From the full page Cinerama/Neon ad in the latest "The Big Reel", I excerpt:
"What would we do if we could sell stock? With $50K, we could continue showing Cinerama every 3rd weekend of the month."
"With $700K, we could restore and show all 7 titles made in 3-projector" (This seems astoundingly low to me, especially if you're talking a "Bob Harris-style" of restoration, which I assume the're not.)
"With $4 Mil. we could buy an old Sears bldg. downtown and build a permanent Wide-Screen & Cinerama museum, showing Cinerama every day of the year, and 70mm, 3-D, silent, foreign.....have a cafe for film buffs......constant festivals year round......"
Well. I've pretty much convinced myself that to make this revival a solid moneymaker and to realize any form of these plans, they've got to take this baby on the road, to major destination cities, i.e. New York and L. A., at least. Very, very difficult. But impossible? Quoting the most intriguing paragraph in the ad:
"If we can take it on the road next year it will cost $250,000 per city to do it for 2 months. We are not selling any equipment or film but may work with others to do fundraisers for other cinemas if our costs are covered up front."
Wow!! Does that $250K figure include the necessary modifications to a theater, or not? (Rhetorical question.) Could "fundraisers for other cinemas" mean an historic theater in need of renovation? Or a defunct movie palace, with an interest group just waiting for something like this with which to launch a rescue? Or, dare we dream, an ex-Cinerama palace or Super Cinerama theater?
>From the full page Cinerama/Neon ad in the latest "The Big Reel", I excerpt:
>"What would we do if we could sell stock? With $50K, we could continue >showing Cinerama every 3rd weekend of the month."
>"With $700K, we could restore and show all 7 titles made in 3-projector" >(This seems astoundingly low to me, especially if you're talking a "Bob >Harris-style" of restoration, which I assume the're not.)
OK, then, suppose cost weren't a major issue; what would it take (in the way of time, money, and manpower) to do a complete and full restoration of even one of the Cinerama films in order to preserve top-quality film and sound elements for the next hundred years? Presumably, it would be well over the million-doller figure per feature, but I'd be interested in more specific breakdowns of costs and procedures. Presumably this would entail putting the original negatives into top shape, replacing missing or damaged sections with the best available elements, and then making 3-strip ESTAR y/c/m separations, and, likely, many other tasks.
-- Scott Norwood: snorw...@nyx.net, snorw...@redballoon.net, sen...@mail.wm.edu Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/ Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
>OK, then, suppose cost weren't a major issue; what would it take (in the >way of time, money, and manpower) to do a complete and full restoration >of even one of the Cinerama films in order to preserve top-quality film >and sound elements for the next hundred years? Presumably, it would be >well over the million-doller figure per feature, but I'd be interested >in more specific breakdowns of costs and procedures. Presumably this >would entail putting the original negatives into top shape, replacing >missing or damaged sections with the best available elements, and then >making 3-strip ESTAR y/c/m separations, and, likely, many other tasks.
Right. That's how I would describe a "Robert Harris-style" restoration. And from what I've heard, a million bucks per feature is about right. From what I've gathered, it seems Mr. Harris spends a lot of time and energy just researching and finding the various film elements of the films he's restored. John Harvey is a huge plus here, as he probably knows where 95% of the Cinerama elements are. At $100K per feature, they're probably just talking about a reprint from the camera negatives. Still, that would be a good start on a package of films that they could take on the road and raise funds with.
The elements of the three camera Cinerama films are apparently in fine shape. They don't require a restoration ala LOA or SPARTACUS. What they need are newly struck prints! When I went to the New Neon a year ago, they said the cost would be about $100,000 per picture....if they strike multiple prints per picture, then economies of scale cut in.
>From the full page Cinerama/Neon ad in the latest "The Big Reel", I excerpt:
>"What would we do if we could sell stock? With $50K, we could continue >showing Cinerama every 3rd weekend of the month."
>"With $700K, we could restore and show all 7 titles made in 3-projector" >(This seems astoundingly low to me, especially if you're talking a "Bob >Harris-style" of restoration, which I assume the're not.)
>"With $4 Mil. we could buy an old Sears bldg. downtown and build a >permanent Wide-Screen & Cinerama museum, showing Cinerama every day of the >year, and 70mm, 3-D, silent, foreign.....have a cafe for film >buffs......constant festivals year round......"
>Well. I've pretty much convinced myself that to make this revival a solid >moneymaker and to realize any form of these plans, they've got to take this >baby on the road, to major destination cities, i.e. New York and L. A., at >least. Very, very difficult. But impossible? Quoting the most intriguing >paragraph in the ad:
>"If we can take it on the road next year it will cost $250,000 per city to >do it for 2 months. We are not selling any equipment or film but may work >with others to do fundraisers for other cinemas if our costs are covered up >front."
>Wow!! Does that $250K figure include the necessary modifications to a >theater, or not? (Rhetorical question.) Could "fundraisers for other >cinemas" mean an historic theater in need of renovation? Or a defunct movie >palace, with an interest group just waiting for something like this with >which to launch a rescue? Or, dare we dream, an ex-Cinerama palace or Super >Cinerama theater?
>Don't wake me up. This is a good one!! >Mike Kraus
>OK, then, suppose cost weren't a major issue; what would it take (in the >way of time, money, and manpower) to do a complete and full restoration >of even one of the Cinerama films in order to preserve top-quality film >and sound elements for the next hundred years?
As there is no agreed standard as how to preserve a motion picture, you've got a lot of variables to deal with. Each lab has their own favored way of dealing with restoration. The only way to generate a meaningful estimate would be to coordinate the restoration with a specific lab, or build your own lab and follow your own guidelines.
>Presumably, it would be >well over the million-doller figure per feature, but I'd be interested >in more specific breakdowns of costs and procedures. Presumably this >would entail putting the original negatives into top shape, replacing >missing or damaged sections with the best available elements, and then >making 3-strip ESTAR y/c/m separations, and, likely, many other tasks.
Color separations on B&W stock is rapidly loosing support in the archive community for a number of reasons; the biggest being grain problems and dimensional problems. Even with a ESTAR-based stock, the grain always comes back to be a problem.
It appears the latest way of thinking is to produce your preservation masters on the latest generation of low-fade stocks and place them in dark, near-freezing, long-term storage.
I'm a huge B&W fan, but even I know that the grain structure of modern b&w stocks (HA!, the formulas haven't changed in YEARS!) won't cut the grain problem. Do a CYM sep. master and your resulting recombined dupe neg could possibly look like a Lumiere Autochrome.
One way of doing it is:
1. Inspect and repair all of the original negatives and existing prints available. Carefully log damaged areas and generate a preliminary patch-log of alternate footage.
2. Strike color interpositives of the orginal negatives and dupe negative sections of the prints to be used as patch footage. Use a wet-gate, total immersion, continuous contact printer for the above to minimize scratches and abrasions.
3. Now, strike a work print from the original negatives and the dupe neg sections; use these to choose the best material and assemble the check-print out of these elements.
4. Once satisfied with the physical state of the chosen material, strike color interpositive sections from the dupe neg patch sections and assemble the new color interpositive and strike a dupe negative from that.
5. Time the new dupe neg and pull-off a check print. If all is well, strike an archival color interpositive from the dupe neg.
6. As far as the sound is concerned; you'll have to record each track onto some medium for comparison, editing and remastering onto multi-track 35mm mag. In any event, I would suggest you keep firm control over the transfers and avoid those techs who want to "tweak-it-up a bit". IMHO, commercial, digital "Sound Restoration" services tend to ruin a soundtrack by removing all the higher-end harmonics in an attempt to get rid of hiss. Do yourself a favor and find an old sound engineer who is a mag expert and avoid the digital realm.
Assuming that the original is Eastman color neg, you're going to have color fade; so you'll have to decide how you are going to handle that. The above proceedure assumes that the negative is not so far gone as to preclude color-correction via normal timing methods. If the Yellow record on the original negative is almost gone; you have to take another route.
The May 1997 issue of the SMPTE Journal has an article by Peter Kuban (Star Wars, VCE, etc) outlining the "RCI" process of color restoration, entirely within the photo-chemical realm, that he used to restore atomic bomb blast footage for his film, "Trinity & Beyond". You have to take the film several generations to effect the correction, but it seems to be a "do-able" process for a small lab (with one glaring exception when it comes to Cinerama; more later); not like digital restoration, which is far beyond the reach of a low-budget restoration.
Assuming you have a printable negative, the basic process goes like this: take the original neg and strike both a LAD (Laboratory Aim Density) Color Interpositive and a B&W autopositive or reversal print. No attempt is made to correct color when striking the LAD C.I., as he claims this is counter-productive at this point.
Setting this aside for the moment...
The autopositive is of very low density and is used to reconstitute the blue image record; theory being that the autopositive (5360 Kodak Direct MP processed in D-97) stock is sensitive only to the green and blue light (ortho) of the NEGATIVE being copied , and when combined with the original negative in an optical printer, creates a witholding matte for the cyan (red) and magenta (green) colors of the original negative; allowing the blue (yellow) light to pass through the clear areas. The above combination is optically printed to a short-pitched (B&H .1866), pin-registered, color print stock copy.
This "yellow" mask is recombined on a two-head optical printer with the LAD interpositive to create the new internegative.
According to Kuban, the real tricky part of the RCI process is determining the optimum density of the yellow mask on a scene-by-scene basis. Color correction of the blue record in the original negative is in direct relation to the density of the autopositive (how much cyan and magenta is subtracted) to the over-all color balance of the scene.
Mess-up here, and you have to go back to generate a new autopositive, new yellow mask and strike a new internegative. This could be very costly.
One serious drawback to this process is the extra contrast that optical printing introduces with each generation, but that would have to be accepted.
Now all of this is fine and good, but you now have the problem of locating a 2-head optical printer with a 6-perf pulldown to composite your elements. Anyone know it the original Cinerama equipment survives? Or, was there EVER a Cinerama optical printer?
Cost?
You cannot make any reasonable judgement-calls on that until you know if an optical printer exists that can work in the native 6-perf 35mm format of Cinerama. If not, you may have to work with 65mm or a Vistavision printer.
The most cost-effective means would be to find a way to avoid optical printing at-all; stick to 35mm continuous-contact printing that does not require a specific frameline and gives the added benefit of lower-contrast build-up per each generation.
: As there is no agreed standard as how to preserve a motion picture, : you've got a lot of variables to deal with. Each lab has their own : favored way of dealing with restoration. The only way to generate a : meaningful estimate would be to coordinate the restoration with a : specific lab, or build your own lab and follow your own guidelines.
: >Presumably, it would be : >well over the million-doller figure per feature, but I'd be interested : >in more specific breakdowns of costs and procedures. Presumably this : >would entail putting the original negatives into top shape, replacing : >missing or damaged sections with the best available elements, and then : >making 3-strip ESTAR y/c/m separations, and, likely, many other tasks.
: Color separations on B&W stock is rapidly loosing support in the : archive community for a number of reasons; the biggest being grain : problems and dimensional problems. Even with a ESTAR-based stock, the : grain always comes back to be a problem.
: It appears the latest way of thinking is to produce your preservation : masters on the latest generation of low-fade stocks and place them in : dark, near-freezing, long-term storage.
--
I did some work for the now defunct Entertec Cinerama restoration project. One of the things I looked at was attempting to do significant parts of it in the digital domain. A full restoration today, using current technology, say Kodak Cineon or Quantel Domino, would have come out at at well over $10M per Cinerama feature. Custom software would have been necessary to deal with Cinerama's unusual format. Not really economically viable. There seemed to be no real problem with getting the original material into the digital domain. The sticking point was with finding a 6-perf capable film recorder. Figures of around $70,000 ~ $150,000 are for a straight reprint with varying degrees of colour grading (timing)/ wet gate options etc.
