Techniscope

[Mike Kaminski]

I was reading some old George Lucas interviews from the 70's and discovered that his first two features, THX 1138 and American Graffiti, were shot in the Techniscope format. I had heard about the format before but never quite knew what it was and was delighted to learn that it is a two-perf 35mm format which gives an aspect ration comparable to 2:35. So essentially, its like a widescreen 16mm frame. Is anyone shooting with this format anymore? My understanding is that its been dead for a long time now but it seems like a fantastic format.

[Nathan Milford]

Yeah, the format is actually starting to get some notice. With more afordable 2K DI's come out the format rounds out quite nicely. I know of two features shooting on it now in New York and Aaton will be releasing a 2-perf capable camera soon.

 

I'm working on an article for the new Abel website (up sometime before NAB) and I'm about to shoot a series of widescreen tests.

 

I've shot a little bit with the format myself and it looks just as good as Super35.

 

- nathan

[Mike Kaminski]

Yeah, the format is actually starting to get some notice. With more afordable 2K DI's come out the format rounds out quite nicely. I know of two features shooting on it now in New York and Aaton will be releasing a 2-perf capable camera soon.

 

I'm working on an article for the new Abel website (up sometime before NAB) and I'm about to shoot a series of widescreen tests.

 

I've shot a little bit with the format myself and it looks just as good as Super35.

 

- nathan

 

Thats awesome news. I would LOVE to shoot with this format. Let us all know how the test turn out and when your article is done.

[Matt Petrosky]

I believe Sergio Leone used this format a lot on his famous spaghetti westerns.

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, the format is actually starting to get some notice. With more afordable 2K DI's come out the format rounds out quite nicely. I know of two features shooting on it now in New York and Aaton will be releasing a 2-perf capable camera soon.

 

I'm working on an article for the new Abel website (up sometime before NAB) and I'm about to shoot a series of widescreen tests.

 

I've shot a little bit with the format myself and it looks just as good as Super35.

 

- nathan

 

 

Isn't 2-perf already super 35?

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

The giallo cycle of the early 1970's used this format almost exclusively. Serio Martino, Luciano Ercoli, the list goes on and on. I'm not sure if Argento used it. I'd love nothing more than to own a 2-perf 35mm camera, even MOS. Spherical lenses with 2.66 aspect ratio....Awesome! :wub:

[Mike Kaminski]

Yes, when you think about how great THX 1138 and Good, The Bad and The Ugly look when they were made in the late 60's, imagine how well an image the latest stocks and lenses could produce. I guess the format must have died out once the big-budget studio films took over in the 80's.

[Jonathan Benny]

The giallo cycle of the early 1970's used this format almost exclusively. Serio Martino, Luciano Ercoli, the list goes on and on. I'm not sure if Argento used it. I'd love nothing more than to own a 2-perf 35mm camera, even MOS. Spherical lenses with 2.66 aspect ratio....Awesome! :wub:

 

Guys,

 

Techniscope was a format meant for 2.35 extraction, not 2.66.

 

To obtain a 2.66 extraction one would have to re-center the lens and use the "sound track" area of the negative (something that techniscope originally did not do).

 

Super 35mm 2.35 uses the sound track area, is usually 3 or 4 perf, and has around 20% more negative area for a 2.35 extraction than techniscope.

 

Having said all that, I agree with you: it would be great to actually own a 2-perf camera! A great format that will hopefully make a comeback.

 

JB

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I figured 4-perf 1.33, 2-perf 2.66...I thought they framed for 2.35 to extract, I never thought about recentering the lense...makes sense.

 

 

 

This is a link I found a long time ago. (This page has been up forever.) It has info on the centerline, etc., etc. Fun read... :)

 

History of Techniscope

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Since you more or less have to go through a DI with 2-perf today, there really is no point in NOT having it

super-35 centered and recording a 2.66:1 frame. That way you have some leeway to reframe slightly in telecine for your 2.40:1 extraction.

[Stephen Williams]

Since you more or less have to go through a DI with 2-perf today, there really is no point in NOT having it

super-35 centered and recording a 2.66:1 frame. That way you have some leeway to reframe slightly in telecine for your 2.40:1 extraction.

 

Adam,

 

2 perf is usually shot acadamy centered, as most of the existing 2 perf converted camreas are quite old and may have issues with recentering the lens mount. The only leeway you would have for framing is left and right, in any case. I don't know if any 2 perf (Techniscope) optical printers are set up to handle a S35 original neg.

 

When cameras such as Penelope are available things may change. AFAIK no manafacture will supply a new camera 2 perf today.

