 |
|
| Movies Forum Index » Movie Technology Forum » There Was Nothing Wrong with 70mm Cinerama... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Steve Kraus... |
 Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Let's re-argue some old chestnuts:
With what's going on with the IMAX brand it's easy to make comparisons with
what happened with Cinerama. But lets be very clear (no pun). There was
nothing wrong with 70mm Cinerama.
Only how it was used. Which is to say hardly at all in the panoramic
sense. Oh, people whine about how the 65/70 frame just isn't capable of
what 3 x 6 perf full width 35mm frames can do. And they point to the
terrible quality of certain scenes in HTWWW that were shot in 65mm. But
that's not fair. The raft scenes done in Ultra Panavision were blue screen
shots, and went through various generations before being converted to 3
strip. The other footage was basically stock footage. Even if they got
the camera negative (doubtful) it still had generational loss.
The bottom line is that 65/70 even back then was fully capable of
superlative imagery. 3 strip may have presented a greater frame area
overall but with it comes all the nonsense of blend lines, 3 vanishing
points, jitter etc.
No, the problem with 70mm Cinerama was that they threw away the idea of
panoramic movies. The first, Mad...World wasn't even shot with Cinerama
projection in mind.
If someone really wanted to make a proper 70mm Cinerama movie they would
have put a super wide angle lens on the camera and either left it there for
the duration EXCEPT for certain shots that simply could not be done with
it....OR, possibly, used it for all master shots and allowed different
focal lengths for closeups and so forth. The point being that the bulk of
the movie should be with super wides and everything about their use should
be taken into account in blocking, camera movement and even set design.
It's already many times easier than with the 3 strip camera. I don't know
of any of the 70mm Cinerama films that really did anything like this. Did
any?
OK talk amongst yourselves. I've given you a topic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 9, 12:30 pm, Steve Kraus <scr... at (no spam) SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com>
wrote:
Quote: Let's re-argue some old chestnuts:
With what's going on with the IMAX brand it's easy to make comparisons with
what happened with Cinerama. But lets be very clear (no pun). There was
nothing wrong with 70mm Cinerama.
Only how it was used. Which is to say hardly at all in the panoramic
sense. Oh, people whine about how the 65/70 frame just isn't capable of
what 3 x 6 perf full width 35mm frames can do. And they point to the
terrible quality of certain scenes in HTWWW that were shot in 65mm. But
that's not fair. The raft scenes done in Ultra Panavision were blue screen
shots, and went through various generations before being converted to 3
strip. The other footage was basically stock footage. Even if they got
the camera negative (doubtful) it still had generational loss.
The bottom line is that 65/70 even back then was fully capable of
superlative imagery. 3 strip may have presented a greater frame area
overall but with it comes all the nonsense of blend lines, 3 vanishing
points, jitter etc.
No, the problem with 70mm Cinerama was that they threw away the idea of
panoramic movies. The first, Mad...World wasn't even shot with Cinerama
projection in mind.
If someone really wanted to make a proper 70mm Cinerama movie they would
have put a super wide angle lens on the camera and either left it there for
the duration EXCEPT for certain shots that simply could not be done with
it....OR, possibly, used it for all master shots and allowed different
focal lengths for closeups and so forth. The point being that the bulk of
the movie should be with super wides and everything about their use should
be taken into account in blocking, camera movement and even set design.
It's already many times easier than with the 3 strip camera. I don't know
of any of the 70mm Cinerama films that really did anything like this. Did
any?
OK talk amongst yourselves. I've given you a topic.
What about the featurette SHELLARAMA . I recall seeing that back in
1966 or 67 - filmed in 70mm with cinerama projection in mind. There
wasn't a memorable 70mm feature film shown in cinerama ( incl.Mad
World ). Any 70mm film could be projected and advertised in cinerama
providing a license fee was paid to cinerama Inc.(Most times it
wasn't) There were of course many 70mm films (especially in Europe)
that were advertised as being in cinerama. Speaking of cinerama -
does any 3 strip footage still survive of the Atomic Bomb movie or The
Greatest Story Ever Told?? It is a great pity that of the three 3-
strip cinerama cinemas that still survive, not one is capable of
projecting a film as it would have been seen in the fifties.All
three cinemas have flaws that would not have been acceptable in the
good old days. I understand that Seven Wonders Of The World was
originally to have been the second film in cinerama but it was
abandoned until much later. What ever happened to the original
footage shot??. Finally are the many surviving Russian kinopanorama
3 strip films stored in Paris still able to be projected? Would be
great to see them in Bradford. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Scott Norwood... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <2K-dnbd_0eD6FrPXnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d at (no spam) metrocastcablevision.com>,
Jim Nason <jhnason at (no spam) metrocast.net> wrote:
Quote:
When I was in high school in the early 1960s, I corresponded a few times
with Walter Beyer, ASC, who told me that projecting Ultra Panavision 70 in
any 70mm equpped theater was no big deal: Apply anamorphic lens, file
aperture plate, adjust masking. Period.
This only works if the masking can be re-adjusted to accommodate
the wider format (either with top masking or a wider screen and
masking that can be opened further. Otherwise, a call (and a check)
to a rigging company would be in order. Not easy, fast, or cheap.
(I've been tangentially involved with a couple of screen/masking
upgrades lately; it's amazing what a new screen and proper masking
can do for overall presentation quality.)
--
Scott Norwood: snorwood at (no spam) nyx.net, snorwood at (no spam) redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ultrascope... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The nice thing about spherical 65/70mm is that you can use lenses with
a very short focal length. Wide angle shots look quite impressive on
curved screen and give additional depth of field.
Although I was impressed when I had a chance to see Ultra Panavision /
Camera 65 films like BEN-HUR, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY and KHARTOUM on a
big curved screen with the proper aspect ratio, these systems'
anamorphic lenses put a limit on deep focus staging.
I didn't feel that way about BEN-HUR, but IMHO the BOUNTY interior
sets would have looked much better through wide angle lenses like
those used for Todd-AO (or later Super Panavision).
Technirama had no real wide angle lens, but the anamorphic elements
gave a very special semi-wide angle look. Many Technirama films look
excellent on curved screens, and since SHELLARAMA was mentioned, it
has some shots that look almost three dimensional: The sideway
tracking shot on the beach (showing a bikini beauty) and the long shot
of a ship in rough seas.
I agree with what Steve wrote:
- "If someone really wanted to make a proper 70mm Cinerama movie they
would
have put a super wide angle lens on the camera and either left it
there for
the duration EXCEPT for certain shots that simply could not be done
with
it....OR, possibly, used it for all master shots and allowed different
focal lengths for closeups and so forth."
If I recall it correctly, that's what was intended originally when
they developped Todd-AO. To quote Walter Siegmund from the excellent
interview on in70mm.com:
- "Regrettably, despite the fact that the whole system was supposed to
resemble Cinerama with its 146-degree field, the Hollywood directors
decided that this was unusable for storytelling purposes, and
practically every scene subsequently done in Todd-AO was done with the
narrower field lenses!"
http://in70mm.com/newsletter/2005/70/siegmund/index.htm
I believe that when a widescreen film is designed and staged properly,
long lenses are necessary only in special cases (like "beauty
closeups", inserts, shots following moving objects). With good
direction and design, short lenses give better rendition of space.
Look at widescreen films like TWO ON A SEESAW, shot anamorphic, using
wide angle lenses in most shots, or my favourite movie THE HUSTLER.
It's totally different from the common chopped up style of direction/
cinematography that has become standard. - I like fast cutting and big
closeups, but when it serves a purpose like when Sergio Leone did it
in THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY or ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST.
For me, widescreen cinema and wide angle cinematography belong
together, no matter if 65 or 35mm, anamorphic or spherical photography
is used. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steve Kraus... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: What I'm waiting for is a pair of 2k digital projectors showing "Ben-
Hur" on an uncurtained IMAX screen. Man, that would really be the
icing on the cake.
That would be painful.
But I'd bet HTWWW composited onto 70-15 would be awesome. Some digital
massaging could ease the blends as with the recent video release but I
don't know if 2K width is sufficient resolution. You could also apply some
curvatures ala Smilebox for OMNIMAX projection although it might not be
necessary to do anything. I think that would sell a few tickets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Hart... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <Xns9C29C5D6B5058screenSPAMBLOCKfilmt at (no spam) 216.168.3.70>,
screen at (no spam) SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com says...
Quote: What I'm waiting for is a pair of 2k digital projectors showing "Ben-
Hur" on an uncurtained IMAX screen. Man, that would really be the
icing on the cake.
That would be painful.
But I'd bet HTWWW composited onto 70-15 would be awesome. Some digital
massaging could ease the blends as with the recent video release but I
don't know if 2K width is sufficient resolution. You could also apply some
curvatures ala Smilebox for OMNIMAX projection although it might not be
necessary to do anything. I think that would sell a few tickets.
I was being sarcastic. Just think how much available IMAX image area
would be wasted when you slap that 2.75 image into IMAX's TV shaped
frame.
2k is great for super home theatre systems but 4k would make theatrical
presentations equivalent to good 35mm projection. Increased technical
advances in contrast ratios and color depth will keep things getting
better all the time. Motion picture film has a life of its own, whether
you're sitting in a theatre or you're handling the film itself. The
thought of it going away bothers me but digital imaging is improving as
such a fast pace that I'm not quite ready to open a vein.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:05 am
|
|