I have not inspected the negatives personally, so I can only comment on what I have been told and Bradford's print of "This Is Cinerama" which was struck from the original neg. in 1993. So far as I know the Cinerama Inc. negs are in reasonably good condition. Ditto the MGM/Cinerama negs at Turner. If Bradford's TIC is anything to go by reprinting will need careful grading (timing) but it is most certainly do-able.
As part of my PhD research into computer aided film restoration, I have been investigating a mathematical colour fading model developed at the University of Basel, Switzerland. This employs a linear bleach equation with twelve coefficients that describe how the cyan, magenta and yellow dyes have faded and their inter-relationships (for example, one layer masking another). In the Swiss research they used controlled, accelerated fading to test the model. In a real restoration you need to find those twelve numbers when you just have the faded film in front of you and do not necessarily know the precise fading conditions. There are some interesting possibilities, but I'm still working on it.
Something else considered was completing Wentworth Fling's work on the 16-perf horizontal Cinerama camera (Super Cinerama proper, if you like). While it is probably not too useful today as an originating medium it would be quite useful for long term archiving of Cinerama. By copying the three-strip images onto a single piece of film, you effectively avoid future differential shrinkage problems. It probably also makes it easier to strike 70mm and 35mm anamorphic prints for special purposes, documentaries etc.
Mark R. Baldock wrote: > Something else considered was completing Wentworth Fling's work > on the 16-perf horizontal Cinerama camera (Super Cinerama proper, if you > like). While it is probably not too useful today as an originating medium > it would be quite useful for long term archiving of Cinerama. By copying > the three-strip images onto a single piece of film, you effectively > avoid future differential shrinkage problems. It probably also makes > it easier to strike 70mm and 35mm anamorphic prints for special > purposes, documentaries etc.
Why not just print the three frames across the lower portion of an IMAX frame? Sure there would be some wasted frame area but much easier and less expensive than devising an entirely new format. A print made in this format could play the OMNIMAX ("IMAX DOME") venues in a fairly good imitation of Cinerama, too.
: Why not just print the three frames across the lower portion of an : IMAX frame? Sure there would be some wasted frame area but much easier : and less expensive than devising an entirely new format. A print : made in this format could play the OMNIMAX ("IMAX DOME") venues in : a fairly good imitation of Cinerama, too.
--
Filmed in Cinerama, presented in OMNIMAX. Hmmmm.... Yes, I guess that would be a way to practically generate the kind of market necessary to support a full restoration.
: Do you know if Entertec still plans to do a theme park in Orlando? Thanks.
--
I have been requested by the Information Officer at Entertec Development Corporation to point out that while they are no longer continuing a Cinerama restoration project themselves, the concurrent plans for the theme park are, in their words,
"VERY MUCH alive and well and in full development in the U.S."
I look forward, with interest, to future announcements from Entertec about the project.
>>Now all of this is fine and good, but you now have the problem of >>locating a 2-head optical printer with a 6-perf pulldown to composite >>your elements. Anyone know it the original Cinerama equipment >>survives? Or, was there EVER a Cinerama optical printer?
>I'm probably full of poop here, but don't most optical printers have >interchangable movements in them? Pin-registered "Bell & Howell" movements? >I've read that you could get these in various "sizes" to compensate for >film shrinkage. Could not one of these be modified for Cinerama 6-perf? >Just asking. >Mike Kraus
Wouldn't there have had to be some type of 6-perf optical printer in order to produce the 65mm neg -> 3-strip/6-perf positive required for certain sections of HTWWW? Or is there some other method for converting between the two essentially incompatible formats?
-- Scott Norwood: snorw...@nyx.net, snorw...@redballoon.net, sen...@mail.wm.edu Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/ Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
In article <3411dd4e.21871...@news.infinet.com>, fwy...@infinet.com (Frank
Wylie) writes: >Now all of this is fine and good, but you now have the problem of >locating a 2-head optical printer with a 6-perf pulldown to composite >your elements. Anyone know it the original Cinerama equipment >survives? Or, was there EVER a Cinerama optical printer?