 

Stephen

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The giallo cycle of the early 1970's used this format almost exclusively. Serio Martino, Luciano Ercoli, the list goes on and on. I'm not sure if Argento used it.

 

---The first Techniscope feature was 'La Donna dei Faraoni' (1960) with John Drew Barrymore.

 

Cromoscope was Techniscope done at Technostampa, Euroscope was doe at S.P.E.S. lab.

French non-Technicolor Teechniscope was still called Techniscope.

 

---LV

Edited April 19, 2006 by Leo A Vale

[Antti Näyhä]

I'm not sure if Argento used it.

Argento did most (or all) of his 70's work in Techniscope/Cromoscope. The format was really big in Italy at the time.

[bridgett roh]

This system has been used for some time now, where have you all been. The latest kodak in camera magazine has a story on a vampire movie shot on 2 perf from Sweden, Poor Superman a few years back in Canada, The Saughter Rule was also done this way filmed in Montana also some few years back. A company called Multivision 235 from Australia are renting cameras, look them up on the net. I made some inquiries and they have converted arri 4s and moviecam super america's and others. A fair amount of 2 perf movies have been done down there, and it seems to be big with rock clip producers, perfect format.

[Charles Haine]

Ah, the 2-perf conversation comes up again.

 

Anybody know if anyone other than Multivision is renting out this gear? Someone mentioned two movies going in NY right now in the format, are they with privately owned gear, rented out of Australia, or is there finally a rental house in America circulating this stuff?

 

Basically, would love to shoot the format, but can't convinced myself it's worth shipping from a rental house in another continent when there are houses right down the street that can rent me 3-perf that I can go back to if something stops working.

 

Maybe I'm paranoid.

 

chuck

[Nathan Milford]

I'd like to get some 2-perf gear into our rental department before Penelope comes out, but if you private message me I can give you the contact information of two US owners.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Argento did most (or all) of his 70's work in Techniscope/Cromoscope. The format was really big in Italy at the time.

 

Techniscope was invented at Technicolor Rome in 1960.

 

The US patent also decribes a three frame horizontal 16mm process. That version would have entailed building cameras from scratch rather than converting existing cameras.

 

Many 60s peplums used the process, and the westerns which replaced the peplums.

 

It was discotinued in the mid70s. You'll have to modify the above to early 70s.

 

---El Pedante

[Guest fstop]

I remember Harry Oakes asking me about Techniscope in which he shot those Thunderbirds movies. His response to the format seemed to be "what was all that about?". LOL I got the impression that it was never really accepted seriously at least in the UK and USA.

 

This thread got me thinking about Techniscope and it's plagarised variations (including Hammerscope) and I did a google and found this:

 

 

"This is a grey area here because Technicolor started printing non-IB

prints (Eastmancolor) in the mid-60's to help make up the loss of

business from studios wanting "quick and cheap" prints. (They also

got into the 8mm Home Movie processing biz for awhile around this

time.)

 

The Technicolor name on a film in the mid-60's didn't guarantee an IB

print. I think the wording was a clue. "In Technicolor" or "Color by

Technicolor" meant an IB print; "Technicolor" or "Print by

Technicolor" meant an Eastman print made by them.

 

It is fair to say that even though these aren't IB prints, they still

looked fantastic and held their color better due to Technicolor's very

high standards and stringent Quality Control. (But, these too will

have turned quite pink by now.)

 

As for Techniscope, it is important to note that this was an invention

of the Italian branch of Technicolor to have a low cost alternative

for 2.35:1 widescreen photography, and wasn't condoned or approved by

the "main office" in the US because of these quality sacrifices.

That's why it's mostly European films that bear a "Techniscope"

credit.

 

There might be IB tech seps from the UK versions of the Hammer

Techniscope productions, but they are probably incomplete due to

censorship requirements. They are also a generation away from the

camera neg (an optical, no less) so you wouldn't have the resolution

you would want for archiving. And with Techniscope, you need all the

resolution you can get."

 

(from http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/hamme...1?viscount=100)

 

"There is no actual process called "HammerScope", and it certainly

wasn't developed by Hammer. It's just a marketing gimmick U.S.

Columbia (I think it was Columbia) applied to certain Hammer films

they distributed that were shot in CinemaScope using anamorphic lenses

manufactured by neither Panavision or Bausch & Lombe. Warners did the

same thing with their "WarnerScope" and "WarnerColor" tags (which was

plain old Eastmancolor developed by Warner's labs.) It was a way to

get around paying 20th Century-Fox a royalty to use the Bausch & Lombe

lenses and "CinemaScope" name. (Panavision never asked for $$$ to use

their lenses, just credit, but they had not really come to the fore at

this point) Kind of like the way H.G. Lewis used to hype his films as

being in "Blood Color" and the like when *they* were just

Eastmancolor, too.

 

In fact, I'm not sure if the "HammerScope" films are actually 2.35:1

at all. They may be plain vanilla 1.85:1. Kinda like the way Roger

Corman used to say his 1.85:1 films were in "Widescope" or

"WideVision". Which is kinda absurd since by the mid-60's ALL non

CinemaScope (or flat) films were projected in the US at 1.85:1.

 

I'm sure others will be able to clarify things. (Tony? Joe?...)

 

(from http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/hamme...3?viscount=100)

 

Wes Walker talks about it in

an article he has done for LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS called "The Corporate House

of Horror: The Hammer Group of Companies."

"HammerScope, 113 Wardour Street, was a clever label coined and instituted by

James Carreras in 1955 as a trademark following

on from Fox's 1953 arrival, CinemaScope. Certainly none of the British majors

had their own wide-screen processes. Rank preferring

to share VistaVision with Disney following its disastrous Independent Frame

work. 'A Hammer Scope Production" was the

Cinepanoramic banner heralding Exclusive shorts and features from 1955, and

major Hammer pictures from 1957. Developed for James

Carreras by George Humphries Laboratories, the process and equipment itself were

never perfected, though it wa a property and

additional facet to Exclusive/Hammer that could offer as a service to the trade.

In 1961, HammerScope was used on MRS. GIBBON'S

BOYS at ABPC Elstree, though as an old pals gesture to Henry Halstead, allowed

"ByronScope" to be superimposed on the titles.

After 1966 when PanaVision became the norm throughout the Western hemisphere,

Hammer allowed it to revert back to Humphries

Film Laboratories. Humphries at that time had become a Rank Organisation

associate group which later included the CTS Recording

Studios at Wembly, just about finishing off Rank's total hold on world filming."

 

(from http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/hamme...2?viscount=100)

 

"While storage is important, the deterioration of these negatives is

inevitable. While Many Hammer Films were released in Technicolor,

*all* were filmed on woefully unstable Eastmancolor neagative stock.

ALL Eastmancolor fades to red after awhile, it's the nature of the

beast. However, "Horror of Dracula" and the other early Hammer's

actually stand a chance of being in good shape due to the fact that in

order to make Technicolor IB prints, you hade to "convert" the Eastman

negative to the three seperate B/W color records Technicolor needed to

make their prints. So in a vault somewhere probably exists the three

color seps - the most stable and archival form of color motion picture

photography known to exist.

 

However, Hammer's involvement with 20th Century-Fox by the time of

"Dracula, Prince of Darkness", and "Rasputin" assured that DeLuxe Labs

handled the lab work thus sealing those films fate (DeLuxe is agreed

to have been the WORST processing lab on the face of the earth.) No

Technicolor IB prints were made of Hammer's Fox titles. (At least in

the US) Another strike against "DPoD" is it was shot in Techniscope; a

widescreen system that took the normal 35mm frame and "halved" it in

the camera to get it's 2.35:1 ratio. Meaning you just lost 50% of the

real estate you ordinarily would have. So even under ideal conditions

you get a picture that's grainier and softer to begin with.

 

"Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires" was handled by Run Run Shaw's

favorite Hong Kong lab. I remember an interview with Roy Ward Baker

and his DP talking about that. They couldn't understand their methods

or reasons for doing things the way they did. In fact, they were

convinced what the Hong Kong labs were doing was so totally screwed

up, they tried in vain to have UK labs do the work. Ergo, the debacle

of that film's negative.

 

Chip

 

 

>"

 

(from http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/hamme...4?viscount=100)

 

">In fact, I'm not sure if the "HammerScope" films are actually 2.35:1

>at all. They may be plain vanilla 1.85:1. Kinda like the way Roger

>Corman used to say his 1.85:1 films were in "Widescope" or

>"WideVision". Which is kinda absurd since by the mid-60's ALL non

>CinemaScope (or flat) films were projected in the US at 1.85:1.

>

>I'm sure others will be able to clarify things. (Tony? Joe?...)

 

Well, I can assure you that Hammerscope was a real anamorphic system.

I have a 16mm anamorphic print of THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN in my closet

here and it's full scope width. As for whose lenses they used, the

rather unreliable book WIDESCREEN MOVIES by Carr and Hayes is

unhelpful.

--

 

- Joe Kaufman"

[Leo Anthony Vale]

This thread got me thinking about Techniscope and it's plagarised variations (including Hammerscope) and I did a google and found this:

 

"There is no actual process called "HammerScope", and it certainly

wasn't developed by Hammer. It's just a marketing gimmick U.S.

Columbia (I think it was Columbia) applied to certain Hammer films

they distributed that were shot in CinemaScope using anamorphic lenses

manufactured by neither Panavision or Bausch & Lombe.

 

In fact, I'm not sure if the "HammerScope" films are actually 2.35:1

at all. They may be plain vanilla 1.85:1. Kinda like the way Roger

Corman used to say his 1.85:1 films were in "Widescope" or

"WideVision". Which is kinda absurd since by the mid-60's ALL non

CinemaScope (or flat) films were projected in the US at 1.85:1.

 

Wes Walker talks about it in

an article he has done for LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS called "The Corporate House

of Horror: The Hammer Group of Companies."

"HammerScope, 113 Wardour Street, was a clever label coined and instituted by

James Carreras in 1955 as a trademark following

on from Fox's 1953 arrival, CinemaScope. Certainly none of the British majors

had their own wide-screen processes. Rank preferring

to share VistaVision with Disney following its disastrous Independent Frame

work. 'A Hammer Scope Production" was the

Cinepanoramic banner heralding Exclusive shorts and features from 1955, and

major Hammer pictures from 1957.

 

"Well, I can assure you that Hammerscope was a real anamorphic system.

I have a 16mm anamorphic print of THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN in my closet

here and it's full scope width. As for whose lenses they used, the

rather unreliable book WIDESCREEN MOVIES by Carr and Hayes is

unhelpful.

 

---Carr and Hayes' book is a very good source of misinformation.

 

I worked at a lab that kept part of the Columbia/Sony library in its vault.

 

I handled and did repair work on the OCN of the HammerScope "The Scarlet Blade/The Crimson Blade".

It was definately anamorphic.

 

I also had to compare three dupe negative s of the Columbia film "Jeanne Eagels". These were all anamorphic blowups with Megascope logos in the credits and Megascope stamped on the original printing log cards in the cans.

 

The Hammer Megasope movies are all Columbia pictures. So Megascope is a Columbia trade name.

 

I believe there are only two Hammer Techniscope movies; 'Curse of the Mummy's Tomb' and 'Draacula Prince of Darkness'.

 

Time is expiring.. More later

 

---LV

[Vivian Zetetick]

There's a fun comedy-horror movie from Montreal called Graveyard Alive: a Zombie Nurse in Love that was shot on two-perf 35mm. It screened at a horror fest here in RI a few years ago. The B&W cinematography is top notch. The whole thing was shot MOS and post-dubbed, which adds to it's tongue-in-cheek "drive in movie" feel.

 

http://www.graveyardalive.com/

[Leo Anthony Vale]

previously:

 

I handled and did repair work on the OCN of the HammerScope "The Scarlet Blade/The Crimson Blade".

It was definately anamorphic.

 

I also had to compare three dupe negative s of the Columbia film "Jeanne Eagels". These were all anamorphic blowups with Megascope logos in the credits and Megascope stamped on the original printing log cards in the cans.

 

---So Columbia could put the Megascope label on anything they wanted to, while Hammerscope is an actual anamorphic process.

 

What was the actual Hammerscope lens?

 

The 'In 70mm' site claaims it was built by Jan Jacobsen, who also built the MCS-70 65mm cameras and the first Imax cameras.

 

http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1999/57/jan/jacobsen.htm

 

The relevent passage:

 

"In 1954 CinemaScope was introduced. The anamorphic lenses were rare and monopolized by 20th Century Fox. Jan received an invitation to go to London, the center of the European movie industry in those days. Jacobsen developed his own anamorphic lenses. The lenses were used under the names ScaniaScope, HammerScope and many more. The lenses were good and soon the company Arnold & Richter in Munich, Germany invited Jan to work for them. He developed a series of UltraScope anamorphic lenses. Despite some reluctance, Jacobsen also developed a series of wide-angle anamorphic lenses. In those days the anamorphic elements sat in the front of the basic lens. The wider the lens, the more distortion the lens had. Jacobsen´s idea was to put the anamorphic element behind the lens. The wide lens became a success and proved his concept sound. Equally simple was his idea to put the anamorphic element behind an existing zoom lens. This is the way the first anamorphic zoom was developed. The idea was so simple, yet no one before him thought of it."

 

Jacobsen has a very basic USPatent for rear anamorphic which is assigned to Arnold & Richter.

 

Wayne Kinsey in 'Hammer Films: the Bray Stuio Years' says that an unnamed inventor went to see Carreras and gave him an anamorphic prototype in return for Hammer testing the lens.

A frustratingly sketchy story. But seems consistent with the Jacobsen article.

 

There are some production stills in the book with the Hammerscope lens mounted on a camera.

The one which gives the cleanest view of the lens, shows that it looks similar to an Ultrascope attachment which Visual Products had on eBay a few months ago:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Ultrascope-Anamorphic-...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

This further points to the the lens being from Jacobsen.

 

I used to assume it was a Cinepanoramique attachment because there was a Hammer short made by Joseph losey just prior to the first use of the Hammerscope credit.

 

Hopefully this will help disspell the Haze and Carr myth that Hammerscope is not a real anamorphic process.

 

---LV

 

PS the still giving the clear view of the Hammerscope lens is from 'The Abominible Snowman' which was released in the US as a RegalScope picture.

The still is o9f shooting on location in the Pyrennes & the camera is a spring wound Sinclair. No ,problem with batteries not putting out in the cold are having to recharge on a mountain.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Leo A Vale

[James Steven Beverly]

After reading the article a history of techniscope Barca had posted, I began to wonder, how does super 16 measure up in comparison? The article mentioned that, yes, you do save a 25% on film and processing but at the cost of overall image quality and some post problems. What are the cost vs. quality comparison w/ super 16 and super 35? in the end is it better to stick w/ academy 35 or is super 16, 35 techniscope or super 35 the way to go for low budget feature work?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Well, there are no free lunches when it comes to film size. Basically, you pay for resolution. 2-perf is cheaper than 4-perf (obviously), but still twice as expensive as S16. 2-perf also has about twice the negative size compared to that format, so it all works out.

[James Steven Beverly]

How does super 35 compare w/ 35 animorphic cost wise?

[David Mullen ASC]

How does super 35 compare w/ 35 animorphic cost wise?

 

If you're talking about 4-perf Super-35, the stock & processing costs are the same. The anamorphic lenses can be up to three-times more expensive to rent, but so can the state-of-the-art spherical primes, so I suppose the older anamorphics come close to the rental price of the newest spherical primes. Let's say, for a wildly inaccurate figure, that it adds $1500 per week to camera package costs to shoot with a set of anamorphic primes (or $500 more per day). Depends on how many lenses you carry. So for a 4-week show, that may be an additional $6000, unless you are comparing to renting the most expensive spherical lenses, which may be close to the same (rentals for spherical primes for 35mm range anywhere from $20/day to $150/day each depending on the series, etc. Some probably as low as $10/day... Anamorphic lens rentals tend to range from $100 to $150/day for the primes.)

 

There may be a $50 set-up charge for Super-35, but not always. The expense comes in post when you have to blow it up to an anamorphic I.N. for making scope prints. You can do it with an optical printer, where you'd have the normal IP and IN costs plus the charge for optical printing. And EVERY anamorphic internegative you create from the Super-35 IP will have to be an optical. But let's say that a feature-length IP costs you $15,000 and the IN stock and processing another $10,000, plus the optical printing fee another $15,000, so that's like $40,000 just to get a scope IN. With anamorphic, you may still have to budget for an IP and IN for making release prints, but at least you can strike a print off of the original negative with a soundtrack before making the IP and IN.

 

If you do the blow-up digitally, you're talking about a D.I., which could range from $100,000 to $250,000 or more, but you can also factor in that your costs of delivering an HD master for home video (which can cost around $50,000 or more) is mostly covered by the D.I. since it produces a digital master (usually 2K) from which downconversions can be made.

 

Now if you shoot 3-perf Super-35 instead of 4-perf, you save 25% on stock and processing costs, and the cost of making any contact printed items, like an IP. On a feature that was planning on shooting 100,000' or more of stock, you're probably going to save something like $20,000 or more, which can be applied to the D.I. in theory (in practice, it's hard to get a distributor to think that way, since they budget film finishing costs separately from home video mastering costs.)

 

A harder thing to calculate is whether you'll need some bigger lights in order to shoot at a deeper stop on anamorphic lenses. Your typical lighting package would probably cover either a spherical or anamorphic shoot, but a few locations may need some bigger guns to get the stop you want.

 

If you tell a line producer "hey if we spend a little more on anamorphic lenses and a few more lights, and contact print, you'll actually save money over a Super-35 shoot using a D.I. to get to scope!"... it won't go very far because he'll just say "we don't have more money for a D.I. anyway."

 

And the camera assistants get a slight bump in union pay rates for working with anamorphic lenses, some sort of special equipment technician rate.