How do I know what's "really" 15/70?
Daniel P. B. Smith
OMNI Theatre" (Omnimax) and seeing movies that appear to be mostly
conventional footage. I'm not talking about flat versus dome, I'm
talking about films in which most of the footage seems to have been made
with conventional film at conventional focal lengths and is just being
shown big, bright, and blurry...
If I schlep into Boston I want to see a film that mostly 15/70. So, I've
got a few days off and thought I'd take in an IMAX film and thought, OK,
this time I'll check with the IMAX site first.
There are three movies showing currently at the Mugar OMNI theatre:
"Mysteries of Egypt," "Everest," and "Olympic Glory."
To my surprise, NONE of them is listed on the www.imax.com site as an
IMAX film. (Although the Mugar OMNI is listed as an "IMAX theatre.")
Does this mean that NONE of them is really an IMAX film? Surely Everest
was made by McGillivray Freeman...
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
current email address: dpbs...@bellatlantic.net
"Lifetime forwarding address:" dpbs...@alum.mit.edu
Joachim Wesner
>
> I recently complained about going to the Boston Museum of Science "Mugar
> OMNI Theatre" (Omnimax) and seeing movies that appear to be mostly
> conventional footage. I'm not talking about flat versus dome, I'm
> talking about films in which most of the footage seems to have been made
> with conventional film at conventional focal lengths and is just being
> shown big, bright, and blurry...
>
> If I schlep into Boston I want to see a film that mostly 15/70. So, I've
> got a few days off and thought I'd take in an IMAX film and thought, OK,
> this time I'll check with the IMAX site first.
>
> There are three movies showing currently at the Mugar OMNI theatre:
> "Mysteries of Egypt," "Everest," and "Olympic Glory."
>
> To my surprise, NONE of them is listed on the www.imax.com site as an
> IMAX film. (Although the Mugar OMNI is listed as an "IMAX theatre.")
>
> Does this mean that NONE of them is really an IMAX film? Surely Everest
> was made by McGillivray Freeman...
>
Huh ??? Even if I am too a big sceptic regarding which (small ?) part of
a typical IMAX feature is really state-of-the-art 15/70, this sounds
pretty strange. Yet, you seem to be right, I checked the IMAX site, too.
The explanation probably lurks in the following passage from their site
>>> There are more than 140 15/70 films, with more than 40 of these
>>> distributed by Imax Corporation.
AND, if you count the # of films cited on the "now playing" page, it's
just about 40.
So the rest is made/distributed by others, as I heared, sometimes
museums and science foundations made their own 15/70 (but not official
IMAX) movie !? So Every is probably not distributed by IMAX Corp., too.
Could I be right ??
JW
DavidJ...@hotmail.com
"Daniel P. B. Smith" <dpbs...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> I
>
> There are three movies showing currently at the Mugar OMNI theatre:
> "Mysteries of Egypt," "Everest," and "Olympic Glory."
>
> To my surprise, NONE of them is listed on the www.imax.com site as an
> IMAX film. (Although the Mugar OMNI is listed as an "IMAX theatre.")
>
> Does this mean that NONE of them is really an IMAX film? Surely
Everest
> was made by McGillivray Freeman...
>
>
I don't know about the other two, but EVEREST is definetly an IMAX
film. IMAX built a special compact camera called the Mark II that held
five minute magazines just for the arduous trek up the slope. When you
see EVEREST, there'll be no doubt that it's a 15/70 film--it's got some
of the sharpest, smoothest aerials ever shot in a large format.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Daniel P. B. Smith
wrote:
>
> I don't know about the other two, but EVEREST is definetly an IMAX
> film. IMAX built a special compact camera called the Mark II that held
> five minute magazines just for the arduous trek up the slope. When you
> see EVEREST, there'll be no doubt that it's a 15/70 film--it's got some
> of the sharpest, smoothest aerials ever shot in a large format.
I did see _Everest_ a while ago and I agree that it did meet my high
expectations. (Actually I _particularly_ liked the shots of some
climbers training by riding trail bikes in Moab, Utah). But the IMAX
site does not list it as an IMAX film!
I guess it's just like the bad old days of compact disks when you simply
couldn't tell which recordings were digitally recorded and which were
transcribed from analog masters... and couldn't tell how long the disk
was going to play...
David Richards
Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbs...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>There are three movies showing currently at the Mugar OMNI theatre:
>"Mysteries of Egypt," "Everest," and "Olympic Glory."
>
>To my surprise, NONE of them is listed on the www.imax.com site as an
>IMAX film. (Although the Mugar OMNI is listed as an "IMAX theatre.")
>Does this mean that NONE of them is really an IMAX film? Surely Everest
>was made by McGillivray Freeman...
