Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "Lords of Flatbush" 16mm or 35mm ?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » "Lords of Flatbush" 16mm or 35mm ?

Author

Topic: "Lords of Flatbush" 16mm or 35mm ?

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 03-02-2014 09:33 PM

Just watched this for the umpteenth time.I had always heard that this was shot in 16mm. According to IMDB Technical Specs it says 35mm Negative...Every Print I've seen of it seems pretty Grainy which would support that it may have been 16mm. I think the Movie was remastered Digitally but I have not seen that Version.

I saw the Digital Version of George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" which I know was shot in 16mm and it looked quite impressive...

BTW: Richard Gere was originally cast as CHICO(Perry King)but Stallone and Gere were always arguing on set even coming to blows supposedly; Stallone asked for him to be Fired...Film also took another year after production to be released because of needed finances...

Runtime 1 hr 26 min (86 min)

Sound Mix Mono

Color Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio 1.33 : 1 (negative ratio)

1.85 : 1 (intended ratio)

Laboratory Technicolor

Negative Format 35 mm

Cinematographic Process Spherical

Printed Film Format 35 mm

| IP: Logged

Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-02-2014 09:50 PM

In spite of anything that you may have heard or read, Night of The Living Dead was shot on 35mm with an Arriflex 2c. I'm pretty sure The Lords of Flatbush was 16mm. As I remember handling the film theatrically, it was obviously blown up to 35mm.

| IP: Logged

Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 03-03-2014 12:46 AM

I saw the Movie back in 68 at a local theater and the picture quality was horrible.that doesn't say too much for the ARRIFLEX;
But then again Film Stock and Lab work come into play here also.

Romero Interview talking about 16 & 35

http://www.movingimagesource.us/files/dialogues/2/42571_programs_transcript_html_244.htm

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-03-2014 09:46 AM

John Russo's book, "Making Movies" (Dell, 1989), which offers extensive coverage of Night of the Living Dead, includes the following passages:

quote: John Russo, page 43
We shot Night of the Living Dead with an old-fashioned blimped 35-millimeter Arriflex.

Perhaps some of the 16mm or 35mm confusion stems from the film being reduction-printed to 16mm for editing.

quote: John Russo, pages 156, 202
I have always done my editing in 16-millimeter, even when I've shot in 35-millimeter. It's cheaper to rent 16-millimeter editing, dubbing, and mixing gear than it is to rent the same gear in 35-millimeter, so I edit and mix in 16-millimeter, then conform the 35-millimeter camera original to the edited 16-millimeter work print to make a 35-millimeter answer print....Conforming 16-millimeter to 35-millimeter is a painstaking process but is not too difficult to learn. The first time I did it was with Night of the Living Dead.

| IP: Logged

Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-03-2014 10:37 AM

quote:
I saw the Digital Version of George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" . . . and it looked quite impressive...

I saw the Movie back in 68 at a local theater and the picture quality was horrible.that doesn't say too much for the ARRIFLEX;
But then again Film Stock and Lab work come into play here also.

Thing is, digital transfers of film largely rely on the condition of the source material. So if the digital version of the picture that you saw was "impressive", it follows that the film was adaquatly photographed and processed in the first place, as there is an upper limit to how much can be done with digital restoration techniques to save a badly exposed film. I haven't seen Night of The Living Dead for a few years, but as I recall it was mostly a flatly lit film with some high-contrast scenes that were lacking in shadow detail, but nothing that I would call horrible. I'm going to guess that the issue with the show that you saw in '68 was bad projection, or a poorly made print.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 03-07-2014 02:52 PM

We ran an original 1968 print of Night Of The Living Dead at the Landmark Loews Jersey a few years ago. It actually looked pretty good in regards to both grain and sharpness. Because it was not properly copyrighted, there were a lot of 35mm dupes out there by the mid to late 1970's. Some of the dupes were blow ups from 16mm, and looked it. I've seen a number of 35mm dupes over the years, and none come close to the original 1968 release prints.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.