70mm

[Filip Plesha]

What is going on on the 65/70mm front these years?

Is there anyone out there that uses this format today?

Are there any new films shot on 65mm,documentaries or anything?

And have there been any mainstream cinema films shot entierly in 65mm

from 80's to today?(i mean distributed over the world at 35mm)

 

By the way,i'm not from US so i have never been in

egiptian theater...

Do they screen old films at 70mm when there is print awailable?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, the American Cinemateque at the Egyptian has 70mm festivals. They are starting one right now I think.

 

Unfortunately, no one is shooting much in 5-perf 65mm (Super Panavision.) The last feature was "Hamlet." It's still used occasionally for special effects plate photography - for example, on "The Patriot".

 

15-perf 65mm (IMAX) is still being shot. Disney's "The Young Black Stallion" was shot in 15-perf 65mm but I'm not sure if that is feature-length or not.

 

I'd love to push for shooting in 5-perf 65mm if not for the death of 70mm projection at so many theaters -- I'd have so few places to show the final prints.

[Filip Plesha]

Oh,and what about before hamlet?

what other feature films have been shot on upstraigt 65mm?

[John Pytlak RIP]

There are some great websites and user groups devoted to 65mm/70mm:

 

http://www.in70mm.com/

 

http://www.1570.com

 

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lobby.htm

 

http://www.film-tech.com

 

http://www.cinergetics.com/

 

http://www.redballoon.net/current70mmus.html

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously I was referring to the Kenneth Branagh "Hamlet", not the Zeferelli-Gibson version a few years before that...

 

There was also "Far & Away", "Baraka", and the period scenes in "Little Buddha". Even earlier, the brainstorm sequences in "Brainstorm" (both "Little Buddha" and "Brainstorm" are films that have two "original" negatives, one 65mm master where the 35mm stuff was blown up to 65mm, and one 35mm master where the 65mm stuff was duped down to 35mm.)

 

Also the live-action bookend sequences in "Tron" (the effects were shot in VistaVision.)

 

Before that, you have to go back to the early 1970's, the end of the 65mm-era, with films like "Patton" and "Ryan's Daughter."

 

65mm was used for effects photography on films like "Close Encounters", "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", "Blade Runner", etc. (pretty much anything Doug Trumball's company worked on). Also used for "Contact" and "The Patriot".

 

The original idea was that starting out with a larger negative counteracted the increase in graininess from duping elements in an optical printer. The other advantage was to use spherical lenses compared to (often) the anamorphic lenses being used on the live-action portion. With digital scanning and compositing, the use of large negative formats for efx work has died down, although it's still useful for material that has to be re-sized in post, or again, to avoid using anamorphic lenses if the main production is a scope movie.

[Filip Plesha]

thanx

 

And what about cameras?

the only 5/65mm camera i know off is the arri 765

I have heard that some people mentione some panavision HR or

something like that,but i couldn't find anything on the net about

it.Are those old models or something?

 

And what about 8 perf 65mm?

On some site where all the formats have been explained and all

they mention that a lot of manufacturers make 8/65mm

equipment whereas 5/65mm is outdated standard..

So what manufacturers make 8 perf cameras,or projectors if that is true?

(by the way,isn't that showcase standard with 30fps?)

 

And about the imax...it's pretty impressing,70mm wide frame and 52mm high...

it seems that even if kodak looses its market on mainstream cinema,

it will produce films for imax because i doubt that someome will come

up with 14K projector and data system for real time playing anytime soon.

[David Mullen ASC]

Both Panavision and Arriflex developed new 5-perf 65mm cameras around the time of "Little Buddha". You can rent the Panavision 65mm for less than a 35mm Panaflex Millenium (and much less than a F900 HDCAM). The aspect ratio of 5-perf 65mm is 2.20 : 1.

 

8-perf 65mm has never been used by Hollywood films. It was only developed (by Iwerks Corp. I believe) as a cheaper version of IMAX since both are rather squarish frames. 8-perf is still a vertical format while 15-perf is a horizontal format. I doubt there have been any sync-sound self-blimped 8-perf 65mm cameras (there aren't any silent 15-perf cameras either -- IMAX productions generally have to loop the dialogue.) But there are modern, quiet sync-sound 5-perf 65mm cameras.

 

There are also no quiet, sync-sound 8-perf 35mm (VistaVision) cameras in existence since the format was invented in the 1950's before self-blimped cameras existed, and any new VistaVision cameras built since then have only been for efx photography. This is why, for efx plates, "Contact" used VistaVision for MOS shots and Steadicam moves but 5-perf 65mm for dialogue scenes.

