User talk:LACameraman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, LACameraman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 05:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Night Shift (book)

I've responded to you on the talk page. Thanks, Brendan Moody 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've responded again, and added a few footnotes based on the references you provided. Feel free to fiddle with them if you like. And again, welcome and thanks for your contributions. Brendan Moody 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Quote

Hello,

Welcome. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia myself. I wanted to let you know that the quote I added to the Stephen King article ('…victim of victims.') came from an interview with him I have on videotape. I entered it into a journal I keep for my work, but carelessly failed to add the date of that interview. The particular tape containing that interview is in storage right now, but I will access it as soon as I can. Again, welcome. Michael David 13:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikifying dates

Can anyone explain to me the trend for 'wikifying' dates? Doesn't that kind of go against the wiki linking policy of only linking wiki words that can clarify or expand on the current article? Is there really anyone reading this article who is going to immediately care what happened on November 11, 2001 - because that was when the cited article was published? And, if we're going to wikify dates - why not all of them? I'm totally at a loss. Before I revert these edits - can someone explain this to me? LACameraman 09:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, it is a somewhat fraught issue. Dates which are wikified can be changed around by the software automatically, so that's the main reason to wikify them. I think there's some ammount of arguments going on about wheather some dates should or should not be linked, but I'm not sure what the details are. I'd suggest not reverting, just because it's such a trivial matter, and somepeople are semi-crazy when it comes to it. Thanks for asking. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) may be of interest. The main reason why dates are linked, for example November 11, 2001, is that being linked allows the dates to be displayed depending on your preferences. While you may see "November 11, 2001", I actually see "11 November, 2001" (I'm from Australia). As JesseW eluded to, there is much debate over this system and it may change in the future.--Commander Keane 10:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The King Quote>"victims"

Hello,

For reasons much too complex to go into here, most of my book and video tape collections are in storage, and, at the moment, not easy to access. I have not been able to recall the specific circumstances of the interview with King in which he made the 'victims' statement. But, I did find this: Chapter 18 of The Stand (It's about a third of the way down the page; the paragraph starts with "When she died…"). My quote comes as he spoke it in the interview. In either case it's pure King! Michael David 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we have a problem here?

Pertaining to Stephen Kings' books,the author of the Gunslinger series makes mistakes writing about guns It may be irrelevant to you,but you can bet that it is obvious and significant to millions of people who know about guns.I like to read King ,my additions are not an attack,just an observation.It looks like a cheap political stunt for you to delete my posts as 'irrelevant information'.It makes you look like a liberal from Commiefornia.Are you?Saltforkgunman 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space between unit symbol and value

You asked me about spaces. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says:

  • The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg".

Apparently it derives from the international standard: ISO 31-0:

  • Numerical value and unit symbol are separated by a space. This rule also applies to the symbol "°C" for degrees Celsius, as in "25 °C". The only exception are the symbols for the units of plane angle degree, minute and second, which follow the numerical value without a space inbetween (for example "30°").

Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cinematography

Glad to help out. Regards... --Jeremy Butler 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy - I saw that you just recently reorganized the Cinematography article. No real issues with the new flow, but I also saw that you cut the passage on digital imaging - you feel this is something more suited for the Cinematographer article? I've been debating that myself. LACameraman 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not cut. Just moved to the end. Seemed to make sense to start with cinematography's history and then end with its future. But feel free to put it somewhere else, if you feel it flows better. --Jeremy Butler 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formats and Idea for WikiProject

Okay, some more work done:

