TCM had an interesting hour-long doc on Abel Gance last evening.
There were several mentions of the 3 panel sections of his epic
Napoleon. Apparently the process was used for more than just the
final reel. There were also a couple of stills of the Tryptich
camera(s). Gance had three cameras mounted vertically to reduce
parallax problems (he actually said the work parallax but I don't
think it was translated for the subtitles.

Would this vertical arrangement work much like the Cinemiracle scheme,
i.e. all 3 cameras shooting from the same optical center?

In article
a2140476-7011-4cc8-b042-0b3b239b0...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
 three-eyed freak <terrence.orei...@shps.com> wrote:

TCM had an interesting hour-long doc on Abel Gance last evening.
There were several mentions of the 3 panel sections of his epic
Napoleon.  Apparently the process was used for more than just the
final reel.  There were also a couple of stills of the Tryptich
camera(s).  Gance had three cameras mounted vertically to reduce
parallax problems (he actually said the work parallax but I don't
think it was translated for the subtitles.

Would this vertical arrangement work much like the Cinemiracle scheme,
i.e. all 3 cameras shooting from the same optical center?

I watched that documentary as well (from 1968!).  I was just floored at
the amount of behind the scenes footage there was of the actual filming
of NAPOLEON - that was a revelation.

I have also seen NAPOLEON twice (Boston @ the Met Center and @ Radio
City Music Hall), and while the triptych is impressive, the stacking of
the cameras does in fact mess with the horizon line somewhat (then
again, the three individual vanishing points in Cinerama aren't exactly
graceful either).  As you could see in some shots, Gance also used the
three panels to convey three concurrent and/or related images rather
than use it solely for a panoramic effect.

Quite ironically, I just received two days ago (from my mother who was
going through some old papers) a fading yellow copy of the Boston
University Free Press, and it had my article that I wrote for the Boston
premiere of NAPOLEON (which was held on November 10, 1981).

And all too ironically and sadly on that premiere night they announced
that Gance had passed away in his sleep only a few days before.  The
audience rose as Carmine Coppola led the orchestra in "La Marseillaise"
in tribute to Gance and his genius.  I still get goose bumps thinking
about that event.

Theo
Studio City, CA

When you saw Napoleon in the theater, was screen flat or curved?  And
did the picture width indeed increase by 3x during the Polyvision
sequences?

I also understood per the documentary that Gance said he used the
Polyvision technique during other sequences besides the last reel
(which was the only Tryptich sequence on the VHS tape.  Do you have
any info about this?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

TCM had an interesting hour-long doc on Abel Gance last evening.
There were several mentions of the 3 panel sections of his epic
Napoleon. Apparently the process was used for more than just the
final reel. There were also a couple of stills of the Tryptich
camera(s). Gance had three cameras mounted vertically to reduce
parallax problems (he actually said the work parallax but I don't
think it was translated for the subtitles.

Would this vertical arrangement work much like the Cinemiracle scheme,
i.e. all 3 cameras shooting from the same optical center?

For my tastes, Gance's triptych isn't worth much. His panel alignment
is horrible. Mounting his cameras vertically sure didn't help in any
way. I don't think he was interested in creating a perfect Cinerama
style image. It was an effective feature to add to the film,
particularly at the time is was made, but the scenes where he uses
mirror images on the left and right panels surrounding Napoleon or other
subject matter on the center panel is at least equal in its emotional
power. And tinting the panels to create a tricolor effect is also
pretty cool. I think way too much comparison is made between Gance's
triptych and Cinerama. They had images composed of three panels but
that's the end of the similarity.

Marty

The Cinerama pictures are a technical tour de force, "Napoleon" an artistic
one.

Norm

For my tastes, Gance's triptych isn't worth much. His panel alignment
is horrible. Mounting his cameras vertically sure didn't help in any
way. I don't think he was interested in creating a perfect Cinerama
style image. It was an effective feature to add to the film,

Martin Hart <thanksforthe@spam.org> wrote:

For my tastes, Gance's triptych isn't worth much. His panel alignment
is horrible. Mounting his cameras vertically sure didn't help in any
way. I don't think he was interested in creating a perfect Cinerama
style image. It was an effective feature to add to the film,

Don't think of it as the forerunner to Cinerama. Think of it as the
forerunner to Woodstock.
--scott

Martin Hart <thanksforthe@spam.org> wrote:

For my tastes, Gance's triptych isn't worth much. His panel alignment
is horrible. Mounting his cameras vertically sure didn't help in any
way. I don't think he was interested in creating a perfect Cinerama
style image. It was an effective feature to add to the film,

Don't think of it as the forerunner to Cinerama. Think of it as the
forerunner to Woodstock.
--scott