Imax is in the same situation as Panavision -- the word is both a company
name and the name for a film format. In fact, Imax Corp has got to be
careful that it does not become a generic name for 15/70, because it would
then be public domain. When Imax Corp. was the only company producing
material in the format, it didn't much matter. Now, there are many people
producing films in the format, and a couple of people besides Imax providing
production and projection equipment. There are a few theaters owned by Imax
Corp, but most of them are not. They may still be advertised as an "Imax
theater" if the design meets Imax Corp. criteria, has Imax equipment, and
has all the appropriate licensing agreements in place.
There are other large-format theaters that do not have Imax-supplied
equipment, do not have an agreeement with Imax and in fact have nothing to
do with Imax Corp. Whether those theaters are allowed to show "IMAX" films
or not is at the whim of Imax Corp (it's not allowed by current policy,
although some have complained this amounts to restraint of trade, and there
will probably be a lawsuit eventually). Note that the trademark for the
film process is all caps, ie: IMAX
The same situation exists with the films -- for a film to say "filmed in IMAX"
it may or may not have been produced by Imax Corp, but it MUST have been
photographed with Imax equipment. As the market opens up, more and more large
format films are using a mix of production equipment, from Imax as well as
others, and even other formats, like 8/70. Originally, Imax Corp refused to
allow these to be called IMAX films, although I understand they have relented,
and the requirement is now that at least 50% of the film must be shot with
Imax cameras.
None of the films Daniel named were produced by Imax Corp, though the
advertising may say "Filmed in IMAX" (meaning 15/70 format with cameras
supplied by Imax Corp). "Everest" was indeed produced by, and remains the
property of MacGillivray Freeman. I'm pretty sure "Mysteries of Egypt" is
owned by Nova/WGBH Boston (they've since shut down their large-format unit).
"Olympic Glory" is a Kennedy/Marshall production, financed by Home Depot and
a few other companies. I'm not sure who actually owns it, but it isn't
Imax Corp.
Dave
Jack Dunn
"Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote:
>
> I recently complained about going to the Boston Museum of Science "Mugar
> OMNI Theatre" (Omnimax) and seeing movies that appear to be mostly
> conventional footage. I'm not talking about flat versus dome, I'm
> talking about films in which most of the footage seems to have been made
> with conventional film at conventional focal lengths and is just being
> shown big, bright, and blurry...
Well, first of all, films projected in Omnimax (now called "IMAX Dome")
are usually a bit less sharp than what you see on the flat screen. It
has
been discussed elsewhere here that almost no one is actually producing
1570 for the dome any more. There were some films shot originally for
domed projection (such as "Genesis") and some specific Omnimax versions
of films like "Hail Columbia" which included different footage from
their
IMAX - 1570 (flat) versions.
The confusion here, as David Richards points out in his post, is that
IMAX Corporation does not produce all of the 1570 films out there.
Actually, the best 1570 has usually come from outside producers.
"Everest" being a great example (MacGuilvery-Freeman Films). M-F
actually produced much of the good stuff in 1570 such as "To Fly,"
"Flyers," "Speed," and many others. IMAX did produce the space films
with cooperation from NASA. The funny thing was that at first even
NASA didn't let them get much access and when they shot "Hail Columbia"
NASA made them take 16mm footage from their press conference and
wouldn't
let IMAX into it. Later, after the film came out and people saw the
shuttle launch footage, then NASA embraced them and built the twin
theaters
at Kennedy Space Center. At Space Center Houston, IWERKS got the
contract
for their large format theater and shot "To Be An Astronaut" in 870.
It's actually a pretty good film. But IMAX was so embarassed be being
beat out that they actually gave a projection system to SSH. It's one
of the few theaters to have both projection systems. (And the idea of
IMAX giving anything to anyone these days isn't something you'll see
happen
again). IMAX was saddled in the early days with it's institutional
theaters.
Their boards (not being connected to the average public) really wanted
"educational" films. That's how some of the real stinkers of
large-format
film got made. "Weaving Ants," "Mountain Gorrilla," "Tropical
Rainforest"
- these sleep enducers were all put out to appease those who wanted
education. With more and more commercial IMAX theaters, the demand for
films is changing. When IMAX did their 3-D Dinosaur film, it threw
in some great 3-D. But if you see it in 2-D, it reveals a stupid script
and bad acting. The really good stuff is still done by outsiders.
"Thrill Ride," and "Olympic Glory" are good films and use much more
sophisticated
equipment and CGI. They also use footage from a variety of formats that
looks a lot better than the original IMAX features. I slept through
most
of "Genesis" once. And if you saw some of the original IMAX features
(which
are long out of print) you'd really have a laugh. (Rivers of North
America
had this awful pseudo-cowboy music score) Producers and
theater operators are still just learning that just because you have a
big
image - doesn't make for a good film or a lasting experience.
The opening up of the formats with competition between equipment,
more theaters and more independent producers makes for a better
product.
