A: Your story is rubbish. These films were made by MGM, but have been owned by Warner Bros. since 1986. The current Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has nothing to do with these films. They are so heavily invested in film preservation and derive enough income from home video that they would never dump...
I couldn't care less about the goofy "Flash Gordon," but if they ever get round to restoring the less fanciful "Buck Rogers" for Blu-ray, I'll be first in line to buy it.
Why no Sony Blu-ray of "Sahara" with Humphrey Bogart? It's Bogart, for cryin' out loud and, as far as I know, was the actor's favorite among all his films.
They're all from Universal except Omar Khayyam, which is Paramount. And I've checked with every U.S. video company that might conceivably have rights to release Omar, and they've all said they have no plans for it.
It's not going to make happy anybody who wants JUST that title -- like me -- and is unwilling to spring for the other four discs in the box set. This way Imprint gets exactly ZERO when they could make money sellig the films a la carte. Idiots.
I saw, and heard, a demonstration of Atmos at the AFI Film Festival. I want the receiver with Atmos because I want to be IN the movies I watch, not just see them!
I attended a demonstration of Atmos at last fall's AFI Film Festival that included a talk by the sound engineers who perfected the system.
After hearing it I no longer want to JUST watch a movie or listen to music, I want to BE in the movie or the concert hall, where only Atmos and Onkyo can...
Please elaborate on this odd statement (you don't think that Kodak, Fuji, et al didn't have have dedicated equipment for producing 16mm stock, negative, print and reversal?).
And, in the 1970's, when Kodak introduced 110 format pocket still cameras, you know what 110 film was?
Yup -- 16mm...
The documentary's actually called The Film that Changed Hollywood, not "which" (a lot of people think "that" and "which" are interchangeable, but they're not -- they don't mean exactly the same thing).
I have the version of the script that was shot. Even more material was excised than what's listed on the website. Most critically, a key subplot involving Titus the Moneylender that underpin all of Cleopatra's maneuverings to make Caesar (who's unaware of her machinations) emperor of Rome, was...
Of course, nothing was more variable than color changes from core to core and reel to reel in IB Technicolor, since the dyes for each were mixed separately and, despite every effort at quality control, inevitably varied slightly from batch to batch (of course, that irreplaceable breathtaking...
Lenses and filters and pantyhose aren't the camera. As for the last, whether it's gels or Vaseline or the finest Victoria's Secret has to offer, it's its own layer of "creative" tinkering (that really ought to be done in post production. Compromising camera negative with an effect whose charm...
I'm not not talking about desaturation, or trying to emulate old sepia photos (two techniques I thoroughly dislike, but that's a different matter), but merely not bothering or seeming to care that everything in the frame is some shade of green or yellow instead of something resembling a...
None of the above matters, really. Apart from the fact that color in modern films amounts to little more than visual clutter, no one seems to know how to time the color in a movie or TV show anymore. Everything on-screen looks like life as seen through a full urine-specimen jar...
I seriously doubt that the BBC owns them. Rather it's more likely that they hold a long-term least from the real owners (of everything but the underlying intellectual property rights), Time Warner.
And you assert this with every fibre of your being...
The human eye obviously is no more equipped to created-deep focus than a manufactured camera lens...but the human brain compensates for that by making the viewer think everything's in focus, from the front of his or her field of vision, to the back (unless he or she consciously concentrates on...
Exactly, one is lighting a set.
Let's say that the same ten-foot-high set is being photographed by two cameras -- one shooting Academy at 1:1.37, the other Super Panavision at 1:2.2, set up side-by-side, each of which is thirty feet from the back of the set.
Each camera contains the same film...
As I said above, the improvements in technology made it a wash between the demands deep-focus makes on widescreen images versus flat photography. If all things were equal, widescreen, even non-anamorphic, is going to require more light, because more of a set needs to be lit.
As for the...
Last first: Of course Toland only worked with spherical lenses; he didn't survive into the anamorphic era, dying in 1948.
Secondly: Although much is made of his work on KANE, Toland's eight-film association with the great William Wyler is really more notable. It was, supposedly, that work with...
What you're describing are traveling mattes, and the film is full of them and practically every other kind of special optical effect developed to that time, including glass shots and the Schufftan Process, but not for the scenes you and the others refer to.
There's no line of demarcation...