  • Circarama - I'm going mainly on this inextricably deleted article from in70mm.com. Why it now only exists in Google's cache is well beyond me, however. It doesn't mention Iwerks until much later and nothing about Brogge. Are there any other sources about the format's development? Because this article makes it out to be Walt's personal brainchild (though I'm certain he didn't do most of the heavy lifting).
The first reference I can find is a chronology that Don Iwerks sent me when I was writing a piece about him when he won the Gordon Sawyer Oscar. His bio reads "1955 - Worked on 16mm Circarama 360 degree camera system, building, testing and then location filming in Monument Valley, Grand Canyon and Las Vegas... Unfortunately the transcription of my interview with Don was one of the files lost in a vicious virius that hit my system earlier this year. Not sure where I got Brogge from - could be from that interview.
Also in his bio - 1960 - "The Circarama camera was completely re-designed for use on a Fiat Motor Company film photorgaphed throuwt Italy... 1964 - New 35mm cameras were designed and built for the Circarama system for initial use on a film for teh Swiss Railway to be exihibted at a National Fair in Lucerne, Switzerland."
From American Cinematographer Magazine March 1962 "Circling Italy with Circarama" by Herb A. Lightman - "...redesigned their equipment...formerly...a battery of eleven Cine Special cameras... with 200-foot magazines and 15mm lenses Arriflex 16mm cameras were substituted. These had the advantage of 400-foot magazines, thus doubling the shooting capacity per film load. Moreover, since 12 1/2mm wide-angle Taylor-Hobson-Cooke lenses were used (each of which covered a horizonatal angle of 40 degrees) only nine cameras would be needed to cover the full 360-degree circle instead of eleven." ... the Fiat Corporation erected a circular theatre at the Italia '61 Exposition... 9-segment screen..."
Hmm...will definitely look further into that - any chance you can scan that article?
Yes. It would be easier to fax, however, as my scanner is acting up. If you would like to e-mail a fax number to me at lacameraman@adakin.com, I'll send that to you. I have a handful of other articles on Don and his work that may be of interest to you.
  • Techniscope - The first Techniscope film was The Pharoah's Woman, which was released in 1960 in Italy, so it can't postdate that.
  • Multivision - interesting! First time I've heard about the name.
I only know that Crumplin (Multivision 235 re-inventor (for lack of a better term)) made a short film "Bully" with the system - don't know if it was ever used beyond that. The article I wrote on Crumplin and Univisium: "Inventive New Options for Film" Holben, Jay & Bankston, Douglas American Cinematographer Magazine February 2000 Vol 81 no 2 pp.96-107
I think that there have been multiple attempts at using 2-perf in the past decade, especially as telecine transfers can easily be done now. I mean, Aaton is even on their way with a new camera with multiple pulldown options (Penelope). It's definitely good for footnoting other names for the system, but I don't think it would qualify as a new format unless it were significantly different in its requirements from Techniscope. Definitely fascinating info, though!
Fair enough. I added a note on the Techniscope article, but it doesn't seem relevant for your chart.
  • Univisium - 100% about the 25 fps - it's supposed to standardize the speed so to create easy transfer to PAL (I guess he figures NTSC is on the way out and not worth dealing with...) See the proposal (which uses the original Univision name).
I understand this proposal, which I've read before, but I'd be more concerned with the actual implementation of the Univisum/Univision system. Were Picking up the Pieces Dune and Exorcist all shot 25fps? That doesn't seem right to me. Vittorio never mentioned 25fps to me when we talked about Univisium. On re-reading, he also seems to be proposing 25 fps mainly for 50 cycle countries (makes sense) for telecine - or for a new projection system that runs Univision films at 25fps (which haven't been implimented, as far as I know). I'll leave this to your call, but I think it should be 24fps.
My understanding has always been that Univisium has never been fully implemented in all specs for various reasons - mainly the projection requirements for 3-perf Super 35 frames running at 25 fps. However, I agree that it is very possible that no Univisium film has yet been shot at 25 fps. Actually, Dune might have, as it was originally intended for TV. The others, I would definitely have more skepticism about. I do believe that the frame rate issue is an important one for him; I think he expected the HDTV standards to allow cycle-independent framerates - it appears that they may, but no one seems interested in taking advantage of that for their regional standards. Oh well. This and projection issues lead to the precise problem - there has not yet been a film which has completely met all of the specifications of the format! Either way, I'm not holding my breath for the Univisium revolution. ;)
heh. I totally agree.
  • 11 vs. 9 cameras - I think this is the revision from Circarama (16mm x 11) to Circle Vision 360 (35mm x 9) that you're thinking about. I believe my sources for this are the BKSTS wallchart, in70mm.com (maybe the same cached article above, and Wide Screen Movies Corrections, p. 19. The latter one has been a great help in tracking down obscure formats and aperture informations.
see above