"Olympic Glory," for instance was partly funded by MegaSystems who make
equipment for 870, 1570 and other formats. When I saw it in 870, the
image was
steadier than any IMAX I've seen.
This is not to say that IMAX Corp. isn't trying to catch up with their
films. And they still make a quality projection and sound system. But
there is competition who will sell their products rather than the costly
IMAX leases. And that means more theaters who might have a chance to
make it financially in smaller towns and cities.
>
> If I schlep into Boston I want to see a film that mostly 15/70. So, I've
> got a few days off and thought I'd take in an IMAX film and thought, OK,
> this time I'll check with the IMAX site first.
Wrong move. That only shows you films that are distributed by IMAX
Corp.
It doesn't cover all that's available in the format. If you want a
good listing, go to: MaxImage! Online's links to LF films, producers
and theaters at http://www.cinergetics.com/lflinks.htm
>
> There are three movies showing currently at the Mugar OMNI theatre:
> "Mysteries of Egypt," "Everest," and "Olympic Glory."
MOE is distributed by Destination Cinema, "Everest" by
MacGuilvery-Freeman,
and OG by MegaSystems.
>
>
> Does this mean that NONE of them is really an IMAX film?
It means they are being shown in 1570. But are not owned by IMAX Corp.
for distribution.
Surely Everest
> was made by McGillivray Freeman...
Which is not owned by IMAX Corporation.
>
> --
> Daniel P. B. Smith
> current email address: dpbs...@bellatlantic.net
> "Lifetime forwarding address:" dpbs...@alum.mit.edu
Hope all this helps.
--
Jack Dunn - Mueller Planetarium - Un. of Nebr. State Museum
Bill Kretzel
"Daniel P. B. Smith" (dpbs...@bellatlantic.net) writes:
> I recently complained about going to the Boston Museum of Science "Mugar
> OMNI Theatre" (Omnimax) and seeing movies that appear to be mostly
> conventional footage. I'm not talking about flat versus dome, I'm
> talking about films in which most of the footage seems to have been made
> with conventional film at conventional focal lengths and is just being
> shown big, bright, and blurry...
As I recall, Daniel, your original complaint cited the film "Search for
the Great Sharks", yes?
This may be a special case as it was co-produced with the Japanese firm
Goto Optical, who have/had a 10perf/70mm system - Astrovision - installed
in a number of planetarium-type venues in Japan, and it is possible that
some of the footage in the 15perf/70mm version was shot in the smaller
format. I've never confirmed this, but adding 1 + 1 makes it plausible.
Otherwise, I don't think very much, if anything, has been shot 35mm for
enlargement to the big frame (except possibly use of some brief sequences
incorporating historical footage, that type of thing).
> To my surprise, NONE of them is listed on the www.imax.com site as an
> IMAX film. (Although the Mugar OMNI is listed as an "IMAX theatre.")
Only the films IMAX Corp distributes are hyped on their web site. Check
out the last IMAX Corp annual report - Everest gets PLENTY of space, of
course! (I think the term "branding" is used a couple of dozen times in
the text.)
Bill Kretzel
Jack Dunn (jd...@spacelaser.com) writes:
> IMAX was saddled in the early days with it's institutional theaters.
Now hold on a minute - if IMAX hadn't had this crucial "incubator" base,
it's doubtful the format would have survived through the '70s or '80s (and
this from a planetarium guy!!!)
> Their boards (not being connected to the average public) really wanted
> "educational" films. That's how some of the real stinkers of
> large-format film got made. "Weaving Ants," "Mountain Gorrilla," "Tropical
> Rainforest" - these sleep enducers were all put out to appease those who
> wanted education.
Because these films were not made to reach a broad market doesn't warrant
calling them "stinkers" - and it was through these projects that
filmmakers had an opportunity to cut their teeth in the medium and discover
what worked and what didn't. (And since when did big corporate boards of
directors like those at Disney, etc., get touchy feeling with the average
public; their mission is to make BIG BUCKS; the mission of the (usually
publicly funded) institutions is different and, actually, MORE community
responsive - AND RESPONSIBLE.)
> With more and more commercial IMAX theaters, the demand for
> films is changing. When IMAX did their 3-D Dinosaur film, it threw
> in some great 3-D. But if you see it in 2-D, it reveals a stupid script
> and bad acting. The really good stuff is still done by outsiders.
> "Thrill Ride," and "Olympic Glory" are good films and use much more
> sophisticated equipment and CGI. They also use footage from a variety of
> formats that looks a lot better than the original IMAX features. I slept
> through most of "Genesis" once. And if you saw some of the original IMAX
> features (which are long out of print) you'd really have a laugh.
> (Rivers of North America had this awful pseudo-cowboy music score)
Of course, earlier films such as these didn't have the technological advances
since made to work with - or the theatre base to support recouping a big
production budget. ("Rivers" was released in 1976; "Genesis" in 1978 -
at a time when there were less than a dozen theaters operating.)