 

There was also a prototype 12-perf 35mm camera built, since 8-perf 35mm only gives you a 1.50 : 1 aspect ratio in Full Aperture. 12-perf 35mm gives you a 2.35 aspect ratio and ends up being a bigger frame than 5-perf 65mm. But the fact that VistaVision is not as widescreen as been used as an advantage for 2.35 movies, since they can add vertical movement in post or resize the image in post. For example, the stop-motion mine car chase in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was shot in VistaVision (actually with a normal 8-perf 35mm Nikon) and when the shots were composited to 4-perf 3mm anamorphic, which required that they crop the VistaVision frame from 1.50 to 2.35, ILM used the extra space to add a fake camera shake and bounciness to make the stop-motion footage look handheld.

[Filip Plesha]

I never saw the 65mm camera,on any of the panavision sites,

or catalogues..

What is the model called?I'm really currious about this camera...

 

By the way,i've heard about IMAX starting to distribute hollywood

mainstream film in their imax format...

Attack of the clones,both new matrixes,and they promise to

release more new films in IMAX...

I've allso heard about their interpolation digital process

where they convert 4K files to 8K (of course imax is far better than 8k,

but that is current technological limit) which i am a bit sceptical

about (but never mind,at least they can sharpen and reduce grain)

and now since i have never seen a projection like that,i wonder

do they put for example,a scope film in the middle of the frame letterboxed,

or they do a pan scan and project it to the whole screen?

[Kevin Zanit]

They call it the PFX System 65. I have seen it once when I was in Woodland Hills a month ago.

 

It rents for $2472 a week, $824 a day.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[David Mullen ASC]

The digital blow-ups to IMAX of Hollywood films have used a mix of aspect ratios. IMAX is 1.33 : 1, but "Apollo 13" (shot in Super-35 and released in 2.35 scope) was letterboxed to about 1.66 : 1 on the IMAX print, with the black border at the top of the print, up where nobody really looks (eyeline for IMAX movies is below-center with a lot of excess headroom.) "Attack of the Clones" was also matted to about 1.66 on the print - it was shot in 1.78 HDCAM but unfortunately letterboxed during post to 2.35, so a lot of the master had to be panned & scanned for IMAX. Supposedly for the next "Star Wars" film they are going to create a full-frame 16:9 master just in case they have to go out to IMAX again.

 

"The Matrix" sequels however were letterboxed to their scope compositions (although shot in Super-35.)

 

It's a shame that 5-perf 70mm projection has died out -- maybe someone will spend the movie to digitally blow-up some 65mm movies like "2001" to IMAX (letterboxed of course.)

[Filip Plesha]

By the way...all this camera talk has kind of reminded me of something...

On some old films from late 70's (like Star Wars)

i've seem a really odd looking panaflex...it aint regular gold,or gold 2

but is it perhaps the original first generation panaflex?

(i have never heen how the original panaflex looks like)

 

Here is the picture of it:

(this is from shooting of Alien):

 

[Mitch Gross]

That's an old PanaStar reflex 200. It had a shutter that could open to 200 degrees to let in another 1/10th a stop in light. It was huge and heavy and generally used for studio-shot TV work, although it obviously made its way onto other sets, apparently including Alien.

[Max Jacoby]

That's a Panavision R200. I have used it a couple of times. Handheld is out of the question...

 

Last time I was at Arri Munich, walking through their storage rooms, I came accross the 65mm aisle. I couldn't help my self and had to have a peak at the 765. Just the body of that camera is sooo heavy. But I'd love to shoot on it.

 

Max

[David Mullen ASC]

That camera was the last generation from Panavision before the Panaflex was introduced in 1973 but was used through the 1980's (probably someone out there is still using it.) Basically a copy of the self-blimped Mitchell BNCR, with a fixed viewfinder.

[Filip Plesha]

mr. Mullen...

 

I have checked the number of 70mm theaters in US.

There is a website that kept a list of all reported 70mm theaters

with details (which screen is 70mm,is it THX etc.)

I have counted how many there are,and there are 342 cinemas,

some of them have more 70mm screens...i have not checked

every theater,but some have like 3 70mm screens...

Most of them did not screen for years,but they have the equipment.

I think if 70mm prints were offered to those cinemas they would

clean the dust of those old projectors.

 

these reports have been going for years (i have even seen some

reports from mr. Pytlak) so maybe some of those cinemas sold

the equipment or were closed...so if not all are still capable,at least

300 have to be..

