Topic Closed

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Upload your random pictures (Page 84)

This topic comprises 101 pages: 1  2  3  ...  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  ...  99  100  101

Author Topic: Upload your random pictures Jon Miller Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 973 From: San Diego, CA, USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 12-01-2004 08:07 PM                     Sorry for the late reply but that is indeed an interesting set, Mark, Tesla coil and all. I was going to ask if it buzzed like a faulty neon sign, but it "sounds" as if the Tesla-coil concept was implemented quite well. Very good picture, too!  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-01-2004 08:16 PM                    Seems only a short time ago that the Governator was an actor, sound was analog-only, and you could ignore bi-lateral symmetry and have three boobs. (Sorry boys, none is real. Do I really have to tell you that?) 1.85 is kind of an odd choice for a big budget SF film like this.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-01-2004 08:34 PM                     Y'Know, the first thing I noticed was those two green lines down the right hand side of the film. Then I read the text of your post and figured out there is a partially naked woman in the picture!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-01-2004 09:55 PM                        Mono kicks ass. It figures someone like Steve Kraus would have a MONO copy of Total Recall. And that ain't 1.85, either!  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-01-2004 10:07 PM                  quote: Randy Stankey ...the first thing I noticed was those two green lines down the right hand side of the film. Hahahahaha That's too funny, Randy! The 1st thing I noticed was what appeared to be a breast-enhancement operation gone VERY wrong! Hahahahha  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Fuentes Mmmm, Dr. Pepper! Posts: 1168 From: Corpus Christi, TX United States Registered: Jan 2004 posted 12-01-2004 10:54 PM                     I saw that one in 3D!!  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-02-2004 12:15 AM                    It seems very unlikely there would be mono tracked prints of Total Recall. Dual inventory SR vs. A-type probably. And of course 70mm magnetic prints. Just because Lt and Rt match in those few frames doesn't make it mono. As for it not being a 1.85 show I can't help you because it was.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-02-2004 01:36 AM                        I'm sure they struck a mono print just for you. Also the movie was SHOWN in 1.85, that doesn't mean that it IS 1.85. The picture on the film is approximately 4:3. I think you mean to say "Flat" which is a much more encompassing term. 1.85 denotes an exact aspect ratio which the film is obviously not.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 12-02-2004 01:56 AM                        You are right of course. It should be obvious that the only correct aspect ratio to show this movie is BTW the L channel appears to be a little lower towards the bottom, so this is not a mono moment.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-02-2004 02:18 AM                         |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-02-2004 03:51 AM                        joe just likes to hear himself quibble, even if it makes no sense. steve merely said 1.85 was the choice for the film. i.e. the choice of ratio for showing it. my quibble: bilateral symmetry is indeed preserved, assuming the middle tit itself has bilateral symmetry. carl  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-02-2004 07:23 AM                    Was SHOWN in vs. IS: When I hear you say a Scope picture is 1.195 or a 70mm film is (about) 2:1 then your point would have some validity. I agree that FLAT is a more encompassing term. Too encompassing to anyone who knows that life extends beyond 1.85 & Scope. That's why I tend not to use it.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 12-02-2004 12:08 PM                        Carl, if my "quibble" makes no sense to you, then you obviously do not belong in the industry. Steve, your "1.195" point on scope films is irrelevant since the image is actually anamorphic. I have Total Recall on videotape from years and years ago, and it is presented in that exact format shown in your film frame, no cropping for 1.85. Now you'll probably start talking about Super35 movies being shown in scope. But again, on film, those are anamorphic. So the film is 2.39:1. I have seen quite a few films (like Aladdin, Nightmare Before Christmas) come out that were 1.66 or something retarded like that. Just because you showed them in 1.85 since you didn't have a 1.66 aperture and lens doesn't make the movie a 1.85 movie. Kna mean?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-02-2004 02:35 PM                     I saw "Total Recall" in 70mm. But I don't remember the triple titties filling the frame. Oh, and the 70mm version was not 2:1 or 2.39:1. Just a "flat" show (seemed like 1.85:1 to me), although the three titty lady wasn't flat chested. Kinda disappointing those are the only breasts you see in that movie. I figured Sharon Stone would be showing off some skin. Well, she did pose for a Playboy pictorial in 1990 about the time of that film's release.  |  IP: Logged Dean Kollet Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 591 From: Florida State University Registered: Jul 2003 posted 12-02-2004 02:56 PM                     "...baby, you make me wish I had three hands"  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 101 pages: 1  2  3  ...  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  ...  99  100  101

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.