I haven't seen "Olympic Glory" (I'm not sure it has played too widely -
only ran for about 9 weeks at the NYC Sony IMAX) - BUT I must admit I
thought "Thrill Ride" was little more than eye candy - not much in the way of
content at all; just a "reel" of motion-simulator-type shots pasted
head-to-tail with some psuedo-science thrown in (so the educational venues
could justify booking it) featuring rather lame scripting and very bad
acting (yes, I realize it has been a very good "performer").
RICHVINCE
>IMAX film.
Keep in mimd that IMAX is a brand name, such as Kleenex. 1570 describes the
film format, and since the copyright has expired on some of IMAX's key
components, there are films out there made with none IMAX equipment.
Kleenex may be a tissue, but not all tissues are Kleenex.
Rich
Mat Overton
> > films is changing. When IMAX did their 3-D Dinosaur film, it threw
> > in some great 3-D. But if you see it in 2-D, it reveals a stupid script
> > and bad acting. The really good stuff is still done by outsiders.
> > "Thrill Ride," and "Olympic Glory" are good films and use much more
> > sophisticated equipment and CGI. They also use footage from a variety of
> > formats that looks a lot better than the original IMAX features. I
slept
> > through most of "Genesis" once. And if you saw some of the original
IMAX
> > features (which are long out of print) you'd really have a laugh.
> > (Rivers of North America had this awful pseudo-cowboy music score)
Hey I just love T-REX back to the Crustacious, it's so wonderfully
corny..... who makes this s**t???
They've obviously not learnt from those past educational films.
If they draughted in people with film making experience and not a few stuffy
executives who decide that the 3D effects come first and the story later,
then they may end up half decent script. Call in the professionals, get
someone like BBC Bristol's wildlife unit to film a 45 min IMAX documentary
with Sir David Attenborough V/O. And while we're at it, isn't it about time
Spielburg did a 3D IMAX "Pinky and the Brian" Animation????? Put the fun and
magic back in IMAX, with better digital sound in some normal cinemas IMAX is
loosing its appeal.
Ben Black
theatres have a golden opportunity. The expanding base of purely
commercial theatres is just the thing to draw in new audiences and
amaze them with well written, ENTERTAINMENT driven films. Films like
"Wings of Courage","L-5 First City In Space", and "Across The Sea of
Time" are a good beginning. 15/70 technology is already as good as you
could want, but people want more than just pretty pictures all the
time. Mr. Overton brings up a great idea when he mentions animation in
15/70- either 2D or 3D. IMAX's proprietary 3D stereo animation system,
SANDIE, could provide producers and studios with the tools to make
outstanding 3D STEREO IMAX movies. I myself think that Warners
Animation or DreamWorks SKG could utilize SANDIE to make great 3D IMAX
films. If IMAX wants to really grow and survive, They need to start
heading more and more in these directions.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jack Dunn
Bill Kretzel wrote:
>
> Jack Dunn (jd...@spacelaser.com) writes:
> > IMAX was saddled in the early days with it's institutional theaters.
>
> Now hold on a minute - if IMAX hadn't had this crucial "incubator" base,
> it's doubtful the format would have survived through the '70s or '80s (and
> this from a planetarium guy!!!)
I'm not responsible either for some of the really bad planetarium shows
done in some of the largest planetarium theaters. The same forces of
elitism drive those sleep-inducers in the same way.
One real problem has been in cases where they tried to combine IMAX dome
and planetarium. The planetarium always loses out. It's an economic
issue. The institutions are driving to make money to pay their leases.
And so they want to run the films as often as possible - which edges
out the planetarium. Also the bean counters figure they have to pay
a staff for the planetarium while they just pay for projectionist for
the movie. Ignoring, of course, the high cost of leasing and running
the films.
Back to the institutional theaters, though. The people who started
IMAX weren't businessmen - they were filmmakers. And they were capable
of making some pretty good material. As usual, it was what got funded
which shaped the educational nature of many of these films. The point
is that there were still good pictures being made. You can watch
"To Fly" on a 13" tv and it's still a good film (true, it doesn't have
the impact, but this is a good test for any of the large format stuff.
Is there a coherent script and is it interesting - or is the whole thing
a gimmick with a big picture).
>
> > Their boards (not being connected to the average public) really wanted
> > "educational" films. That's how some of the real stinkers of
> > large-format film got made. "Weaving Ants," "Mountain Gorrilla," "Tropical
> > Rainforest" - these sleep enducers were all put out to appease those who
> > wanted education.
>
> Because these films were not made to reach a broad market doesn't warrant
> calling them "stinkers"
No they stink on their own. They are outright boring. Ok, now we
watch
a guy climb up a tree for five minutes. Now we watch him climb down for
another five minutes. It's like a bad PBS or BBC documentary.