 

I think if you want to shoot 65mm 300 cinemas (times number of screens in some multi 70mm screen theaters) is a good excuse...

it would be distributd in scope everywhere and in 70mm where available..

And you get a great negative that would look better than anamorphic 35 in any standard be it video,digital cinema,or 35 scope.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the problem is less the lack of projectors but the lack of qualified projectionists, since most theaters use a platter system and probably don't want to bring in someone to run a 70mm showing. I'm sure that I could find enough though for a small release in L.A. and NYC. The American Cinemateque (The Egyptian) and the Cinerama Dome, for example.

 

The trouble is that distributors rent to theater CHAINS, so they might not make a deal with Pacific Theaters, for example, who own the Cinerama Dome. So if some studio bought your film and then told you that all the exhibitors who are paying to rent the prints only want a 35mm print, it gets hard to make a case for 70mm.

[Filip Plesha]

Yea i see...

well tuff situation..

 

Anyway,it still would be more of pleasure to work with 65mm,

specially if you are working in DI (i think even spirit can telecine 65mm film right?)

then you can use any scannable negative format...

[Leon Rodriguez]

Last week I saw Clint Eastwood's Mystic River at the IMAX theater in San Antonio. I know it was shot in 35mm but my question is: Does a 35mm print get upres-ed to a larger print for viewing on such a large screen? If so how do they do it? Or is it just optically stretched at the projector?. The print was pristine and it looked fabulous. My third time to see it. Wonderful film.

[Mitch Gross]

It is possible to optically print the anamorphic 35mm negative (or anything else for that matter) up to IMAX or standard 5-perf 70mm, but this is expensive especially for a single print. You most likely saw a standard 35mm anamorphic print.

 

Before the days of digital projection and digital sound, major theatrical releases from the sixties into the eighties used to take an anamorphic 35mm film and release it to a few theaters in 5-perf 70mm prints.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the record might have been "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", which had something like 200 70mm prints made. I might be thinking of another movie though.

 

The real expense wasn't just the blow-up, it was the mag striping on each print.

 

35mm blow-ups to 70mm were popular until digital sound on 35mm prints came along in the early-mid 1990's, because it allowed you to have 6 tracks of sound. Now you can get 6 to 8 on these digital formats like Sony SDDS.

 

After that, 70mm was pretty much killed off -- "Titanic" was the last major film to get 70mm prints made in any number, and that's only because Cameron insisted on it and told Fox that he'd pay for the blow-up himself if they wouldn't. He said they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing to a 70mm release.

 

A few 5-perf 70mm prints were released with digital sound tracks, the restoration of "Vertigo" being the most famous. But "Hamlet" had mag striped prints.

 

The sad thing is that, regardless of the sound, 70mm prints are still the best way to project a 35mm image onto a really big theater screen. You're really pushing it with the postage stamp sized 35mm print frame...

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Any of you boys want a cheap entry into 70mm, this is what I found on my last ebay scout...

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...0&category=4691

 

Wow, 2 1/4" square format cinematography :o

 

Probaby could get someone to modify the pulldown claw and motor to do 5 perf, and I'm sure 65mm shortends are cheap as hell - who the heck ever buys them??

 

:D

 

- G.

[Christian Appelt]

...and don't forget to file down the claws, because AFAIK these cameras use film with KS standard perf (square hole) instead of BH negative perforations. That conversion should be a nice project for those long winter nights... ;)

[Jon Kukla]

Got some interesting news from Arri about the 765's:

 

Only ten were made. One of them was immediately designated to be cannibalized for parts as the need arose. Another is more or less scrapped since an incident in the UK around 2000 or 2001 which seriously damaged some of the machined parts involving the movement block; Arri keeps this one, but has had no good reason to work on it given the low demand. So essentially there are eight usable Arri 765 cameras, all of which spend almost all their time gathering dust at Arri Munich. Oh well.

 

I did manage to get to see the manual, but it was more or less the equivalent of the "quick guides" which you can sometimes download for 35mm models on the website - but hand-typed and with relatively simple diagrams. Must've been written around 1989 or so.

 

Any other news from the nascent 65/70 front?

[Patrick Neary]

Hi All-

 

this is probably more of an aside, but a few years ago a friend of mine was putting together a short (in LA) and someone he works with offered up a bunch of 65mm stock that had been leftover from The Patriot (a big pile of cans sitting in someone's office). What we discovered was that we could shoot dirt cheap, free stock and chee-ee-eep camera rental from Panavision, but as soon as you took the film to the lab, you'd better be bringing along three or four dumptrucks full of cash. The project fell apart for other reasons, but it was kind of a fun option to explore.