However, the main thing I'd like to propose to you is something I've starting to mull over - Wikipedia:WikiProject Films has been created to help standardize and improve the overall quality-level of film articles, but it seems to have decided to concentrate only on film titles. Frankly, I think that the filmmaking and technology articles still have an awful lot of work to go over, and it seems like for every two of us who actually work with the equipment regularly and have informed technical knowledge there are another 25 who sorta kinda heard something and, while they mean well, oftentimes are continuing the mis-information trail. If we had a common WikiProject where pros and interested amateurs could gather to collectively raise the standards of these articles towards GA or A-Class, if not a few featured articles, maybe we could get some good momentum going. What do you think - is WikiProject Filmmaking something worth doing? Girolamo Savonarola 15:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. I'm a little frightened by that. My schedule is rather unpredictable, but I'm game. What does it take? LACameraman 06:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't launch the thing without the support of at least two or three other knowledgable (and preferably professional) contributors. It would be mostly about raising the quality-level of the film tech articles and finding a way to work in conjunction to keep things well maintained and organized. I'm a bit frightened by it too, to be quite honest! But I wouldn't start into it without a fair group of others to actually keep the project running. Take a look at some of the other WikiProject pages to see what they tend to be up to and how it works. In any case, I'll let you know if I find enough people to make it worth getting off the ground. Girolamo Savonarola 10:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Count me in. If it comes to fruition, I'll be happy to contribue where I can. I also found a considerable about of deficiency in the Wikibooks Filmmakers manual... Ugh. LACameraman 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Underlined Links?

Ugh - After placing the help tag on this page, I found my answer through the FAQ. Sorry for the false alarm - thanks to anyone who started to come to my rescue. LACameraman 19:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... This might be a very simplistic question - but suddenly on all of my Wiki pages the links are underlined. Is this a universal Wiki change? Is there some setting I bumped that I'm missing? It really clutters up the page. Makes for a lot less smooth reading. Anything I can do to revert? I am using Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.4, but I don't see the unexpected underlining problem on any other sites but Wiki. Thanks in advance. LACameraman 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion requested

Hey, was wondering if you wouldn't mind weighing in an opinion one way or the other at Talk:Univisium - it appears that two editors specifically object to Univisium being called a "non-standard" format (not "sub-standard", mind you). Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Filmmaking

Hey, I've started the project on my own page for the moment, but I was wondering if you wanted to take a look, add in your two cents, and hopefully join the project participants list! Once we get 3-5 editors, it's usually fine to formally make it into a proper WikiProject. Also, if you know any other good editors who might be interested, please pass it along! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)q

[edit] License tagging for Image:Crt-telecine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Crt-telecine.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color Grading contributions

Hey, thanks for the input on the color grading article.

Hmm the software/hardware stuff might be slightly contentious, and I couldn't easily find a source for it. I think the value of that information is that colorists either had a choice between features or performance. Nowadays the lines are blurring and being "software-based" doesn't necessarily mean that the system is slow (and nearly all software-based systems have hardware acceleration... so that's an issue of semantics).


[edit] Fly system

Thanks for the edits and the image. 48v 20:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just to let you know...

I'm heading out on a shoot for the next four weeks, starting tomorrow. I'll still try to put in a bit of time in the evenings and weekends, but I wanted to let you know now, so that it won't strike you as amiss. Hopefully I'll have enough time between dinner and sleep to get in some tasks! In any case, please feel free to be bold (as always). Girolamo Savonarola 21:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 35 mm film FAC

6 perfs/inch can't be right - 6 x 12 inches = 72 perfs per foot. At 16 standard frames per foot, that's 16 x 4 = 64 perfs per foot. Clearly there's a discrepancy somewhere (or I'm missing something). But 72 perfs per foot works out to 18 standard frames per foot. I can source the 16 frames/foot easily, but I've yet to see a source for 6 perfs/inch. In any case, let me know what you think. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 08:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So how are things?

It's been crazy for me lately - finished one four week job to go straight into a smaller gig for a total of three weeks (prep and shooting - I was DP'ing for once...), and thought I'd have at least a few days off only to be snapped up for a nine week TV thing. I'm certainly not complaining, but obviously I miss being able to do much here, too! Anyway, just wondering how it's all been on your end? Girolamo Savonarola 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Cinematography

Hi! Hope that the work has been going well recently. (It's non-stop over here...) I was wondering if you might have a moment to duck into Talk:Cinematography and add your voice to the discussion regarding some recent edits. Some questions regarding POV and appropriate scope of details for the History section. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - I wanted to also discuss with you some ideas for doing some proper expansion of WP:FMK when you have a moment, but it's no rush.

[edit] WikiProject Filmmaking changes

New discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Filmmaking#Future project development and Ideas for your consideration regarding expansion of the project. As a member, your comments are welcome and wanted! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA, things

Hey! Glad to see that you're back. Hope that your gig was fun. (Wish I could say mine is...unfortunately there's just a lot of unnecessary stress added by certain people.) Anyway, yeah, we FA'd 35 mm film! Amazingly, despite a large backlog of other articles requesting main page and us not doing so, the article was originally slated to be featured about two weeks ago. I indefinitely postponed it, though, because as the FAC was closing - I assumed it was going to be inconclusive and thus fail, to be honest - I realized that there was still a few important sections that needed to be created or further fleshed out. I didn't want to get it to the main page without these additions, but I haven't had time yet to get down and dirty with it. Anyway, you can see my very elliptical notes for further work I have in mind. The WikiProject is trucking along, and I'd love to see what you think both of what I've already implemented and what I've discussed for future plans.