>- and it was through these projects that
> filmmakers had an opportunity to cut their teeth in the medium and discover
> what worked and what didn't.
So you are saying film makers have to make bad films first to learn to
make good ones? Then why did we have film makers like Greg MacGuilvery
that made good films and seemed to understand the medium from the start?
(And since when did big corporate boards of
> directors like those at Disney, etc., get touchy feeling with the average
> public; their mission is to make BIG BUCKS; the mission of the (usually
> publicly funded) institutions is different and, actually, MORE community
> responsive - AND RESPONSIBLE.)
I've worked in one of those institutions for almost 30 years and have
lots
of friends in Museums across the world. Unfortunately, they are more
out
of touch than even the business world. But there are some of us who
keep
trying to bring them to reality one way or another. We have our
successes.
But altruism doesn't make it a better product or a better film.
>
> > With more and more commercial IMAX theaters, the demand for
> > films is changing.
I think the comments of Overton and others have hit the mark in
saying we need to open up the large format to more and more
creative artists. And generally, I think we are seeing that
happening.
>
> Of course, earlier films such as these didn't have the technological advances
> since made to work with - or the theatre base to support recouping a big
> production budget. ("Rivers" was released in 1976; "Genesis" in 1978 -
> at a time when there were less than a dozen theaters operating.)
They were more of a curiosity. I think the concept of just having
the big image sufficed. What we are seeing now is the demand for
better films in both style and content. One of the big points of
large format is to take the audience into "the experience." But
the experiences they have should have some sense of being interesting.
It might be restful just to sit on a park bench. But I think both
audiences and film producers should want more of an experience than
this. The first computer animated features (not talking Fantasia 2000
here) are being released and I see if the equipment gets in the hands
of a variety of artists we may see some interesting stuff. The large
format story is complicated in that we have equipment makers,
the distribution of the films, and the film makers themselves
all complicating what gets seen in individual theaters. Many
institutional large format theaters have passed on "Fantasia 2000"
just because Disney has put very restrictive presentation requirements
on the theaters and made them charge more for a ticket than usual.
It means I'll have to travel 250 to 500 miles to find a theater showing
it even though I have two IMAX theaters at 50 and 100 miles
from me. But I want to see what the artists have done. If it's
a bomb, I won't go back. The success of Everest, is really good
for the large format medium. Now it will be interesting to see
if IMAX themselves and other people making these films will learn
from it. And yes, I think "Everest" was a very educational film
as well as meeting the requirement to involve the audience in the
experience.
> I haven't seen "Olympic Glory" (I'm not sure it has played too widely -
> only ran for about 9 weeks at the NYC Sony IMAX)
Olympic Glory is good at what it intends to be - a record of athletic
events. But using the large format gives you a closer and more
personal look. It's not a film I'd go to see over and over like
"Everest" or "To Fly," but it was a very enjoyable 30-40 minutes or so.
For someone who is not necessarily a big fan of Olympic sport - it held
my interest, and that was a good test.
>- BUT I must admit I
> thought "Thrill Ride" was little more than eye candy - not much in the way of
> content at all; just a "reel" of motion-simulator-type shots pasted
> head-to-tail with some psuedo-science thrown in (so the educational venues
> could justify booking it) featuring rather lame scripting and very bad
> acting (yes, I realize it has been a very good "performer").
There's not much acting in it. As film, it is more to the "experience"
and maybe it is eye-candy for that. But it uses the medium well. And
that's part of the interest. Large format gives us not a small view
but a large window. Now is there anything interesting in that window?
The science background has been covered in documentaries by the Learning
Channel and Discovery Channel that mirror the film. But producing in
large format gives the participation that tv can't give.
For this type of film, I like to look back to the MacGuilvery-Freeman
film "Speed" (not that stupid thing with a bus and Sandra Bullock).
Loved the film as it used quotes from Einstein. Originally made for
"Autoworld," a theme-park which failed (no surprise there as it was
in Flint, Michigan). They redid the soundtrack with that "Connections"
host and called it "the scientific edition." I preferred the original.
But either way there was "eye-candy" enough for anyone but still the
conveyed the concept of motion in a way which was fun but I felt I
actually learned something.
We need producers and financiers who will back projects that really use
the medium to it's fullest. Undoubtedly, some of the 3-D stuff
is essentially a gimmick. Remember, IMAX started with film makers.
The closer we get to the original creative spirit the better.
Daniel P. B. Smith
> > only ran for about 9 weeks at the NYC Sony IMAX)
> Olympic Glory is good at what it intends to be - a record of athletic
> events. But using the large format gives you a closer and more
> personal look. It's not a film I'd go to see over and over like
> "Everest" or "To Fly," but it was a very enjoyable 30-40 minutes or so.
> For someone who is not necessarily a big fan of Olympic sport - it held
> my interest, and that was a good test.
