|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Why were/are 70mm releases shot on 65mm film?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 01-01-2013 06:17 PM
quote: Leo Enticknap
Given that mag tracks are now a thing of the past, theoretically you could now print on 65mm too. That would mean redesigning projector gates, though.
The Philips DP-70 was originally designed to handle 65 mm film in addition to 35 mm and 70 mm. I'm pretty sure that the reel of mute Todd-AO test footage screened at Bradford a few years ago was actually on 65 mm stock.
I believe that all of the wide film formats from the 1929-30 era used the same gauge of film for both negatives and prints, and that Todd-AO was unique in using different gauges. Both 65 mm and 70 mm formats, as well as several others, existed during this earlier period.
Is it possible that Todd-AO was originally intended to use separate magnetic sound, as Cinerama did and Cinemascope was originally intended to, and was originally designed as a purely 65 mm format, and the 70 mm composite print format was only introduced after the original Todd-AO cameras had already been built (strictly speaking I believe converted from old wide film cameras) for the new 65 mm format?
Also interesting is the fact that 65 mm negative, and presumably intermediate, stocks do not use the Bell & Howell perforations as are used on such stocks in 35 mm except in Russia. Was this because B&H perforations were thought incapable of withstanding the faster pull-down required for a 5-perf frame at 30 fps?
quote: Lyle Romer
I know the 70mm size was needed for the magnetic sound (not sure why it is needed for IMAX) but why not just shoot with 70mm film? Is 65mm film actually manufactured that way from the start or do they just cut 5mm off of 70mm?
Lyle, Remember when IMAX was introduced, originally for use at Expo-70. At this time 70 mm prints were widely used, and 70 mm print stock would have been readily available as a standard item, and the labs set up to handle it, whereas 65 mm print stock would have had to be specially made, which would not have been worthwhile for the small amounts of print stock being used for IMAX compared to normal 5-perf 70 mm prints at that time. The 65 mm machines would have been set up to produce short-pitch perforations, which would not be suitable for print stock.
Also, having the perforations further in from the edge may have made the film stronger. Were the original IMAX prints on triacetate stock? I assume that they were, but polyester was available, and was used by Fuji Single-8, and Ferrania Super-8 for example, but I don't think was generally used for 35 and 70 mm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-03-2013 10:57 AM
quote: Stephen Furley
I believe that all of the wide film formats from the 1929-30 era used the same gauge of film for both negatives and prints...
The same gauge, yes, but not the same size or positioning of the perforations. Fox Grandeur had a four-perf pulldown, slightly bigger perfs and which were closer to the edge of the film (can't give you the chapter and verse - it'll be in Belton's Widescreen Cinema - but I have seen a strip of Grandeur and Todd-AO 70mm prints side by side), and a variable density optical track in the extra space.
quote: Jock Blakely
In the following years up until around 1940 serious discussion was devoted to a total changeover to KS perfs for all uses, but obviously nobody wanted to pay for it.
It figures: the cost of converting a few hundred cameras and printers is one thing, but at that time there must have been close on a million 35mm theatre projectors in use worldwide, if not more.
As far as Fox holes go, it kinda makes sense if you're dealing with new stock and sprocket teeth in good condition: the tighter corners and smaller surface area make for a tighter fit and more contact between the edges of the perforation and the sprocket tooth.
The problem we now have is one that didn't enter anyone's thinking from the '20s to the '50s - long-term shrinkage of nitrate and acetate film. A certain amount of shrinkage happened during initial processing (especially high speed processing in hot chemical baths), but it wasn't really until the '70s that archivists first started to measure long-term shrinkage systematically. That of course leaves us with a big problem trying to project many Fox hole prints today.
And if polyester film had been around from the very beginning, KS perfs would probably never have needed to be invented.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Marini
Film Handler
Posts: 27
From: issue maryland/ USA
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 02-18-2013 12:39 PM
Posted: Sat., Dec. 8, 2012, 4:00am PT
Masterful use of 65mm on 'Master'
Eye on the Oscars: The Cinematographer
By DAVID HEURING
Romanian-born cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr. used digital formats to shoot "Youth Without Youth," "Tetro," and "Twixt Now and Sunrise" for Francis Ford Coppola. But his latest, Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master," used 65 mm film and a completely photochemical post path.
Malaimare says he wanted to evoke the crispness and shallow depth of field characteristic of iconic post-war still photography, which was often captured with large format 4x5 Speed Graphic still cameras and sharp lenses.
The 65 mm format is generally used for sweeping landscape dramas (see Ron Fricke's "Samsara") but here the power of the larger negative is often focused on the contours of the human face, especially that of Joaquin Phoenix, who plays a neurotic vet who forms an unlikely, intimate bond with a charismatic cult leader (Philip Seymour Hoffman).
About 15% of the picture was done in standard 35 mm, including scenes done in tight quarters or with multiple cameras. Malaimare chose a range of exotic lenses, in part to smooth over the differences in the two formats. Initially, the filmmakers planned to use the bigger negative for only 20% of the film.
"As we were looking at dailies, we saw that every 65 mm shot was so amazing," Malaimare says. "After a week or two of shooting, we switched, and ended up shooting something like 85% of the movie on five-perf 65 mm."
He chose to shoot extensively on slower, fine grain film stock. There was no digital intermediate.
"Paul really believes in the photochemical process," Malaimare says. "It delivers better quality. By using the large, low-speed negative, not using any filters and using these very sharp lenses, you get extremely high-image quality -- and you don't want to ruin that with a scanner. In certain scenes, we recreated a colorful, Kodachrome look, and for ideas on how to shoot on board boats, we looked at 'The Black Stallion' (1979, directed by Carroll Ballard and shot by Caleb Deschanel). We copied some shots directly from that film."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic