Christian Appelt

Well, there are some special close focus lenses for rent from Panavision and Hawk/Vantagefilm Panavision Special Purpose Anamorphic lenses www.vantagefilm.com (go to Equipment > Hawk anamorphic > V-Series) Their V-Series 120mm will focus down to 1.5 ft / 42 cm. I assume that renting is not the best solution because your single-frame filming will take some time. I would recommend an 80mm Lomo Square Front lens with a high quality close focus diopter lens. I did some reproduction work (transparent title artwork and paintings) with this setup and was satisfied - but with diopters, stopping down is essential, so better do some tests before to find out at what f-stop the combination lens will give the best resolution. If you already have an excellent spherical lens for your single frame camera, you could also use an anamorphic front element like part of a 80mm SF or a Foton-A adapter. Might be easier to build a perfect mount for a front element than to rebuild your camera. Just my two cents... ;)

There seem to be different versions: My 35mm SF lens will focus down to 1 meter (3.28 ft) and gives sharp pictures even wide open. Never checked the compression factor, but since one hardly uses a 35mm for actor's closeups, I wouldn't have opticed. The 50mm SF will go down to 1.75 meters (5.74 ft), the 80mm to 1.50 meters (4.92 ft).

Yes, the duel scene on top of the castle's tower looks marvelous. And not without danger for the actors, if I recall the set photos from the DVD. I love the pan with the camera looking down when they carry Einar's body away at the end of the scene. Some years ago I chose THE VIKINGS when I had to find a movie for the last show of our local Ultra Panavision ex-MGM theatre. 70mm was not an option any more because of defects in vertical masking mechanism, and the 35mm IB 1.57x our 4-track mag print of AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS had been killed by vinegar syndrome. Unfortunately, I could not get an existing VIKINGS IB print from a private collector in time, so we had to screen a rerelease print from the 1970s that was printed on Agfa stock looking very pale and not really sharp. :( Did you have a chance to look at the original horizontal negative back then? The DVD release has some cloudy artifacts and scratches running horizontal, is it possible that these were printed to the 4-perf interpositive initially?

I just looked into the DVD and did some captures - not very good quality (non-anamorphic NTSC), but they give an impression of Russell Metty's approach. It call to memory his work for Douglas Sirk (WRITTEN ON THE WIND) and Stanley Kubrick (SPARTACUS, especially the "studio exteriors"): © Universal Pictures/GoodTimes Home Video © Universal Pictures/GoodTimes Home Video © Universal Pictures/GoodTimes Home Video © Universal Pictures/GoodTimes Home Video That mixture of realistic locations and almost theatrical sets makes it a bit uneven, but as the script and most characters are a bit off-balance anyway, it doesn't distract me at all. Here is a good text on the movie: Eccentric Cinema: The War Lord More on Russell Metty: Russell Metty Bio

PS: If you liked VIKINGS cinematography, take a look at THE WAR LORD, directed in 1965 by Franklin Schaffner starring Charlton Heston. Not a truly great film, but good action sequences and breathtaking deep focus anamorphic photography from SPARTACUS DP Russell Metty. There are some strange blue screen shots at the beginning (production/retake problems?) and another not too sucessful attempt to create fog by filters, but definitely worth viewing (used to be available on R1 DVD from Good Times Video).

Few people know the film did have an alternative happy ending: ;) BTW, Jack Cardiff used Technirama again for THE LONG SHIPS, but the difficult circumstances of this production did not allow for the beautiful simplicity of THE VIKINGS.

Ah, one of my personal favourites from the 1950s! :) Why is this such a great movie? 1. Cinematography. Jack Cardiff photographed THE RED SHOES and BLACK NARCISSUS, so here's a guy who knows about color. And VIKINGs was filmed in Technirama 8-perf with a 1.5 squeeze lens, the large neg was used to produce Technicolor matrices for standard 2x squeeze 'scope prints. Technicolor 35mm prints of THE VIKINGS were extremely sharp. 2. Cast. Borgnine (born 1917) plays Kirk Douglas' (born 1916) father, Tony Curtis is better than in most of his period pictures, and Janet Leigh, what can I say... ... (quote) "I cannot row, my dress is to tight!" :) 3. Great action sequences. Look at the attack on the castle and the final swordfight, all done on great locations without any CGI or back projection stuff. To me, it's much more fun than watching the new CGI epics with shakycam and superfast cutting, only pretending excitement. They did have some trouble with weather, and the movie was finished on the Bavaria Studio sound stages at Munich, if you look close enough, you will spot some (not very good) painted backdrops in some scenes. The only thing I do not like about VIKINGS is the fog stuff done with heavy diffusion filters, to me it doesn't fit the rest of the movie's photographic style. BTW, the burning arrow ritual at the end of the movie was not meant to be done that way, in the film you see a single archer shooting at the sail, then the other arrows start to fly. They were supposed to go off all at once, but one of the archers had a nervous thumb and so they shot it anyway - I assume they had no backup boat to burn down... ;) Jack Cardiff directed THE LONG SHIPS a few years later, which has some fun moments but is a very uneven film. If you ever catch it, watch for the shots duplicating some VIKING footage, like the guy who blows the large horn...

AIRPORT is an absolute beauty to watch in 70mm. I saw it twice some years ago in a vintage 70mm print with very moderate color fading. Interiors are lit very high hey and seem old fashioned or TV-like to modern viewers, but the night stuff is great. Scenes with Burt Lancaster and Jean Seberg in the car look like the better IMAX stuff I have seen - no grain, with a three-dimensional quality. Technically, the last Todd-AO/SuperPanavision/65mm productions are most impressive, especially RYAN'S DAUGHTER and ICE STATION ZEBRA, much finer grain than the 1950s stuff and breathtaking sharpness. Unfortunately, nothing of that transfers to DVD. The PAL DVD I own definitely was transferred from a 35mm source. But I always enjoy the type of "dramatized industrial film" photography like in ICE STATION ZEBRA and AIRPORT.

Today I saw DEATH PROOF - the "European version" also described as extended version with 127 minutes running time. I thought QT had intended to replicate the look of 1970s exploitation films, but if he tried, he has failed except for the main titles. I thought very high of QTs visual abilities based on his other films, but it seems that without a good DP he is lost in the woods. DEATH PROOF looks just like bad lab work and IMHO captures none of the special visual texture that you find on 1970s low budget films. Maybe the shorter US version has more impact, but this 127 minute cut is definitely the most boring film I have seen for years. People talking boring stuff. Women's feet. More boring stuff. More woman's feet. A bit of action. More boring stuff. More woman's feet. Final action with a strangely cut-off climax. Even Kurt Russell could not save this neverending unfunny picture. About one fourth of the audience left mid-show. If you have not seen DEATH PROOF, better get a DVD of SUPERVIXEN'S (1975), MOTORPSYCHO (1965) or FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL! - films with great cinematography, larger-than-life characters and direction that deliver. But I enjoyed those "lab test ladies" during the end credits! B)

R. Rodriguez' EL MARIACHI was shot in 16mm (CP16 or Bolex?).

Some comments on moviegoers experiencing motion sickness with BOURNE 3: www.film-tech.com > Film Tech Forums > Ground Level > Bourne Ultimatum & motion sickness

Steenbeck and Kem editing tables are the best solution. Make sure you have it serviced by a pro because even with a flatbed, you can damage film. It's important to have the correct tension on both takeup and feed platters. If you can get a small rewind table, even better. Saves a lot of time in rewinding, and don't forget a decent splicer... Of course, you could rent an editing room if one is available in your area.

There were some special telecine projectors using a vacuum pulldown mechanism, but even these had sprockets to transport the film stock continuously. The swiss company of Sondor and MWA used to make 16/35mm prism studio projectors for high speed and sound mixing work. MWA Home BTW, any well-maintained professional 16mm machine will be gentle with your film if you use it correctly. Problems can be expected with the cheaper models of automatic threading portables that sat on the shelf for 20 years and appear on eBay now... ;)

Director Edward Dmytrik wrote that he did some research for actual WW2 footage of ships in storm and heavy sea but could not find anything usable. 16mm color reversal was quite slow and would not allow for shooting in bad weather. I like THE CAINE MUTINY because it has all that fine actors, but as the studio wanted and needed the U.S. Navy's cooperation, it was impossible to get closer to the novel. Herman Wouk's book is a classic and still worth a reading, in the original story the "Caine" is the exact opposite of the clean and well-run ship you see in the movie. :) Oh, and Dmytrik uses many script passages and scenes from CAINE to teach directing and editing in his great book ON FILMMAKING!

IIRC it was shot on 1" open reel PAL video and recorded to 35mm. I cannot find the 1970s article (A.C. or Filmmaker's Newsletter?) where the process was explained.

I think it would be a very good choice. I especially like the look of indoor sets shot with a 50mm scope lens, 40mm may be quite extreme because it will bend the lines as you dolly sideways. I'd love to see a courtroom drama done with deep focus like in INHERIT THE WIND (1960) but shot anamorphic, it would keep the characters connected and create a special tension. Look at (my favourite b&w anamorphic movie ;) ) THE HUSTLER (1961), the players at the billiard tables and the audience around are quite similiar to a courtroom setting. Stopping down to 5.6 would be helpful, personally I do not like to look too much at the focus puller's work (good or bad) on a huge screen. Shooting anamorphic mixes goes well with long shots and moving actors, unless you like to have a shallow DOF like Max described it. If you prefer shallow DOF with lots of focus pulling, I would rather go for spherical, but that's just my personal taste, snails and oyster, you know... ;)

I saw a similiar effect on a student film with 16mm stock that came out of the refridgerator and was not given enough time to warm up to summer exterior temperature.

It depends on the type of anamorphic lenses whether they will make work more difficult. A 25-250 Panavision zoom is quite an extreme example. Unless your director insists on having the variable focal length available all the time, you can use anamorphic prime lenses with reasonable weight and size. (Two days ago, I worked with a director who insisted on doing a handheld shot low level with a Russian anamorphic zoom at f=37mm - he didn't want to wait two minutes to get the 2nd camera with a small and lightweight 35mm lens. When he lay flat on his back, feeling the additional weight of camera + anamorphic zoom + massive support plate, he suddenly knew what I meant... :) ) I believe choice of format really depends on the type of film and visual style the filmmaker strives for. If they want it all handheld, zooming in and out a lot, Super 35 may be a better solution. With filmmakers who like dramatic staging, especially if they plan their compositions well in advance, true anamorphic can be a tremendous tool especially for low budget films. I talked two directors into shooting anamorphic, one of them was convinced by the dynamic look of anamorphic wide angle shots (especially exteriors on 50D stock stopped down to 5.6-8), the other guy found it to be a perfect format for doing long shot coverage with small camera movements and actors moving in depth. I was interesting to me that these guys - both with years of experience in broadcast and industrial films - NEVER changed the zoom lenses focal length during the shots although it was on camera for about 90% of shooting time. Personally, I do not find anamorphics being slower such a problem, today's medium and high speed stocks can help with that. I dislike anything shot under 2.8-4 on a big theater screen because the constant focus pulling strains my eyes and seems unnecessary artificial to me. But that's only personal taste.

I thought LADYKILLERS was quite forgettable, but it had nothing to do with the cinematography. THE HUDSUCKER PROXY is one of my favorite Coen film in terms of photography, a pity it was not that successful.

I don't think A BOUT DE SOUFFLE (Breathless) is overrated. Godard did something new and surprising back then, just read some vintage reviews and discussions when it came out. It's the same with CITIZEN KANE, Welles did a number of quite innovative things with sound (remember, he came from radio shows) and editing. In a way, films like these became a blueprint for the more complex ways of storytelling and visual narrative that we are used to nowadays. KANE is a 67 year old movie, A BOUT DE SOUFFLE approaches the 50 year mark. You cannot expect to find them as revolutionary as they seemed back then. But both are damn good films worth seeing again, not only for their stylistic approach.

TechniScope has been discussed so much on this forum that I thought some people might like to take a look at this eBay auction: Arri TechniScope film gate The description is in German language (auction from Switzerland), it's a TechniScope aperture film gate for Arri IIB/Cs with a 2.35 aspect ratio and a matted ground glass.

Paul, any conversion of anamorphic front adaptors to your existing spherical lens will definitely cost you more than buying a complete Foton-A adapter+zoom lens 37-140mm. Now and then you can find such a lens in OCT-18 mount on eBay or from the known & trustworthy sellers for US$ 750-900. That will give you a decent basic lens and a very good anamorphic adapter - with mechanical coupling for easy focus pulling. Take off the attachment and you can shoot spherical too. You could buy a single Foton-A attachment and use it in front of your existing lens, but then you have to do double focusing - not to everyone's taste... ;)

I saw ZODIAC yesterday (in a 35mm anamorphic projection on a 50 ft. screen). It didn't look better or worse than the usual Super-35 movie after it has been put through DI and mass printing. I noticed some obvious aliasing in a few shots with gridlike or parallel lines (striped tie in police station, aerial shot of a car on a bridge with vertical bannister). It's a well made film, a bit long maybe, but with fine acting and some strong scenes (like the first interrogation of the murderer). Obviously it's a matter of personal taste, but I found that they overdid the green/yellow/orange color scheme a bit. Most 1970s films have more diversity in color, but all in all I found the style fitting for the story. I could not see any reason to do this in digital, but I guess that's for the filmmaker to decide. Not for those who expect a Fincher film to keep them on the edges of their seats...

Peter, indeed the actors' positions do vary a bit, but they all look soft in the top area. That's why I think it must be a lens/camera defect. As for the trees, I feel that definition is better in the middle and bottom part of the frame, so whatever artifacts the anamorphic lens creates, it should have been the same all over the frame. I admit that the problem does not look that bad in these frame grabs (at 720x576 pixels) - but it was more disturbing on the big screen. But hey - it's just a minute in a well done 2 hour film, so I'm not complaining that hard... ;)

****** Sorry for double posting, adding descriptions and © took so long I couldn't edit the original message any more. ****** I did some frame grabs from the PAL DVD (about 1:08 hrs into the movie) to illustrate the strange focus problem. The camera moves back with the group of actors and there is some zooming in. This is where the effect became quite visible on a theatre screen, it could not have been the shallow DOF alone. In motion, the head actors right and left began to move into the blurry top zone Here the difference in resolution between mid-height and top area can be seen best. As they walk on, the lens zooms into the longer focal length... ...and the heads of all three actors move into blurriness. End position, watch the top frame edges and the tree patterns in the upper frame. There is another, much shorter shot in TLOO with a similiar artefact, but I couldn't remember. All frame grabs © 2006 Buena Vista Home Entertainment - Used for eductional and scientific porposes only.