Anyway, I'm on this current gig until early November, so my edits likely will be more creeping until then, but once I find a good chunk of free time, I don't see why we can't actually sink our teeth well into some of those bigger articles on the general topics for FAC. Also, the assessment will make it easier for us to find the A-Class and Good articles and quickly tweak them to featured status as well! Girolamo Savonarola 19:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbee, me

Hi LACameraman

I'd really like to show you the text for an article called FrameForge 3D Studio. If you check us out I know it looks self-serving but I think that once you understand what we've accomplished you will forgive me.

Could you please send me an email address where I could submit an WP article to you. I would really appreciate it.

da70sguy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Da70sguy (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Newbee me, again

Yes, LACameraman

I sure did.

Thanks for getting back.

I need a mentor here and your user description sounded like the best bet for me to get some editorial guidance for an article I'd like to submit.

How can we get together?

Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Da70sguy (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I done it

Article title: FrameForge 3D Studio

I can't find it now either.

Hope you can.

I can get a PNG file of the control room for the info box next.

best regards, -- Dan Da70sguy 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anamorphic split

Lately I've been thinking about splitting off the anamorphic article into anamorphic film and anamorphic widescreen, where anamorphic film is solely about the film/optics topic and anamorphic widescreen is about the video topic. I've come to realize that anamorphic widescreen as a phrase is more or less solely used for DVD description. Also, the two topics really have almost nothing to do with each other aside from the basic anamorphism concept, so it's probably for the best in order to prevent confusing the readers. Just wondering what your thoughts on this might be. (And by the way, good to see you back again! Have been absolutely sucked into Dexter and am very disappointed to see it finishing next week.) Girolamo Savonarola 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a great idea. On a side note - do you have any idea why the 2.35, 2.39, 2.40? section of that article isn't showing up? I can't figure out why. It's in the code, there seems to be no supressing code before or after it - but that whole section is not showing up in the article... Very confused. Splitting the article is a great idea. I'd be very happy to divorce this between video anamorphic and photographic anamorphic - which are the same "squeeze" concepts, but VERY different otherwise. Ironically I'm in the middle of another debate on 2.35/2.40... Seems to be the season for widescreen discussions. I would support the split wholeheartedly.
Dexter is a great show. It was a lot of fun to be part of it. I intentionally didn't read the last script of the season to save some element of surprise. :) LACameraman 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] search question

Hi LAC

Thanks for your help and work. It is much appreciated.

I've sent on the issues you spoke to regarding 'more background' to our Prez Ken Schafer and we'll see how he birthed FF3D maybe.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Why does the Final Draft article come up on general search and the FrameForge one doesn't? 2. FF3D pertains to previsualization and storyboard categories. Would it be OK to list the FF3D article or 'film production software' in their 'See Also' sections?

Hope all is well,

Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Da70sguy (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Panavision

if you've been following the discussions at FARC, it looks like this article is going to end up delisted. I spent the better part of two days referencing it, and don't feel like doing the copy editing, since Girolamo Savonarola has been online, but not responded to any of my messages about it. The copy editing is the only concern now, so if you feel up to it, maybe you'd like to give it a shot? Jeffpw 21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see my new post on the Panavision FARC page. I have seen the work you have done, and am not even sure it is fair to delist the article based on prose issues, as the version promoted had the same issues Tony1 nowfinds actionable. FAR is a difficult process (I noticed a contributer referred to those of us who work on it as "the Goon Squad"), but as you said, it is there to maintain or raise the quality of Wikipedia. Anyway, you're doing good work on Panavision, and I hope it can remain--especially since I worked almost 10 hours referencing it! Jeffpw 10:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panavision ce

Hi. As I gather you've seen at this point, via the edit history, I'm attempting a thorough copyedit, bottom-up, on the article in hopes of maintaining its FA status. Here's the sticking point I've gotten to. The chronology at the juncture of "Early history" and "Middle period" is very confused. The text of "Middle period" begins with 1962, yet the section's sole image is of a 1959 film. "Early history", which should presumably end no later than 1962, concludes with an extensive discussion of Von Ryan's Express, a 1965 film. Obviously, this can't work. It's much better to carry forward issues and themes from one chronology-based section to another than to convolute the progression. You clearly have more of an immediate feel for the vital issues here than anyone else involved. So...in what year and with what event do you feel Panavision's "Middle period" should begin? As it is now in the section's first paragraph, with 1962 and the acquisition of MGM's camera equipment division (in which case Von Ryan's Express will move into "Middle period" after it), or at some other juncture? Best, Dan—DCGeist 05:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