I'm probably full of poop here, but don't most optical printers have interchangable movements in them? Pin-registered "Bell & Howell" movements? I've read that you could get these in various "sizes" to compensate for film shrinkage. Could not one of these be modified for Cinerama 6-perf? Just asking. Mike Kraus
> >>Now all of this is fine and good, but you now have the problem of
> Wouldn't there have had to be some type of 6-perf optical printer in order > to produce the 65mm neg -> 3-strip/6-perf positive required for certain > sections of HTWWW? Or is there some other method for converting between > the two essentially incompatible formats?
> -- > Scott Norwood: snorw...@nyx.net, snorw...@redballoon.net, sen...@mail.wm.edu > Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/ > Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
The ASC Manual, 3rd Edition from 1969:
pg. 584
gave the the following aperature information:
CAMERA ASPECT RATIO 2.59 TO 1
Aperature Dimensions for the CAMERA: Width=1.014" runs into perforations Height=1.116"
Aperature Dimensions for the OPTICAL PRINTER: Width=0.996" Special Acme Head 0.985 Height=1.115"
Aperature of Projector Width: Because of vignetting "gigolos" projector aperature width is meaningless. There is no specification. Height=1.088
We know there was at least 1 optical printer for Cinerama. Most likely it was at Technicolor labs. There may bave been a second printer made for the Cinemiracle folks since they went the Eastmancolor route. Just a WAG!
Tiger, in full deminsional stereo.
PS: The Cinerama Theatre in Seattle is currently showing "Contact" in DTS on their huge honkin' screen! Let's hope they remain open for a Harvey/Smith Roadshow.
: We know there was at least 1 optical printer for Cinerama. Most likely : it was at Technicolor labs. There may bave been a second printer made : for the : Cinemiracle folks since they went the Eastmancolor route. Just a WAG!
--
The Cinemiracle printer is briefly described in the Motion Picture Herald, April 12, 1958, page 23:
"In the printer the overlap area is vignetted, or "feathered." This is done by printing a strip, substantially in the width of the overlap, of graduated opacity on the positive film - on the inside of each side-panel print, on both sides of the middle print, with graduation - call it a series of grays, from dark to light proceeding from the perforations inward. The positive runs through a "feathering head" to be exposed to this vignetting image, then continues on to the picture head. The vignetting process involves shifting the feathering image, which is on glass, according to focus of field. This is done automatically from a "cued" punch tape."
I thought I read somewhere that Cinerama Inc. will be restoring (whatever they mean by restoring) the films they have. Has anybody contacted them to confirm this? Where will they show the films? Are they working with John Harvey and friends?
While reading article <19970909212601.RAA22...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, I noticed that rolandr...@aol.com (ROLANDROLA) said the following: >I thought I read somewhere that Cinerama Inc. will be restoring (whatever >they mean by restoring) the films they have. Has anybody contacted them to >confirm this? Where will they show the films? Are they working with John >Harvey and friends?
Pacific Theatres, the current owners of Cinerama, have said they have NO plans to restore the format or any of the films. -- | William Kucharski, Lucent Technologies | The opinions expressed herein | Internet: kucha...@drmail.dr.lucent.com | are MINE alone, and are CERTAINLY | UUCP: You're kidding, right? Ham: N0OKQ | NOT those of Lucent Technologies. | President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club | "Megadittos from Denver, CO"
CINERAMA3 wrote: > I'm probably full of poop here, but don't most optical printers have > interchangable movements in them? Pin-registered "Bell & Howell" movements? > I've read that you could get these in various "sizes" to compensate for > film shrinkage. Could not one of these be modified for Cinerama 6-perf?
Don't know about shrinkage compensation or if it's even needed with the fixed pin registration on a Unit-I shuttle but you're right a 6-perf movement should drop right in. If one doesn't exist anymore it could be built relatively easily by anyone who does that sort of precision machining. They do not appear to be particularly complex. That's the beauty of it, the moving parts do not require the high degree of precision of a regular camera movement.
Steve Kraus <gkr...@SPAMBLOCKgovst.edu> wrote: >Don't know about shrinkage compensation or if it's even needed with >the fixed pin registration on a Unit-I shuttle but you're right >a 6-perf movement should drop right in.
Afraid not. You don't just "drop-in" a 6-perf movement into a hole designed for a 4-perf movement. The Acme and Oxberry printer heads rely on a cam for proper shuttle movement (stroke, etc.).
Most Acme and Oxberry optical printers DO take interchangeable movements, but the cam MUST have a lobe for the format you are shooting! Our Oxberry can do R8, S8, 16mm, 28mm and 35mm (4-perf), but cannot do any extended formats as the cam cannot make a long enough throw. The only reason it can do 28mm is that we had the cam lobe for the 35mm movement seperated from the face of the cam and is adjustable toward and away from the center of rotation.
It would be easier to "bolt-on" a 6-perf head; and while you're at it, bolt on a 6-perf camera, cause they use exactly the same movement. While you're at it, get new lenses, cause the old ones won't cover the proper image area. (think about it; measure that diagonal)
>If one doesn't exist anymore >it could be built relatively easily by anyone who does that sort >of precision machining. They do not appear to be particularly >complex.
The number of machinists who truly understand the movement, have experience working on it, and could make the reproduction with any degree of skill is very small and it shouldn't take, oh, over a year to get it done. We have been waiting for over a year for an adjustable-stroke, 35mm wet gate for an Oxberry.
You do our cine-ancestors a grave injustice by dismissing their work. It didn't take 100 years to perfect film just because people were lazy; it took that long to perfect the movements and the machining processes.
>That's the beauty of it, the moving parts do not require >the high degree of precision of a regular camera movement.
Steve! Wake up! You are REPHOTOGRAPHING the image! You do need a movement at least as steady as a pin registered camera movement. You also need gates that register on the same side as the camera original was registered; i.e., if the camera registered below the gate (as in a Mitchell), the optical printer needs to register ABOVE the frame. If the camera registered above the gate (b&H 2709) then the printer head needs to register BELOW the gate.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'd like to help as much as possible, but PLEASE research the problem before making blanket statements of ease.
Frank Wylie wrote: > Afraid not. You don't just "drop-in" a 6-perf movement into a hole > designed for a 4-perf movement. The Acme and Oxberry printer heads > rely on a cam for proper shuttle movement (stroke, etc.).
Interesting. A friend has a couple of fixed pin movements sitting on the shelf and motion is imparted to them via a rotating shaft. Turn the shaft and the travel pin goes up and down and the film channel moves back and forth. Therefore as the entire mechanism is contained within the enclosed movement (easily held in the palm of one's hand) it was not such an enormous leap to guess that a one designed for 6-perf ought to be able to be dropped in whereever these came out of. I am not a camera or optical printer tech so I don't know how these compare to the movements you are familiar with. Obviously what you've got is quite different from the ones I have seen.
> You do our cine-ancestors a grave injustice by dismissing their work. > It didn't take 100 years to perfect film just because people were > lazy; it took that long to perfect the movements and the machining > processes.
On the contrary. I stand in awe of the fixed pin (2709) movement which as far as I know is unsurpassed in precision some 70 to 80 years after its invention, at least as far as purely mechanical movements are concerned. Someone else will fill us in on the exact year it was introduced but I suspect it was in the 20's perhaps even earlier. That puts it 20-30 years after the dawn of cinema, not 100 as you suggest. That it came along so early and has yet to be suppassed is all the more reason to be in awe of it.
>>That's the beauty of it, the moving parts do not require >>the high degree of precision of a regular camera movement.
> Steve! Wake up! You are REPHOTOGRAPHING the image! You do need a > movement at least as steady as a pin registered camera movement.
Frank! Wake up! You need to REREAD my statement! I didn't say you don't need a precise movement. I stated that the MOVING parts don't need the high degree of precision because the thing that locates the film for exposure, the fixed pins are, as the name implies, FIXED. They must be very precise but are NOT moving parts which is all that my statement addressed. The parts that do move are only concerned with lifting the film off the pins, moving it, and placing it back on the pins. The ultra ultra ultra degree of precision that is needed on a Mitchell or similar type of movement isn't really required. Tolerances there will affect image registration; on a 2709 they do not.
