Has Anyone Shot 16mm Kodachrome 40?

[Alessandro Machi]

It's a good question.  In some ways, the dominence of slide film in advertizing and for magazine publication is just a pre-digital tradition continued on because of the comfort factor. A slide "tells you" exactly how the image is supposed to look; a negative has to be "interpreted."  Also, decades ago, slide film had better sharpness and finer-grain than negative stocks.

 

It's also the stylistic tendency for add art to be very bold and graphic.  Plus they do shoot these photos very carefully so exposure mistakes are rare.  And to some degree, they are lighting and shooting them with publication & magazine printing in mind.

 

Motion picture production simply shoots too many images in too many situations to nail exposures perfectly and always add fill light when needed.  We rely on the exposure range of negative stocks to allow us to use more practical and natural light, more extremes of contrast, etc.

 

But it also has to do with the nature of looking at still images and looking at movies.  We expect movie images to be more natural and realistic in terms of contrast generally (although for stylistic reasons, we may depart from that.)  We expect a realistic amount of shadow and highlight detail.  A still photo can be a lot more graphic in terms of contrast, partially because it is smaller than an image on a big screen. 

 

But the real problem with reversal is just that methods of showing movies, whether digital projection but especially in projected film prints, are either based on the gamma of the neg-to-pos process -- or they need a somewhat "compressed" version of the scene brightness to fit within a more limited range (scanning / video transfers.)

 

I mean, you could scan a piece of reversal digitally and then output back to color negative for printing, with no increase in contrast in the scanning / recording process (essentially create a negative version of the original), but since the gamma of the reversal is very high, making a print (with its own high gamma) of that negative will only increase the contrast beyond what it looked like originally. And you can't really go backwards and scan a reversal and then LOWER the contrast to the level of a negative so that when you record it out to film, it can be printed and end up at a normal gamma -- because you can't add exposure information that was never captured by the reversal original.

 

And we've all seen the contrast problems when using prints for telecine transfer instead of low-contrast elements like neg, IP, or IN. Reversal, having the same gamma as prints, has the same contrast problems in a video transfer.  But beyond that, we seem to prefer to see something on video with a slightly flatter look than it had in the prints.  This may be due to the projection process which has a much higher contrast ratio than a TV set, so even though a shadow is very dark on the big screen, we seem to see into it and catch details.

 

Also, anyone who has done a telecine of a print or reversal original becomes aware of the limitation of making contrast corrections compared to a transfer using a negative. You are very limited by the lack of dynamic range in the print or reversal image. There isn't enough information to do much more than a straight transfer.

 

So to repeat, the problem is simply that the system of distributing movies, whether on home video or in theatrical prints, favors a neg-to-pos system.  Print stock is designed to print negative correctly and video favors the compression of a wider scenic exposure range that happens on a negative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

David, you have gone way out of context with your comments a few posts back.

 

I previously suggested that Reversal 16mm Kodachrome film could be useful 5% percent of the time, and you begin to talk down to me as if I was suggesting Reversal film stocks be used by newbies and by the motion picture industry as a "competitor" to negative film stock.

 

That has nothing to do with the topic!

 

The topic question is who has used 16mm and for what application, and can newer scanning technology now handle the wide contrasty range of Kodachrome 40 better than ever? Of course if the kodachrome 40 film does not pick up subtle tones in shadowy areas neither can the film scanner.

 

However, if one has the option of selecting the composed frame based on what will look best for Kodachrome 40, the look will be stunningly good AND could possibly allow for regular 16mm Kodachrome to look like it was shot on Super-16 or 35mm.

 

In the mid 90's, CBS issued a press release that they did not feel 16mm was of a good enough quality because of grain issues when HD transfers began. I think the view was met with resistance and it turned out the tests were not complete in how they were done. BUT, the point is 16mm and Super-16mm do occasionally have grain issues that come up when transfers are made to video.

 

16mm Kodachrome would not have that issue, everyone would agree with I'm sure. However, the contrast would still be an issue, but not necessarily a reason to NEVER shoot Kodachrome 16mm either, as you seem to be implying.

 

Scanning & telecine technology already can capture all the exposure information on a reversal original or projection-contrast print -- the problem is that there isn't enough information there to work with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh? Of course there is more than enough information, if you don't treat it like it's negative film stock and shoot accordingly.

[David Mullen ASC]

Huh?  Of course there is more than enough information, if you don't treat it like it's negative film stock and shoot accordingly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's HIGHLY debatable. I'm talking about exposure information, not detail. Sure, if you LIGHT it for a video transfer the way that old TV shooters used to do because shows were transferred from prints instead of original negative, but who wants to light movies that way anymore, with a ton of fill light on everything? You should see some behind-the-scenes photos of the old "Star Trek" TV series where they were using dozens of reflectors to fill in the shadows for day exteriors. Kodachrome on a modern telecine is not THAT bad, of course, but with negative and a telecine transfer, you can shoot outdoors with no fill light or just a white card sometimes -- you have much less shadow information when using reversal. With reversal, you really have to watch your key to fill ratios.

 

This is not just my opinion -- just look at the decline in 16mm color reversal over the past thirty years. That should tell you something about the greater practicality of color negative.

 

I'm just trying to explain the reasons why things have gotten to this point. You could poll a hundred working professional cinematographers about the pros and cons of color reversal versus color negative and you'll get mostly a similar explanation about the reasons for color negative's increasing dominance. You asked why they couldn't have used 16mm Kodachrome for parts of the "The Missing" and I told you why that wouldn't have made much sense. If it DID make more sense, they probably would have done it!

[Filip Plesha]

In theory a reversal has the same contrast as a print from the negative, no more, no less, because a print throws away shadow and higlights information anyway, so in the end, in the projector both are the same.

 

In case of Kodachrome this is not true because Kodachromes is a higher contrast film

[Dan Salzmann]

I've used Kodachrome for sequences in very controlled situations and it has a great look.

TC colourists love it (this has been my experience) when it is well exposed.

David points are all sound. Shooting Kodachrome on a shot intensive feature is just too long.

Not to mention delivery time of developed film-though I suppose Spielberg could work something out if necessary.

I truly believe that modern negative stocks can be lit and/or manipulated to achieve the same look.

On the other hand, high speed Ektachrome stocks have a grain structure that seems difficult to imitate but that is something I personally have not had to do.

While I will miss not having Kodachrome as an option, time marches on and we all have a lot of stuff to learn about and adapt to.

[Alessandro Machi]

I've used Kodachrome for sequences in very controlled situations and it has a great look.

TC colourists love it (this has been my experience) when it is well exposed.

David points are all sound. Shooting Kodachrome on a shot intensive feature is just too long.

Not to mention delivery time of developed film-though I suppose Spielberg could work something out if necessary.

I truly believe that modern negative stocks can be lit and/or manipulated to achieve the same look.

On the other hand, high speed Ektachrome stocks have a grain structure that seems difficult to imitate but that is something I personally have not had to do.

While I will miss not having Kodachrome as an option, time marches on and we all have a lot of stuff to learn about and adapt to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm seeing a conundrum here. Reversal film stock has fallen because Negative stocks are easier to shoot AND the improvements in transfer technology are ongoing and what maybe look marginal 10 years ago may look terrific nowadays, but nobody revisits what they may have given up based on 5 or 10 year old tests!

 

I watched a copy of an HD concert tribute to George Harrison of the Beatles and basically what they did with the background was really underlight it AND overcolor it! They can get away with this nowadays because the HD compression, in my opinion, allows for all that color to just sit there and look pretty, rather than turn into hideous video noise if the images were shot as analog (although first generation analog going then remastering to digital may have worked as well). As time marches on, Reversal film should be revisited from time to time to see if it's "look" improves as transfer technology improves.

 

I also am wondering, is lighting flat that much more difficult and cumbersome than not lighting flat? I mean, light Reversal film flat, and it will look terrific, no filming situations ever arise where a flat lighting formula would be rather simple to follow?

[David Mullen ASC]

I also am wondering, is lighting flat that much more difficult and cumbersome than not lighting flat? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just depends -- I've shot features with skip-bleach processing in mind for the prints, meaning I had to compensate for the high-contrast of the printing process when shooting. So I had to use more fill light than looked natural to my eye, but it worked for the most part, but it was definitely more time-consuming because I had to constantly think about where the shadows were falling. Plus, while you can add more fill light, there are times when you can't, like in situations using natural light only or complex camera moves where filling in the subject is near impossible.

 

But the end result of using more light in the shadows is a somewhat stylized look. It would be hard to do a naturalistic western, for example, with everyone wearing cowboy hats shading their faces from the sun, and just let the natural ambience bring out the detail in the shadows. "Into the West", for example, used Fuji's Low Con stock for this very reason.

[John Pytlak RIP]

For those who like the "look" of reversal, try 5285/7285:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.6.4&lc=en

 

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.6.4.8&lc=en

 

Q: Why would I choose this product over a negative stock?

 

A: Ektachrome 100D is another tool cinematographers can use to explore their creativity. The look offered is contrasty and super-saturated right out of the camera, and promotes real vibrancy and edginess in a telecine transfer. The stock can be manipulated in several ways not possible with negatives allowing for new exploration of creative expression.

[A.Oliver]

John, i have used 7285, and too my eye's k40 looked sharper, cheaper to buy, great longevity, superb processing by Switzerland. 7285 colours are too over the top for me. Though the stock does look better in daylight compared to k40. Can you tell me which has the greater resolving power, 7285 or k40, i do not undertstand the mtf curves btw. Thanks

[Sam Wells]

The density range on a projection contrast reversal film can be well over 3.0 (1000:1), whereas the scene density range of a negative (gamma about 0.6) is about 1.3 (200:1).  The lower density range of a negative or master positive is much easier to capture with any scanner technology that exists today.  Likewise, color negative is much more suited for film duplication systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well then it's not exactly accurate to say negative contains more information than (projection contrast) reversal, more like "more information usable by a (current) post production system"

 

I've always thought that 16mm Kodachrome, actually would represent a good "torture test" for a digital scanning, recording, projection chain. Can you - at the end of this chain - project something that is effectively the clone of the Kodachrome original (of course for Kodachrome you could substitute a print stock etc, but given the reversal camera original's direct relationship to the light that hit it, and the fact even that it would be 16mm would make it more interesting - the point of the test would not be to make it easy....)

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

I mean, light Reversal film flat, and it will look terrific,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It could just as easily look flat with pretty color. B&W reversal can look quite flat if lit flat.

 

Perhaps we should be more specific in that I don't think soft lighting = flat lighting when the subject has an interesting tonal range.

 

Again, I think Kodachrome is valuable material but color neg is the Swiss Army knife

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

I've always thought that 16mm Kodachrome, actually would represent a good "torture test" for a digital scanning, recording, projection chain. Can you - at the end of this chain - project something that is effectively the clone of the Kodachrome original

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The trouble is that the gamma of print stock is optimized for the gamma of a negative being printed onto it, and you can't digitally lower the gamma of Kodachrome down to the same level as negative so that once printed, you end up with same gamma as the original Kodachrome. However, certainly a digital intermediate would be a more effective way of converting Kodachrome without adding more contrast into a negative form rather than duping to an IN, in which case you'd definitely get an increase in contrast plus some loss of saturation, more grain, etc. Kodak used a D.I. in order to convert Ektachrome 100D (5285) into a negative for the demo print, and it looks pretty good (saturated, fine grain, etc.) The only problem with using a D.I. is that it brings up the issue as to whether at that point, it would be simpler & cheaper to just shoot neg and color-correct it for that look.

[Filip Plesha]

Perhapse that too is possible.

 

For example:

RA-4 papers are designed for both digital and optical printing, and they pump up the contrast in a similar way cinema print does in order to make a high contrast (view contrast) image out of low contrast negative, yet when you feed the laser recorder with a normal view contrast digital file, it turns out exactly like it is on screen. Which means that the laser is somehow optimized to reduce the contrast of the digital image to level of contrast on negative film, then the paper boosts the contrast back to its original level. So, when you scan negative, you have to convert it into print contrast in order to digitally print it on RA-4. With digital printing on Ra-4 It doesn't matter what your source is: negative,chrome or digital, because the system outputs files as they look in digital format.

 

My point is, if this has been done with high level of precision and accurancy for years with consumer photo printing, it can be done for cinema too.

 

Kodachome would be scanned, and then recorded onto intermediate stock with levels of black and white reduced to low contrast in the laser recording head (or in software)

 

Then, you'd have an intermediate that is printable, the only difference would be that there would be nothing beyond the white point and black point (because there is no printing latitude like in negative film) , and when you printed the film to print stock, the contrast would in theory be similar to original kodachrome contrast.

