Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Peter Kline, Aug 4, 2003.
I wonder if he really looks like Kirk Douglas? Here's the article:
It is non-anamorphic widescreen, but other than that it doesn't look too bad for a 113 year old movie.
Have they re-engineered a DTS-ES 6.1 soundtrack yet?
I hope they don't remove any of the original brush strokes!
Bad news, guys. They're adding his ear back digitally.
1889 or so, assuming they had the fine shutter control to get above 10 frames a second (I'd be very surprised), the idea that they recovered a film after 95 years in a damp attic (and attics have insane temperature fluctuations) did not dissolve into dust decades ago, the film was also undoubtably some variety of photographic negative and not made for very brief exposures so it probably has terrible grain structure at the very least (and I expect they needed massive lighting this early to capture even as fast as 10 frames a second).
so they determined a strange walk from an extremely jerky image and discerned features with massive grain size and probably the tones are all off because of the lighting, stock etc, screwing all color symmetry.
I'm extremely skeptical, there's a reason that there is a six year gap between the first patent and teh Lumiere bros screening of "Train Arriving at a Station" for commerical purposes, a lot of technical difficuluties had to be overcome to reach the point of that film.
This sounds clumsy and moronic and I'll remain extremely skeptical for the time being.
It sounds like a prank to me as well. They love doing those in Holland.
Just to clarify:
This has almost immediately been identified as a "bad joke", because Vincent van Gogh was living in France in 1890 (as the article already states).
The people that claimed to have the material have also confirmed the "joke" today.
A little dog days of summer humor then. Just having some fun.