DC - You know, I was thinking about that. I think the biggest problem is the header "Middle Years." It's not really the middle of anything. If you were to break up the origins of Panavision it would be Lenses (early), camera retrofitting (this starts with Mutiny and acquiring the BNCs from MGM), camera manufacturing (Panaflex and the decision to go rental-only), going global and then everything after the Panaflex, basically. Digital could be the last section. Maybe that would work. Section headers read something like:

  • Early History
  • Cameras
  • Panaflex
  • Digital

That would fix the inconsistency with years. Really great work on cleaning up the text, I've been following your copy editing tonight. Nicely done. All the best, LACameraman 06:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Makes a lot of sense. Tuckered out for the evening; will take another swing at it tomorrow. Best, D—DCGeist 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I want to make sure the following is correct:
Subsequent Ultra Panavision films included It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) [etc.]... As 1.25x anamorphosers for 70 mm projectors have become rare, most of the 70 mm prints of these films still in circulation are designed for projection with nonanamorphic, spherical lenses of the sort used for Super Panavision. The result is a 2.20:1 aspect ratio, rather than the 2.75:1 ratio originally intended.
Is that right? Are 70 mm prints for anamorphic and nonanamorphic projection actually different from each other? Or does what the audience sees simply come down to the theater's available lens/anamorphoser system?—DCGeist 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not right, right? I thought about it, looked over the List of film formats, saw that the dimensions of the Ultra Panavision and Todd-AO/Super Panavision projection prints are the same and conclude: it's just a question of whether the theater has a 1.25x anamorphosing lens or not. Correct?—DCGeist 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
DC - This is a little outside of my sphere of expertise - but my understanding is that the Ultra Panavision films (which were anamorphic 70mm) were also printed spherical 70mm (in essence letterboxed on 70mm film) to be projected in non-anamorphic 70mm theaters. I would cut the reference to "Super Panavision" from that passage as the photographic process and projection process are not linked. This is really a good question for Martin Heart from widescreenmuseum.com - I'll drop him a line and see what he says. LACameraman 07:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Great. I'll wait to hear the response. This is my last real concern in the article. Best, D—DCGeist 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
DC - Okay - got Martin's response. The conversation is a bit too long to put here, but the general gist is the passage is correct. I've gone ahead and cleaned it up a bit. Hopefully we're good to go with this one - nice work. LACameraman 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color film (motion picture)

Speaking of which, why not color motion picture film, and lose the parenthetical entirely?

While I agree with you in the individual instance that it is good to have more eyes, I am more concerned about precedent - I don't want the HOP project encompassing all cinematography articles, and I think that's reasonable to declare. This particular article is all the more notable, since it designates in its very title that it is a motion picture topic. I understand that someone may try to get into a lexical argument about cinematography being a subset of photography, but it seems obvious to me that the HOP project was designed with stills photography in mind, and if we had a more concise word in English which only encompassed stills photography, then that word would be used in "History of..." instead. Nonetheless, I have no doubts that there are considerable project overlaps - F-number, soft light, etc. Things which are clearly relevant to both topics.

How have you been, by the way? I was in LA myself last month - it looks like I might have to return to the US sooner or later, so I've been scoping it out to see how I could survive as a (yet) non-union AC. Girolamo Savonarola 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] HD and wide screen film formats

First of all hello, and thanks for the greeting, even though it's a standardized one ;-) I had signed up for the project, but need to do more than small touch-ups. I was surprised to see the condition of the HD and HDTV articles, these are such important and popular topics. I started with small changes and talk, and should find the time to do a more serious overhaul.
Also, this is a college paper I once wrote about wide screen film, skim over it, perhaps there might be something useful in it. Above all, I really hope you're familiar with the wonderful Widescreen Museum, we've got to recruit the curator to our wikiproject!
Binba 08:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keycode (disambiguation)

Just drawing your attention to Keycode (disambiguation, at least now), since it looked like you might not have been aware of it. jhawkinson 23:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. I hadn't noticed it. All the best, LACameraman 08:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/c/User_talk%7ELACameraman_7e07.html"