 

Of course it would take a lot of work to calibrate the system so that it produces prints that are similar to original reversal footage.

[David Mullen ASC]

You also have the problem of a lack of keycode on Kodachrome 16mm, which would make doing a D.I. and scanning selects based on an EDL very difficult. I don't know if the solution would be to use a camera that burns in TC, like Arricode or Aatoncode.

[Sam Wells]

Well in my hypothetical example, it would be digital projection as well.

 

Although, the ability to create a DI and then film print from high contrast elements would be quite valuable.

 

Of course once talking about DI then the source can be a fiction after the fact almost.

 

(Although I'm pretty much convinced an all digital path benefits from film as a model - otherwise it'll run the huge risk of just copying television).

 

-sam

[Alessandro Machi]

Well in my hypothetical example, it would be digital projection as well.

 

Although, the ability to create a DI and then film print from high contrast elements would be quite valuable.

 

Of course once talking about DI then the source can be a fiction after the fact almost.

 

(Although I'm pretty much convinced an all digital path benefits from film as a model - otherwise it'll run the huge risk of just copying television).

 

-sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

In the world of video editing, I learned a long time ago that format jumping could preserve the quality to the point of being indistinguishable from the original. For instance, if someone handed me an S-VHS camera master to edit, I would NEVER edit to another S-VHS tape, but rather I would edit directly to BetaCam SP. By doing clip and black level and color widening techniques, My second generation betacam sp looked better than the original S-VHS camera master.

 

The same could hold true for Kodachrome and what can be done with D.I.'s.

[Robert Hughes]

Your SVHS to Betacam example is not valid when you do video level adjustments, because you can do the same in an SVHS -> SVHS copy and also come out with a more balanced video signal. If you don't do level and color balancing your BSP copy will look no better than the SVHS original, it will merely be less degraded than an SVHS copy.

 

Obviously if your original camera image is properly lit and exposed your copies will transfer more cleanly. And if you use a camera original format that is designed for working through the duplication chain it will also transfer more cleanly; that's why negative film exists. Kodachrome can be finessed to work also, but that's like strapping water wings on a pig and calling it a fish.

[Alessandro Machi]

Your SVHS to Betacam example is not valid when you do video level adjustments, because you can do the same in an SVHS -> SVHS copy and also come out with a more balanced video signal. If you don't do level and color balancing your BSP copy will look no better than the SVHS original, it will merely be less degraded than an SVHS copy.

 

Obviously if your original camera image is properly lit and exposed your copies will transfer more cleanly. And if you use a camera original format that is designed for working through the duplication chain it will also transfer more cleanly; that's why negative film exists. Kodachrome can be finessed to work also, but that's like strapping water wings on a pig and calling it a fish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The second generation S-VHS will suffer too much of a loss in critical areas to be considered "better" than the first generation S-VHS, the second generation may "appear" better at first glance, but I would be able to tell which was first generation and which was second generation, whereas with BetaCam SP as the new mastering format, the S-VHS camera master can literally be "supercharged" with higher contrast and more chroma, even expanding the field of hue, and the supercharging will hold up on Betacam Sp much better than it would if kept on a second generation S-VHS tape.

 

Making a kodachrome to kodachrome copy would be a train wreck waiting to happen and the equivalent of going S-VHS to S-VHS. All the critical highlight points on the wider angle shots will have unnacceptable edging and possible color smearing.

 

I learned certain video correction techniques for industrial grade quality video that NOBODY in my part of LA seemed to follow suit on. I bought the aftermarket higher end lens for my 3-chip camera whereas no one I knew ever did, and I got better results in low light. I bought BetaCam SP mastering decks and learned how to optimize the picture quality from S-VHS originals, nobody else I knew was mastering to BetaCam SP from S-VHS originals. I actually used a waveform and vectorscope and kept them right next to my professional monitors so I could see exactly what was happening on the scopes as I tried different color and video clip combinations. Many I knew didn't have either the professional monitors or the waveform and vectorscope set up.

 

Unless one has done an absolutely phenomenal/complete lighting job, virtually any video camera master can be improved with higher end color correction equipment during post-production. I believe Kodachrome 40 could be further optimized on it's trip to D.I. land beyond what people are giving it credit of being capable of doing, especially if the stock is lit flat, and by avoiding white, backlit skys in the shot.

[David Mullen ASC]

Why are your originals on S-VHS and not something digital? S-VHS is an 18 year-old format. Time to move away from analog mastering...

 

I guess you are talking about S-VHS camcorder footage, not Super-8 transferred to S-VHS. All analog formats suffer from generational loss.

 

---

 

From the Wikipedia:

 

S-VHS has largely disappeared from view, as it has been replaced by DVD for playing prerecorded content, and by the various digital video formats for amateur and semi-professional video production, though it is still used occasionally in community access television and other low-budget situations, where production is often still done on analog equipment due to budget constraints.

 

---

 

Trouble with the argument that K40 looks great if you light for it and avoid hot skies, etc. is that the same thing could be said for digital cinematography, and these caveats are one of the things that people complain about with digital. If I said "24P HD looks great -- if you light for it and avoid bright areas" people are going to say "why should I put up with that restriction if I can afford to shoot Super-16 color negative?"

[Alessandro Machi]

Why are your originals on S-VHS and not something digital? S-VHS is an 18 year-old format. Time to move away from analog mastering... 

 

I guess you are talking about S-VHS camcorder footage, not Super-8 transferred to S-VHS.  All analog formats suffer from generational loss.

 

---

 

From the Wikipedia:

 

S-VHS has largely disappeared from view, as it has been replaced by DVD for playing prerecorded content, and by the various digital video formats for amateur and semi-professional video production, though it is still used occasionally in community access television and other low-budget situations, where production is often still done on analog equipment due to budget constraints.

 

S-VHS did not fully develop until around 1993 when JVC launched it's 22 series. Making it in reality an 11-12 year old format. Not sure why the age matters actually since BetaCam SP is even older.

 

What does matter is the combination of four channel audio, ALL CHANNELS are of broadcast quality, decent video quality, under $10.00 for a 2 hour and 40 minute recording tape, settable S.M.P.T.E time-code and professional XLR audio inputs, plus very responsive contrast reduction tools that allow me to reduce contrast when shooting and pick up black details that many digital cameras see as pure black, then re-expand the contrast in edit. Of course, I restrict S-VHS origination to very long programs that have no budget, yet the final result is basically indistinguishable from newer digital cameras.

 

In my business I do a mix of straight editing jobs, camera interviews, live-event shows and DVD mastering. One of my most challenging annual jobs is videotaping young kids performing on stage. My company has been the company of choice for that particular production since 1996.

My client mentioned to me last year that the video I make of their show has been always been of a better quality than what is done where my client's own kids go to school.

 

As I stated above, aftermarket lens, easy internal camera adjusting parameters, sophisticated and instant color correction capabilities in post, and audio equalization make the format less relevant, as long as high end playback equipment is used and the mastering format is BetaCam SP.

[David Mullen ASC]

Any decent pro digital camcorder will have contrast control tools like gamma and knee functions. Even the consumer DVX100 has different gamma settings and has knee functions in some of them, plus pedestal adjustment. So I don't know where you get the notion that digital cameras (except the cheapest) see less shadow detail. Anyway, ideally you'd get pure black AND shadow detail. Black should be black.

 

All I know is that I've been cutting my reel and my footage on Beta-SP looks worse than the footage on Digi-Beta, even if the Digi-Beta is dubbed down to DVCAM. I'm looking forward to seeing the end of analog tape formats, and then eventually, tape altogether.

[Alessandro Machi]

Any decent pro digital camcorder will have contrast control tools like gamma and knee functions.  Even the consumer DVX100 has different gamma settings and has knee functions in some of them, plus pedestal adjustment. So I don't know where you get the notion that digital cameras (except the cheapest) see less shadow detail.  Anyway, ideally you'd get pure black AND shadow detail.  Black should be black.

 

I don't only shoot S-VHS. I use S-VHS for specific, unique situations. For Opera, the Hi-FI audio is Spectacular. For performances running well over an hour up to 2 hours and 42 minutes, Only one 10.00 tape is needed.

 

Back in the nineties, Many live event videographers would buy a 3-chip S-VHS camera and then not buy any aftermarket upgrades such a lense OR the D.N.R. board that JVC made available on it's editing decks. And of course, by not format jumping to Betacam SP, they really did miss the real potential of the format.

 

All I know is that I've been cutting my reel and my footage on Beta-SP looks worse than the footage on Digi-Beta, even if the Digi-Beta is dubbed down to DVCAM.  I'm looking forward to seeing the end of analog tape formats, and then eventually, tape altogether.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't believe you are having problems with Betacam Sp. I don't source off of UVW betacam decks, rather I use PVW BetaCams for sourcing and then I'll re-master to BetaCam SP UVW's.

 

I always make sure the source tracking is properly set, if manual video playback tracking is not set correctly, one can add the equivalent of several generation losses in one pass! I have direct eye contact with my editing decks when I do demo reels and the "little things" are never an issue. The RF VU meters are critical for knowing what condition the machine and the tape is in.

 

If your footage is E.N.G. you can probably get a better result by reshaping the clip, black levels, and increasing the hue gradiations versus what already exists on the E.N.G. camera original. Betacam Sp, when properly handled, is still slightly better than mini-dv or DV-Cam. It only becomes a problem by the 3rd or 4th generation, but by then, the product should have already reached final mastering status. Recompressing a BetaCam SP signal to 5:1 DV-compression codecs is probably not taking advantage of the full range of the BetaCam SP signal.

 

Part of what makes DV-Cam look "cleaner" but also flatter, is the compression that is being used.

 

Although pound for pound, from a cost analysis, anyone starting out nowadays would be better off with DV-CAM or mini-dv, but for interviews I prefer BetaCam SP. I think it handles the very fine hair highlights better than mini-dv.

 

Analog origination, digital destination.

 

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

 

I have found the Panasonic DVX-100's to be really close in quality to the JVC-KY27B's that were very popular in the mid to late 90's. The JVC-KY27B was close to the quality of the very high end Sony Betacam's but they were a LOT LESS money (like 3-5 times LESS!). The nice thing about the Panasonic 100's is that they are smaller, lighter, less expensive than the E.N.G. cameras, have XLR inputs, settable time-code, control over the image contrast, and a decent onboard microphone.

 

However, I still prefer a BetaCam sp camera for interviews, especially when the BetaCam SP camera is on top of a Sachtler tripod. Lately the compromise I have come up with is a TRV-350 Digital-8 camcorder ALWAYS goes with me on any BetaCam SP or S-VHS shoot I do, even if it is just for B-roll or just in case my main camera has a malfunction.

 

Nowadays I look at the E.N.G. cameras as being used on tripods and for capturing good audio and video, and the smaller digital camcorders for all the mobile, handheld stuff.

[David Mullen ASC]

Compared to many consumer DV cameras, I also prefer using a pro Beta-SP camcorder, but that's due to many other factors than just the recording format, like the size of the CCD, the quality of the manual lens, etc.

 

I'd probably prefer a pro DV camera like the DSR-570 to a Beta-SP camcorder though.

[Sam Wells]

Kodachome would be scanned, and then recorded onto intermediate stock with levels of black and white reduced to low contrast in the laser recording head (or in software)

 

Then, you'd have an intermediate that is printable, the only difference would be that there would be nothing beyond the white point and black point (because there is no printing latitude like in negative film) , and when you printed the film to print stock, the contrast would in theory be similar to original kodachrome contrast.

 

Of course it would take a lot of work to calibrate the system so that it produces prints that are similar to original reversal footage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think this was actually done for the later examples famous Colorama photo-murals in Grand Central Station in NYC in the 80's - the 35mm Kodachrome stills were blown up to 70mm internegs by Laser Color Labs in Florida, and the "murals made from the 70mm IN as I recall. They looked pretty amazing.

 

(An acquaintance of mine shot some of them - he told me he bench tested Leica Summicrons !! - I mean that's being picky :)

 

-Sam

[Filip Plesha]

In case they printed the whole image it wasn't really a blow-up then, since 35mm still fram (or vistavision) has a higher image (about 1mm) than 5-perf 70mm frame.

It would then be a subtle shrink and some matting on the sides

[Sam Wells]

I don't think it was enlarged and "turned sideways" to 5 perf 70 like a 70mm motion picture element.

 

So 24x36 enlarged to whatever the size would be with same aspect ratio on 70mm wide. More like a Vistavision blowup to Iwerks 8/70, right ?

 

-Sam