I just saw it. It was a good film. It held my interest. With regard
to the cinematography, I noticed a couple of things. (I'm strictly a
layperson BTW)
1) 24 fps just will not do. Not for athletics. Every time an athlete
DID something, you could see the image shatter into twenty-four
shards... There were times when I could almost have sworn I could
_count_ the 24 frames in each second. The point-of-view shots from the
bobsled, which you would have expected to be, shall I say cineramatic,
were actually completely charmless--just a chaotic blur that didn't even
convey much of a sense of speed.
2) For me, large format fails whenever the camera is panning or tilting.
The whole charm is when the camera keeps pointing in one steady
direction, preferable a VERY steady direction, preferable a HORIZONTAL
direction, and lets _me_ look around. The _great_ large-format movements
for me are the shots that are rock-solid steady, wide angle, and the
screen and its outline just seem to vanish and you are THERE. (Or when
the camera moves in pure translation, but continues to point in one
steady direction, which is exhilarating.)
3) Although others have said IMAX had its origins as a way of
integrating a multiscreen presentation, I found the times when _Olympic
Glory_ shrunk down to a TV-like rectangle, or broke into multiple
panels, to be quite annoying--almost as if they wanted to remind you
that it was only a movie. The interview with Picabo Street, where you
would have LIKED to have the impression that you were really there,
standing a few feet away, was done in a small rectangle--almost like
"cut to shot of television set playing taped interview with Street."
I couldn't figure out what technology was used, but from the fact that
it was billed as "A Giant Screen Experience" and "The Large-Format Film
of the 1988 Olympics" and from the technical credits, in which a LOT of
items seemed to mention "65 mm" and only one seemed to mention "15
perf," I believe this was NOT either an IMAX film or a 15/70 film...
Bill Kretzel
> integrating a multiscreen presentation, I found the times when _Olympic
> Glory_ shrunk down to a TV-like rectangle, or broke into multiple
> panels, to be quite annoying--almost as if they wanted to remind you
> that it was only a movie. The interview with Picabo Street, where you
> would have LIKED to have the impression that you were really there,
> standing a few feet away, was done in a small rectangle--almost like
> "cut to shot of television set playing taped interview with Street."
Of course, the classic mode of Hollywood expression is to create an
all-enveloping experience which never "gives away" the primary gimmick of
narrative cinema, relying on the willing suspension of disbelief on the
part of the audience (the appeal of this sort of "psychic goosing" of the
spectator goes a long way toward explaining, for example, of phenonmenal
success of a film such as the "The Sixth Sense" this year).
The "problem" with IMAX - and CINERAMA and 3D before it - is that in
striving to be hyper-real the process inevitably calls attention to itself.
It works great as a motion simulator, with landscapes, etc., but when
"characters" are introduced the outsized proportions of things interrupt
the willing suspension of disbelief. Thus, it would seem doubtful that IMAX
will ever be a suitable medium for conventional narrative - CINERAMA and 3D
never really did achieve this either.
The first IMAX film - "Tiger Child" for Osaka Expo 70, and the work at
Montreal Expo 67 before it and in other multi-screen works such as those by
Francis Thompson and Alexander Hammid - used multiple imagery in a poetic
form that actually intended to make the audience somewhat self-conscious -
not to lose themselves in a vicarious psychic reality but rather engage in a
sort of discourse with the images being presented to them. This is still a
very unconventional sort of cinema experience.
Bill Kretzel
> Bill Kretzel wrote:
>> I haven't seen "Olympic Glory" (I'm not sure it has played too widely -
>> only ran for about 9 weeks at the NYC Sony IMAX)
> Olympic Glory is good at what it intends to be - a record of athletic
> events. But using the large format gives you a closer and more
> personal look. It's not a film I'd go to see over and over like
> "Everest" or "To Fly," but it was a very enjoyable 30-40 minutes or so.
> For someone who is not necessarily a big fan of Olympic sport - it held
> my interest, and that was a good test.
Well, Jack, I must admit to being somewhat at a loss to reply to your post, if
only because you (understandably) assert that "good" IMAX films are the ones
you liked, and "bad" films are the ones you didn't like.
Some of those you classify as "stinkers" or "sleep-inducers" were deemed
to have met the goals set for them by the organizations that commissioned them
and do, indeed, have reasonably good lease records.
I personally think one of the best productions was Ron Fricke's "Chronos", but
perhaps you found it to be too static (or whatever) and it wasn't a box
office champ.
I would add that I disagree about your comment that LF gives you a closer
and more personal look. Despite technical advances, LF filmmaking is still
burdensome and, as a result somewhat clumsy looking unless extraordinary
measures are taken to "set up" shots - and this combined with the high
cost involved means there is little spontaneous shooting, and thus rarely
a sense of spontaneity in the final product.
