Techniscope

[Leo Anthony Vale]

John's right. Arri 2C, Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9 zoom.

As for primes I'm thinking more like Angenieux, Cooke, or Kinoptik.

But I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the zoom for the entire movie.

 

And of course shot on glorious 5254. 5251 was discontinued in 1968.

 

The Frayling book, I think, mentions also using Mitchells on 'Once upon a time...'

I'm thinking he meant MkII/S35Rs.

 

Now here's a still from 'Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Callivo' showing a BNC! Since the operator is using the side finder, it's probably a rack over, not a BNCR.

 

 

& in the same movie, an Arri 35IIB:

 

 

The Italian door and Italian motor flatbase were made by or for the rental house ATC later ECE.

It also had the TotalScope anamorphics. & the C in the name is H.Chrosciski, who later set up Technovision. The TotalScope and Technovision lenses used Cooke lenses. I'm inclined to think there was a bias toward Cookes.

& the Cooke zooms didn't come out until after 1970.

[Aaron Granat]

Hello experts,

 

I am a grad student in film at UW Madison and I'm currently researching Techniscope; I'm hoping you may be able to help me out.

 

Let me tell you a little bit about my project. First off, it’s a semester paper for a seminar on film stylistics taught by Lea Jacobs and David Bordwell. The seminar centers on the development of stylistic norms, which may often be influenced by technological parameters. My paper concerns a trend in Jean-Luc Godard’s movies best exemplified by his widescreen films of the mid 60s (particularly Made in USA and Two or Three Things I Know About Her). From a very broad perspective, my research may be stated as follows: what kinds of continuities and changes do we see in Godard’s widescreen films and what are some possible explanations? My initial observations lead me to believe that Godard moves towards a sense of pictorial abstraction often intermingling characters, elements of cultural detritus, and brilliant swaths of color within the vast, fragmented, horizontal strip of space. These tendencies also arise in one of his

standard ratio films, A Married Woman, as well, but they seem to reach a new pitch of emphasis in his widescreen cinema. With this in mind, I intend to ask, more specifically, did Godard envision the Scope format as inherently abstract and flat or did the technology enable a preconceived stylistic program?

 

So, in order to carry this out, I’m trying to gather information about Techniscope, the technology he used for his later widescreen films of the 1960s. I’ve found some information about the process, but I’m hoping to dive deeper than general history and broad technical specifications. I want to know the gritty details of shooting with Techniscope; what possibilities did it open up or foreclose? How was it perceived within the industry? My sources stipulate that Techniscope essentially entailed modifications to the pull down mechanism and aperture plates of standard Arriflex and Mitchell 35 mm cameras and that it could accommodate a range of lenses and focal lengths (18mm -300mm) that were unfeasible for contemporary anamorphic lenses. I would like to know more about the actual stylistic consequences of these technological parameters. Although my primary interest concerns Godard’s filmmaking, a nuanced understanding of the technology he used is integral to the success of my research.

 

Any assistance you could provide would be helpful. I will greatly appreciate anything you have to say about Techniscope or suggestions for research or cinematographers / industry personnel to contact.

 

Thanks everybody!

[Rob Vogt]

The problem with Anamorphic was not the focal lengths, 35mm anamorphic is wide enough for most, It would be approximately the same as an 18mm-horizontally, the problems-or stylistic differences- caused by anamorphic were: close focus, typically a slower speed (needing to stop down to get to the sweet spot as well) depth of field, and flaring characteristics (for front anamorphic elements). 'Scope, allows for the use of spherical lenses which are faster (which means you can use less lights), the use of less film so it's cheaper, and you don't have all those other issues to worry about. Obviously Godard didn't have a DI to make his prints so he must have used an optical printer. Also using scope at that time would make the grain of the film significantly more noticeable.

 

I haven't seen anything by Godard so I can't comment really on stylistic choices.

[Bruce Taylor]

The problem with Anamorphic was not the focal lengths, 35mm anamorphic is wide enough for most, It would be approximately the same as an 18mm-horizontally, the problems-or stylistic differences- caused by anamorphic were: close focus, typically a slower speed (needing to stop down to get to the sweet spot as well) depth of field, and flaring characteristics (for front anamorphic elements). 'Scope, allows for the use of spherical lenses which are faster (which means you can use less lights),

 

I think Rob pretty much nailed it down-- though his use of the term "'scope" might be a little confusing. Some people use the term 'scope as shorthand for Cinemascope, or anamorphic. Rob is using it here to describe Techniscope. It is (and was) a way to get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio movie made more cheaply than true anamorphic.

