Andy_Alderslade Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 The full feature of THX 1138 was a film produced through the early Zoetrope studios and his relationship with Franicis Ford Coppola. That along with American Graffiti was more than likely 4 perf 35mm film. American Graffiti was most definetly Techniscope - they talked about it considerably in a documentry on the UK DVD of it that I bought 2 weeks ago. Plus American Graffiti definetly looks like Techniscope. The grain is similiar to two 16mm frames running side by side, far to consistently grainy to be anamorphic and to much DOF too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timHealy Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 American Graffiti was most definetly Techniscope - they talked about it considerably in a documentry on the UK DVD of it that I bought 2 weeks ago. Plus American Graffiti definetly looks like Techniscope. The grain is similiar to two 16mm frames running side by side, far to consistently grainy to be anamorphic and to much DOF too. Sorry Andy I seem to be wrong on both counts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniscope I didn't think either film looked that grainy the last time I saw them. One note. From what I remember Lucas was inspired to make THX the short version by a film called 2187 that was produced by the National Film Board in Canada. I got a chance to see it proabably in 1984 during a trip to Montreal. They showed my group a few films and asked about 2187 and they dug it up. It is a short as well, and from what I recall (it was 23 years ago) you can see the influence. I would love to see it again though tp freshen up my memory. best tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timHealy Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I just emailed the film board to see if 2187 is available. we'll see. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 hi .1 that b/w pic in corridor ,mag looks like 400' mag for arri ST . 2 American Graffiti was 2 perf Tecnniscope , i watched it at flics when it was first released grainy as hell 5254 pushed a couple of stops , didnt matter it was mostly at night , anyway i like grain . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 The 16mm camera may very have been used for the shots shown on the video screens, for certain pieces. It would make perfect sense to shoot some of that on 16mm since cheap telecine to video for TV/news was so common. The AC article mentioned that the TV scren footage was shoot on 16mm, but I think they used NPRs. There was a promo short from the time, 'Bald', which is on the new version DVD: http://imdb.com/title/tt0426949/ http://imdb.com/title/tt0426917/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 I just emailed the film board to see if 2187 is available. we'll see. Tim For $89 USD it is, for institutional use. I'm tempted to buy it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timHealy Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 For $89 USD it is, for institutional use. I'm tempted to buy it Do you have a link or some other contact number? I haven't heard back from them. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Do you have a link or some other contact number? I haven't heard back from them. Tim 21-87 entry on NFB's website Click on "To Order" for institutional use and there you go. Since it's only available for institutional use, could several of us chip-in to buy a copy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 I also just saw the original Electrical Labrynth THX 1138 4EB as well. I'm going "how could such a brilliant mind produce... Willow?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timHealy Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 21-87 entry on NFB's website Click on "To Order" for institutional use and there you go. Since it's only available for institutional use, could several of us chip-in to buy a copy? I searched their website for "2187" and nothing came up. How is one to know you have to type "21-87". Their search function needs some help. Thanks best Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachary Vex Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I own a Cameflex 2-perf camera and I've been curious about the quality of 2-perf, so I purchased the George Lucas Director's Cut of THX 1138. The digital transfer is quite good, but I noticed some artifacts that indicate (by my experience) a flying-spot rather than digital scan. Does anyone know exactly how this particular version of the film was digitized? The grain level is very low, very acceptable. Is this because of the Technicolor process? Would new Kodak stocks give this same level of low grain, or even better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I own a Cameflex 2-perf camera and I've been curious about the quality of 2-perf, so I purchased the George Lucas Director's Cut of THX 1138. The digital transfer is quite good, but I noticed some artifacts that indicate (by my experience) a flying-spot rather than digital scan. Does anyone know exactly how this particular version of the film was digitized? The grain level is very low, very acceptable. Is this because of the Technicolor process? Would new Kodak stocks give this same level of low grain, or even better? The grain is low because of the stocks used, low-speed stocks would be my guess. And likely the newer Kodak stocks would enhance this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 3, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 3, 2007 I believe the transfer went through some sort of grain reduction process, perhaps over at John Lowry's restoration company. It would have been shot on 100 ASA 5254 at the time. 2-perf is not much smaller than modern 4-perf Super-35 when cropped to 2.35, which uses about 2 1/2 perfs out of four for the scope image. So grain would be similar to any modern Super-35 movie cropped to scope, just slightly worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I believe the transfer went through some sort of grain reduction process, perhaps over at John Lowry's restoration company. It would have been shot on 100 ASA 5254 at the time. The original theatrical version was quite grainy. The 5254 was pushed two stops. Except for the limbo prison sequence, it was shot entirely on locations and used natural lighting as much as possible. Since the BART system was under construction they had access to tunnels stations and control rooms. The two principle cinematographers were TV news/ documentary cameramen. Lucas wanted a raw documentary look. They also operated the cameras. Haskell Wexler handled the limbo prison which was at a TV studio in LA. & yes, I was disappointed at how much the grain was cleaned up for the DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted May 3, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 3, 2007 & yes, I was disappointed at how much the grain was cleaned up for the DVD. It's entirely possible that a new digital master could have been created from the original camera negative, thus bypassing any of the optical blowup steps that would tend to exaggerate the grain. Even 2-perf transferred direct to a digital data or HD master can look very clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 3, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 3, 2007 It's entirely possible that a new digital master could have been created from the original camera negative, thus bypassing any of the optical blowup steps that would tend to exaggerate the grain. Even 2-perf transferred direct to a digital data or HD master can look very clean. But 5254 pushed two-stops should be visibly grainy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I saw it in its original release (THX 1138) - I remember liking the look of it. Grainy I guess, well yes but "grain was the old edgy" :D -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted May 4, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 4, 2007 But 5254 pushed two-stops should be visibly grainy. What type of process would most likely have been used to reduce the grain on the digital transfer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 4, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 4, 2007 There are different methods of reducing grain & noise digitally, some more processor-heavy than others. Ordinary grain reducers in some D.I. suites are a bit crude and produce odd artifacts from averaging grain from surrounding frames, creating a "laggy" look to color and detail. But more sophisticated grain reduction programs like the one that John Lowry has over at DTS is apparently very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Am I the only person that likes grain anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachary Vex Posted May 5, 2007 Share Posted May 5, 2007 I recall from the AC article that it was shot with a pair of CM3s in Techniscope format with Nikkors and the Angie Classic 25-250mm... Was the American Cinematographer article published way back in '70 when the film was released, or more recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachary Vex Posted May 5, 2007 Share Posted May 5, 2007 It looks like I was able to answer my own question... "THX-1138," in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), October 1971. Also, "George Lucas: Past, Present, and Future," interview with Ron Magid, in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), February 1997. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted May 5, 2007 Share Posted May 5, 2007 Am I the only person that likes grain anymore? Something I noticed ages ago is that with a consistantly grainy movie, after a short while the grain disappears. Apparently the mind becomes accustomed to it and filters it out. Going to a fine grained scene and back to a grainy scene will cancel this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Well there are granular image textures that do not really appear "grainy" (the former what digital 'lacks' the latter an asset of digital **sometimes** but digital (ideally) has no surface of its own, so I don't know what I'm gonna do instead......I'm starting to think about this tho...) B&W grain easier to tune out somehow as Leo puts it. (In fact in B&W fine grain back to course grain doesn't particularly bother me too much in B&W) -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny N Suleimanagich Posted May 8, 2007 Share Posted May 8, 2007 Am I the only person that likes grain anymore? NO! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now