Films such as "Everest" or "To Fly" have an "easy" appeal, I think,
whereas a production that attempts to evoke a more abstract and
wide-ranging concept such as "The Discoverers" (also a MacGillivray
Freeman effort, but one that did not meet with as much acclaim unfortunately)
is a more difficult sell, perhaps, but just as accomplished as most of the
other films that have come to us from Laguna Beach.
David Mullen
>all-enveloping experience which never "gives away" the primary gimmick of
>narrative cinema, relying on the willing suspension of disbelief on the
>part of the audience (the appeal of this sort of "psychic goosing" of the
>spectator goes a long way toward explaining, for example, of phenonmenal
>success of a film such as the "The Sixth Sense" this year).
>The "problem" with IMAX - and CINERAMA and 3D before it - is that in
>striving to be hyper-real the process inevitably calls attention to itself.
>It works great as a motion simulator, with landscapes, etc., but when
>"characters" are introduced the outsized proportions of things interrupt
>the willing suspension of disbelief.
The problem is with audiences, not the formats. Most films in any format
cross back and forth between being immersive / 3D and being more 2D -- a
picture instead of a window. They do this shot-to-shot. When the need
arises, the filmmaker creates a "motion simulator" effect for a certain
shot, then drops it when it isn't needed. Look at any action film.
So when a 65mm film like "Hamlet" comes along, all shot indoors more or
less, and mostly being dialogue, people complain that it isn't "Lawrence of
Arabia". Instead of simply appreciating the improved resolution and colors
and fine-grain, they want something spectacular out of the format; somehow
the film "failed" because it wasn't immersive enough.
So while a narrative feature film could be shot in IMAX or Cinerama, making
up a few new rules or guidelines for the increased size and resolution of
the format, people would get disappointed if it wasn't a rollar-coaster
ride. There's no reason that an Ozu-like film couldn't be shot in IMAX,
with scenes playing out in wide shots that take advantage of the format's
ability to create a strong sense of location, of space -- but general
audiences would get pissed off because the camera wasn't flying off a cliff
now & then.
"How the West Was Won" proved that a Hollywood film could be shot in
Cinerama. It isn't less believable because it was shot in Cinerama. It
uses the format for hyper-immersive moments but also shoots non-spectacular
dialogue scenes in it also -- in those scenes, maybe the format isn't as
needed, it's wasted, but it's not a hinderence for the audience either
(other than making the director's job harder.)
That doesn't mean that all the same cinematic devices would work in super
large formats, but to say that narrative work isn't possible is wrong. A
clever director would figure out how to use the format to tell his story in
the best manner. You're suggesting that a hyper-real image works against
the willing suspension of disbelief, as if the more fuzzy and low-rez and
image is, the more believable it is. I just think that the large format
makes everyone's job harder in that sets have to be better built, etc. --
the normal tricks that rely on 35mm film not seeing too clearly can't be
used anymore -- but that doesn't mean that the format itself can't be used
to tell a story with actors. Yes, the screen size is huge, but that would
probably mean that a close-up isn't as necessary -- as I said, the normal
cinematic devices would have to be altered.
The problem is that audience's bring certain expectations with them when
they go see a large format film. They want a rollar-coaster ride, not a lot
of serious dialogue scenes.
David Mullen
Mat Overton
Man and the Sea? I'd like to what people think of the film. Also are they
ever going to get that Star Trek IMAX done??????
Daniel P. B. Smith
az...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Bill Kretzel) wrote:
> "Daniel P. B. Smith" (dpbs...@bellatlantic.net) writes:
> > 3) Although others have said IMAX had its origins as a way of
> > integrating a multiscreen presentation, I found the times when _Olympic
> > Glory_ shrunk down to a TV-like rectangle, or broke into multiple
> > panels, to be quite annoying--almost as if they wanted to remind you
> > that it was only a movie. The interview with Picabo Street, where you
> > would have LIKED to have the impression that you were really there,
> > standing a few feet away, was done in a small rectangle--almost like
> > "cut to shot of television set playing taped interview with Street."
> It works great as a motion simulator, with landscapes, etc., but when
> "characters" are introduced the outsized proportions of things interrupt
> the willing suspension of disbelief.
I'll bet they said the same thing when sound came in... works great for
singing and dancing...
I'm not sure... I'm not a professional, so I won't know until I see a
large-format film that does closeups the way I'd like to see them done,
and maybe they're not done that way because it's been tried and it
doesn't work. The _impression_ I had was that they were doing it the
way they did out of laziness... or expense... or technical difficulty.
I have the impression that large-format productions are trying to skimp
by only using the large-format equipment in the scenes where it's
perceived to be really needed...
Maybe it's _hard_ to do a good IMAX closeup--with a wide-angle lens so
the three-dimension-reality aspect isn't lost. Maybe you can't get a
mike in the right place to pick up synchronized sound AND keep the mike
out of the picture AND avoid picking up some camera noise--or noises
from the camera operator.