 

Anamorphic 35mm is more expensive to shoot than 4 perf flat widescreen. Techniscope can be cheaper than any 4 perf format. And you get that Cinemascope expanse. You pay for that with grain from the higher magnification of the image. I'm sure you're aware of its Italian origins and the package deals provided by Technicolor to promote the format, Mr. Vale has provided many insights into that part of the history.

 

It's faster and cheaper to shoot Techniscope as opposed to anamorphic, that's really the bottom line. The current interest in anamorphic artifacts (the distortions in bokeh, horizontal flares, etc,) is a retro fascination with faults of the anamorphic system.

 

As far as Godard's filmmaking, you're the expert here. I was never able to sit all the way through one of his films. But since filmmakers of his ilk were usually working with micro budgets, I would think Techniscope as a way to cheaply get the anamorphic aspect ratio might have been his plan.

 

BTW, a 35mm anamorphic WA lens has approximately the same angle of view as an 18mm spherical lens on a Techniscope camera, so there isn't much difference on that front, though very long lenses are hard to find in anamorphic.

 

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

[Aaron Granat]

Raoul Coutard states in an interview that the Techniscope process creates a flat image (in order to mitigate this, he had to use high contrast side lighting). Is your experience and observations, is there anything specific to techniscope that produces flatness?

 

Possible factors that might contribute to a flat look

-the reduced space of exposure effectively doubles the focal length in terms of angle of view

-the optical print blow up intensifies the grain of the image

[Bruce Taylor]

Raoul Coutard states in an interview that the Techniscope process creates a flat image (in order to mitigate this, he had to use high contrast side lighting). Is your experience and observations, is there anything specific to techniscope that produces flatness?

 

Possible factors that might contribute to a flat look

-the reduced space of exposure effectively doubles the focal length in terms of angle of view

-the optical print blow up intensifies the grain of the image

 

I don't get the "flat image" statement. Yes, the grain would be increased, but I don't see how that would "flatten" the image. Anamorphic lenses do have reduced depth of field for the equivalent angle of view of a spherical lens; maybe he was talking about getting focus separation of the subject from the background?

 

The true Techniscope process used the Technicolor dye transfer printing process which actually reduced the perception of grain in the final print. Using standard printing techniques does make the grain in the 2 perf process more apparent than true anamorphic.

 

To answer the question, "In your experience and observations, is there anything specific to techniscope that produces flatness?" it would be no, not in my experience.

 

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

[Paul Bruening]

We've tossed around the idea that Leone used sharp lighting to increase a sense of spectral crispness and definition to compensate for the reduced image size and inherently perceivable graininess of the stocks of the time. I don't recall if the idea reached any conclusiveness from the contributing members. Could that be what you are considering when you mention "flatness"? David Mullen seemed to have the best grasp of the idea and the history of Leone's work. Maybe he can jump-in to your question.

[Thomas James]

James Cameron is a big advocate of the Techniscope format.

[John Sprung]

I don't get the "flat image" statement.

 

Yeah, I'd suspect we have a semantic screwup here. The word "flat" has two meanings: Low contrast, or non-anamorphic. Techniscope is very obviously flat in the second sense, but I see no reason why it would be in the first sense.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[catherine lutes]

I believe that 'Hunger' was shot on 2-perf. Seems like the only way they could get that extremely long conversation in one shot.

[Frank Cook]

Has anyone used an Arriflex BL I converted to 2-perf? What are the strong/weak points of running this camera 2-perf?

[David Giancola]

I have to answer this a lot: TECHNISCOPE IS ALIVE AND VERY WELL IN NEW ENGLAND AT EDGEWOOD STUDIOS. WWW.EDGEWOODSTUDIOS.COM Our equipment and info on the format is on the site if you click on "Production Facilities". We have a converted Cinema Products XR-35 with Video Tap and a ARRI 2C/T That has the lens centered for Vistascope (so you can get that extra area from the sound track if you want. We also have the 2C in a Lightweight Cine 60 Blimp. We have had great luck with the format but I willl tell you that we only rent out to others if our AC's go with the equipment. (Sorry, but too many horror stories with inexperienced filmmakers) Check it out or e-mail me with questions at david@edgewoodstudios.com or (802) 773-0510

 

We have been around since 1987 by zigging when everyone else zags - it is a riot! Be well all -David Giancola

 

 

 

 

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/