo to provide concrete examples of cinema films composed with television broadcast in mind, and the only one he offered was Laurence Olivier’s Richard III. I am surprised by the claim that it was partly financed by an advance sale to NBC; contemporary reports in Variety state that the sale was made after the film was completed. The film was broadcast nationally on the afternoon of the same day that it opened commercially in New York, raising concerns about the effect word of mouth about a technically inferior version would have on the theatrical box office. Variety noted Olivier’s dissatisfaction with the colour hues (it was broadcast in colour for viewers suitably equipped), saying it was ‘not quite [the colour] we had tried to achieve on the screen; naturally, when I made the picture I made it for a very large screen.’ (14 March 1956, p. 18). Later, in a newspaper interview reported by Variety, Olivier is said to have ‘pointed out that the long shots and close shots [were] largely lost on the small video screen’ (21 March 1956, p. 2). He also objected to the film’s frequent interruption for commercials and its being re-edited to remove shots of blood and violence. All of these were part of the film’s ‘original’ exhibition on US television; but is this the version that anyone today would like to see preserved on video? It might be interesting as an exercise, perhaps, albeit mainly to a cultural historian; but as the standard for home presentation?
Of course, Richard III is an unrepresentative case, not only because it is a relatively early example of a major feature film shown on network television, but because (as Leo notes) it was filmed in VistaVision. Despite Olivier’s objections, VistaVision was a much less problematic medium than, say, CinemaScope for conversion to TV standards. With a negative aspect ratio of about 1.5:1, it involved cropping relatively little picture information even if TV transmission was based on a print hard-matted to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, though in fact many prints were open-matte. The difference between TV and theatrical presentation is largely one of scale and resolution rather than of composition.
Anamorphic ’scope presents a different set of problems. If concerted efforts to oppose the panning-and-scanning of anamorphic films had not been made by filmmakers before the mid-1980s, it is most likely because they accepted it as a fait accompli – much as they did, however reluctantly, commercial breaks, the conversion of colour to black and white, and the broadcast of films in 16mm prints when they had been photographed in 35mm (British television companies seem to have been unique in demanding 35mm prints, which often had to be struck especially for them). The pressure to compose within a ‘safe action area’ undoubtedly meant that post-1970 ’scope movies lose less of significance than earlier ones when cropped (Steve Neale’s chapter, cited above, covers this very well), but the loss is not negligible – at least, not in the better films.
Leo says that he knows of only one instance of a director trying to prevent the broadcast of a ’scope film in a cropped version; more to the point, how many examples can he find of directors stating that this was their preferred way of presenting a film, or the version they would rather have available for purchase on video? I know of only one: James Cameron, most of whose films released theatrically in anamorphic prints were photographed in Super 35, which has a negative aspect ratio of 4:3 to facilitate cropping to a range of different sizes and shapes depending on the exhibition window. Thus, flexibility is built in far more than with anamorphic Panavision. I believe the reason behind Cameron’s preference for the 4:3 version on video was the reduction in size and impact of film images when seen on a domestic TV monitor by comparison with a cinema screen. Certainly this, and the low resolution of NTSC in particular, helps to explain why both networks and viewers have traditionally resisted the letterboxing of films on broadcast TV and videotape. But the advent of HD, widescreen and large-screen televisions along with relatively high-res media such as laserdiscs, DVDs and Blu-rays has changed this market preference considerably.
Theoretically, any number of different versions of a film could be released on DVD, any or all of which might have historical veracity as artefacts that have in the past been consumed by different audiences in different markets, and any or all of which might have had the involvement or met the approval of the director. This includes, for example, versions with censorable scenes and dialogue removed or replaced by more acceptable alternatives required by TV networks and airlines. I have personally sat in a dubbing studio to watch the recording of dialogue to replace profanities with inoffensive but nonsensical alternatives designed to match the actors’ onscreen lip movements. This was done during postproduction of the film’s theatrical version, by the original actors and with the director supervising. In one sense, then, it represented ‘original artistic intent’. In another sense it did not, in that it represented a concession that the director was obliged by contract to make in order to satisfy market requirements. It was nevertheless a legitimate alternative version, one that was director-approved, so perhaps this is something we should have on DVD too?
This brings us back to the question that John Belton and I were asked to begin with: “Should ’Scope films continue to be letterboxed for their ancillary-market releases? Is a 16:9 pan-and-scan acceptable?” The question was specifically about the form in which films should be made available today. Even assuming all variant versions were recoverable (most panned-and-scanned 16mm TV reduction prints of widescreen films must surely have been junked by now), would there be any point in providing them other than for the edification of cultural historians and technophiles? The market – to which we must always return – would surely not support it, even if it were desirable. Yet Leo seems happy to endorse the market forces which brought about panned-and-scanned versions for TV, but not those which led to the production of letterboxed versions for (initially) a minority of consumers, who are now most likely in the majority.
So if I were asked – as indeed I was – which should be the preferred version of a film for video release or TV broadcast, my choice (as a critic as well as a historian) would necessarily be what I still regard as ‘the original’ one: the version that was usually seen in theatres before it was shown on television, to which the filmmakers (not just the director) gave priority during production, and which they would have preferred if given the option. In the case of films made in widescreen formats, that means a letterboxed version in the optimum aspect ratio of its original (first) exhibition.
There is however one point on which Leo and I can certainly agree: the abominable conversion of 4:3 television productions to a 16:9 format for video. If film historians have not objected to this practice in print (I have been doing so verbally for more than a decade, even when only extracts from pre-16:9 TV programmes and films, including documentary and newsreel footage, are cropped for use in modern TV shows) it is perhaps because they expect TV historians to take over the voice of protest, having been exhausted by their victory in the campaign against panning-and-scanning.
Finally, for the record, a correction: On the Beach was not an anamorphic production.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-16-2014 04:29 PM
quote: Sheldon Hall
First, he states that prepared-for-TV versions of theatrical films (at least those made since the mid-1960s) do in fact represent the director’s ‘original artistic intent’ and so should not be a cause for concern.
No: I stated that in many cases, directors were involved in the creation of prepared-for-TV versions, and that furthermore the director is only one of many creative forces involved in the production of a film. In many cases, any objective look at a production and distribution history would establish that the director was clearly not the most important or influential creative force. For those two reasons, applying a blanket assumption that the version of a given film that carries the director's seal of approval (which in any case can change over time) can be considered "original" in a way that other versions cannot would not survive objective historial analysis in many (but not all) cases. But thanks to half a century of auteur fetishism, that assumption is frequently and indiscriminately made.
quote: Sheldon Hall
Leo says that he knows of only one instance of a director trying to prevent the broadcast of a ’scope film in a cropped version; more to the point, how many examples can he find of directors stating that this was their preferred way of presenting a film, or the version they would rather have available for purchase on video? I know of only one: James Cameron...
William Friedkin and Sorcerer is another. But once again, that's not the essential point I was trying to make, which is that claiming originality in respect of one version or another of any film (or any other artefact of historical evidence, for that matter) is highly problematic, without developing and applying objective criteria with which to test that claim.
quote: Sheldon Hall
Certainly this [small TV screens], and the low resolution of NTSC in particular, helps to explain why both networks and viewers have traditionally resisted the letterboxing of films on broadcast TV and videotape.
What explains it primarily is the fact that audiences hated it.
quote: Sheldon Hall
The market – to which we must always return – would surely not support it, even if it were desirable. Yet Leo seems happy to endorse the market forces which brought about panned-and-scanned versions for TV, but not those which led to the production of letterboxed versions for (initially) a minority of consumers, who are now most likely in the majority.
I wasn't endorsing or condemning them - just noting that they existed. However, I think it would be stretching things to suggest that your average consumer who settles down to watch Lone Survivor on Netflix prefers to see it in 16:9 because that's the most faithful way of reproducing Peter Berg's artistic genius; and that (s)he feels that way thanks to the campaigning of visionary filmmakers and video publishers during the '80s and '90s. Rather, it's for the same reason you pointed out in relation to letterboxing, but in reverse: almost all consumer display technology is now 16:9, and people don't like to see black bits on their screen. Which brings me to your final point:
quote: Sheldon Hall
There is however one point on which Leo and I can certainly agree: the abominable conversion of 4:3 television productions to a 16:9 format for video. If film historians have not objected to this practice in print (I have been doing so verbally for more than a decade, even when only extracts from pre-16:9 TV programmes and films, including documentary and newsreel footage, are cropped for use in modern TV shows) it is perhaps because they expect TV historians to take over the voice of protest, having been exhausted by their victory in the campaign against panning-and-scanning.
Film historians have not objected to this practice in print for two reasons.
1 - Most of the vertical panning and scanning that has been done has been in documentaries that combine Academy ratio and widescreen footage in the same production (e.g. the latest Laurence Rees pontificating about nasty Nazis on the BBC type thing), and in which the Academy footage is government, newsreel, industrial or amateur footage: in other words, not "artistic" fictional narrative feature films with actors in them which has had the cultural baggage of auteurism, and the commercial exploitation thereof thereafter, attached. Even colourising this sort of stuff is largely uncontroversial. Indeed, The First World War in Colour (which, apart from about 30 seconds of Kinemacolor, was actually The First World War in Adobe After Effects) was actually praised for the quality of the colourisation in all the mainstream press reviews I saw, not one of which questioned the ethics of doing it in the first place. But if you tried to publish a BD of Citizen Kane panned and scanned to 16:9, I guarantee that it would be condemned, at least by the usual suspect highbrow mags (Sight and Sound, etc.).
2 - Most film historians are almost completely ignorant when it comes to technology (yourself, John Belton and Barry Salt being among a small group of very rare exceptions), as evidenced by the stream of BS (by which I mean peppered with major, fundamental factual errors and conclusions deriving therefrom) that has been published by humanities academics over the last decade, an expose of which can be found in the opening chapter of my new book, Film Restoration: The Culture and Science of Audiovisual Heritage. Some of this stuff is almost into Alan Sokal territory, but without the intent to deceive! I have projected 35mm prints of Academy and silent titles in the wrong ratio and at the wrong speed at conferences full of 200-300 film historians (because the venue did not have the lenses, plates, shutters and/or variable speed motors needed to present them properly, and the conference organisers were not willing to pay for them) and not one person complained.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic