70 mm prints

[c_77]

I've done some research, (looked at my Leonard Maltin's 1998 Movie & Video Guide)here is what I found. When I was watching "Lawrence of Arabia" (70mm) and "Lost Highway" (35mm) they both appeared the same size widescreen. This has to do with the aspect ratio's, which are actually almost identical. "Lost Highway" was done in Panavision with an aspect ratio of 2.4:1. This means that the screen is 2.4 times wider than it is tall. However, (check this out) "Lawrence" was done in Super Panavision 70 with an aspect ratio of 2.2:1! So it seems like 35mm is bigger! This book claims that Vertigo was done in VistaVision, 1.66:1, which is not very widescreen at all,...hence, while I enjoy it in widescreen, it's just not real far from the 1.33:1 square of our TV's.

------------------

[Alex]

I think the 70mm prints were also popular because they could fit either more optical sound tracks or more reliable optical sound tracks.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

-Alex

------------------

[MovieStuff]

Hi, all!

Many of today's movies are shot anamorphic on 35mm and then printed up to 70mm unsqueezed. They do this for two reasons. The 70mm picture is much brighter and the 70mm print is projected aspheric with no special lenses required. Also, it means that only the original grain of the field negative is elongated by the anamorphic process; something that is critical to effects work and titling. The 70mm print is not only sharper than a 35mm print, but the grain of the 70mm print isn't elongated since anamorphic projection is avoided.

So, when movies go out for distrubution, they usually do so in three different versions, depending on the movie theater they are booked in.

1) 70mm aspheric with cropping top and bottom built into the print.

2) 35mm aspheric with cropping top and bottom provided by masking the projector.

3) 35mm full frame anamorphic with no cropping.

It is for this reason that distribution on film is so expensive. Contrary to popular myth, there is no 35mm "standard". As movie houses get bigger, the increased use of 70mm for releases makes film duplication more and more expensive. So when you start thinking about blowing up to 35mm for theatrical release, you better think again....

Also, for those unaware, VistaVision has a horizontal transport of standard 35mm film. This yields a wider aspect ratio AND a larger image size using standard aspheric lenses. Films like "Lawrence of Arabia" that shot in Super Panavision 70 were shooting 70mm film anamorphically, which is very, very rare these days. I saw it in the theater and that is one fine image. I think "Far and Away" falsely promoted the use of 65mm (which is really just 70mm without the sound track) but actually only shot on 35mm anamorphic and then released on 70mm aspheric. IMAX films use a VistaVision type horizontal transport of 70mm film for jumbo frames on a jumbo screen. Impressive.

Roger

[Alex]

I'm hearing prints cost $1,500-$2,000 a piece...or the equivalent of one sold out house.

-Alex

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ulrichsd:
[B] "I would guess that production companies stopped useing 70mm in favor of 35mm for cost reasons."


(Matt Pacini responds):
They haven't stopped using it. Many projects are shot in 65mm (the film neg is 65mm, the extra 5mm are to accommodate the sound track on the release print), it's just that if you research it, you always come across these "grand old widescreen epics" like Lawrence of Arabia, & others that really are classic uses of the format.
Many modern films have used it (certainly not a majority) even films you wouldn't associate with huge epic pictures, like "Stealing Beauty".
It's also used heavily in FX work, where they shoot the plates to be composited together on 65mm, so it will hold up after they get through digitizing it and screwing around with it, so it doesn't look different in grain structure, contrast, etc. like FX pictures of old (Star Wars, for instance).
Also, your friendly neighborhood theater almost certainly is screening a 70mm film every once in a while, though not too often. Haven't you heard the ads "in 70mm dolby sound" blah blah blah....?
And Imax, like Roger said, uses it, but they flop the film over 90 degrees, and shoot horizontally, getting MUCH more image on the film (lots more area too), for a truly spectacular, miniscule grain extravaganza of moviegoing experience! (Say THAT five times fast!).
So no, it hasn't gone out of style, it's just pretty damn expensive to shoot with!

Some directors with a track record of generating big selling movies can demand it and get the studio to pay for it, because they want to please the director, which is why we won't see digital projection any time in the near future: most high profile directors from Spielberg to the loathsome Tarrantino, are anti-digital (take THAT Roger!!!! har har!).

Matt Pacini


------------------

[technicolour]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:

I think the 70mm prints were also popular because they could fit either more optical sound tracks or more reliable optical sound tracks.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

-Alex

I think thats correct, Ive seen referals to a 6 track magnetic soundtrack on some films shot using 70mm film

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------
Jim

[technicolour]

Sorry that was supposed to be a post with a quote but i put what i said inside the quote

Silly me :d

I think thats correct, Ive seen referals to a 6 track magnetic soundtrack on some films shot using 70mm film

------------------
Jim

[8th Man]

My understanding is that back during the days of the old studio system when the studios all owned their own theater chains, they all had their own version of a large format whether it was vistavision or cinerama or whatever. When that collapsed I guess thats when the conformed to something that independent theater chains could show.
Also I was under the impression that Far and Away was shot in 70mm and that was why it was such a big deal and why some of my friends wish they'd seen it in the theater like the re-release of Vertigo shot large and shone large a few years ago.
BTW, speaking of Imax , or 15 perf 70mm, I think it would be interesting to see an Imax documentary that has clips of footage originally shot in super8 on a screen that size. Grain the size of my apartment.

------------------
PRM

[MovieStuff]

Magnetic tracks on 70mm haven't been used in quite a while. IMAX originally used reel to reel sound tracks that ran in synch with the film, as IMAX has no sound track. After the success of the first Jurrasic Park movie, virtually all the 70mm aspheric and 35mm anamorphic prints go out with their sound tracks on a set of CDs that run in synch with the movie projector using a special synchronizer. The film has a timecode track for that purpose and also has a normal soundtrack that is used if shown in some podunk town or in an emergency if the CDs fail for some reason. But most blockbuster movies go out to the big stadium theaters using CD sound, these days.

"Far and Away" promoted 65mm, but I believe in American Cinematographer they revealed it was shot on 35mm anamorphic and blown up to 70mm for release. I know when I saw it, I thought the grain didn't look like it was shot in 65mm at all. Looked like all the other movies playing next door to me!

Also, the big boys like Spielberg and Lucas aren't against digital projection at all. In fact Lucas is basically funding the conversion process single handedly! Spielberg and the rest of the big guns are against standardization of the HD television format prematurely. They feel that congress caved in to pressure from manufacturers' groups that wanted something decided now to facilitate production.

Spielberg and friends feel that we are only a few years away from being able to discard the NTSC standard that has been used since the 50's, which has interlacing as the heart of it's function. They favor non-interlaced progressive scan technology which is not resolution dependent. As the technology gets better the resolution would too.

Current HD tv transmission is interlaced and resolution dependent and, once locked in by FCC standards, will be subject to compliance with the same non-obsolesion laws that saddled us with NTSC interlaced television for more than 50 years, even though there is no reason for interlacing at all anymore, other than to let people with cheap TVs receive the transmission as well.

Roger



[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 29, 2001).]

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by technicolour:
Sorry that was supposed to be a post with a quote but i put what i said inside the quote

Silly me :d

I think thats correct, Ive seen referals to a 6 track magnetic soundtrack on some films shot using 70mm film
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might mean 6 track "optical" sound.

-Alex



------------------