Cinematography in this movie

"How is it possible that some older movies (from 70's/80's) look so much better than those from 2000 ?
(older technology sholud be inferior, but it isn't always)"

That's a great question. A weird comparison can be made in porn.
The 70's films are pretty titillating. In the 80's they switched
to video, the plots collapsed, the actresses were full of silicone,
and the movies were crap. Often not the last bit exciting.

I really liked the scene where Julian is being followed by the senator's goon. If you look closely, the camera angle suggests you should see the camera in the reflection in the windows. But the director of photography skillfully put the camera 15 feet away on the street, and just below the level of the bottom of the windows. They must have put the camera on tracks, because the scene pans back and forth parallel to the sidewalk twice. Very nice work.

With reference to the quality. Quality DVD mastering is no easy feat and can be very expensive. I guess it depends on what the studio is willing to invest.

I'd say that's definitely the case now, in an era when every movie and TV show (practically) is being shot in Hi Def rather than on 35mm film.

The best Hi Def looks okay but doesn't yet have the richness and texture of 35.

Want proof? Look no further than Michael Mann. Compare a great looking movie like HEAT (shot on 35) from 20 years ago, with anything Mann has directed in the last decade (all shot on hi def video).

His more recent stuff looks terrible.

So if you're wondering why movies look like crap now, my two word answer is: Hi Def.

it was john bailey who did a great job....as he did on the big chill and ordinary people