Maybe, to steal two corporate phrases, it just feels really weird to be
in the visual and sonic "living presence," to _really_ be "up close and
personal" with a celebrity... maybe it would take a while to work out
the proper interviewing technique. Maybe it's hard for people to act
natural with THAT big a machine THAT close to them... Maybe vain people
would recoil at the results and insist on having each individual frame
hand-retouched...
It would seem as if a documentary or docudrama would be a good place to
_try_ this sort of thing out, though. How do you tell a story when the
audience is in the visual perspective of a _participant_, not a
spectator, but is unable to influence events? It shouldn't be
impossible; writers do it all the time.
Remember the old CBS program, "You Are There?" Radio first, then
television. Narrated on TV by none other than Walter Cronkite, before
he had become a newscaster and national icon. Reenactments of
historical events. "Everything is just the way it was... only this
time... [cue echo effect] You... are THERE!!!!" And the programs were
half an hour long, just about IMAX length, too...
Daniel P. B. Smith
>
> The problem is that audience's bring certain expectations with them when
> they go see a large format film. They want a rollar-coaster ride, not a
> lot of serious dialogue scenes.
And when I bought my first stereo LP it was London's Phase IV "Pass In
Review" (military music in a parade format, with pan pots moving groups
of instruments and marching feet from, um, left to right I think it was,
and crowd noises surrounding). It cost me $7.00 and I was a student and
back then a dollar was a dollar, and I wasn't going to waste it on a
solo pianist playing Beethoven sonatas!
My invention consists of a novel form of exhibition... [it]
consists of a platform or series of platforms, each of which
contain a suitable number of spectators and which may be enclosed
at the side after the specatators have taken their places, leaving
a convenient opening towards which the latter face, and which is
directed towards a screen on which views are presented....
In order to create the impression of traveling each platform may
be suspended from cranks in shafts... These cranks may be so placed
as to impoart the platform a gentle rocking motion, and may also
be employed to cause the platform to travel boidly forward through
a short space, when desired...
I prefer to use a number of powerful lanterns throwing the respective
portions of the scene upon the screen... composed of (1) a hypothetical
landscape.... (2) a slide or slides which may be traversed
horizontally or vertically and contain representations of objects
such as a navigable balloon etc. which is required to traverse
the scene... (3) slides or films representing in successive
instantaneous photographs, after the manner of the kinetoscope...
--Robert W. Paul, British patent #19984, 1895, as quoted by
Terry Ramsaye in _A Million and One Nights_
Amusement-park novelties, motion simulators, travelogues--that's how new
motion picture technologies begin. Have to "show off" the new
technology. Have to find some way to get people to pay for a five
minute film, a ten minute film, and half-hour film... I'll just bet that
_How the West was Won_ was _consciously_ inspired by the idea of
recreating the history made by _The Great Train Robbery_. Cinerama
historians, did I guess right?
Two more quotations from _A Million and One Nights,_ written in 1926:
the talking pictures of 1895 [the Kinetophone] had the brief life
of a novelty, and in their short day, only a matter of weeks,
ran down the same sale of diminishing interest which has
characterized every subsequent advent of a talking-picture effort.
the Cameraphone... was a synchronized film and phonograph record
device, presenting such as numbers as Eva Tanguay in her
famously abandoned song "I Don't Care..." The Cameraphone, like
all similar talking picture devices, ran a short life and failed.
David Mullen
>large-format film that does closeups the way I'd like to see them done,
>and maybe they're not done that way because it's been tried and it
>doesn't work. The _impression_ I had was that they were doing it the
>way they did out of laziness... or expense... or technical difficulty.
How do you like your close-ups done?
David Mullen
Daniel P. B. Smith
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
In an IMAX film? I'd _think_ that like them taken with the same lens
and same equipment that's used for the big panoramic shots. So the
real-world image subtends about the same angle as the screen does. So
I'd get the feeling of reality and presence as I get from the wide
panoramic landscape shots. If the person is talking to me, he or she
should be standing about the same distance from the camera as they would
be in real life if he or she were having a conversation with me--meaning
that the effect when screen would not resemble a traditional screen
closeup, but I could see the same amount of facial detail I could see
talking to a real person in real life--no more, no less--AND most of the
room around them, the rug on the floor, the pictures on the walls, the
furniture, any cracks in the ceiling plaster, etc.
That's what I think I'd like. I could be wrong.
Martin Hart
dpbs...@bellatlantic.net says...
> In an IMAX film? I'd _think_ that like them taken with the same lens
> and same equipment that's used for the big panoramic shots. So the
> real-world image subtends about the same angle as the screen does. So
> I'd get the feeling of reality and presence as I get from the wide
> panoramic landscape shots. If the person is talking to me, he or she
> should be standing about the same distance from the camera as they would
> be in real life if he or she were having a conversation with me--meaning
> that the effect when screen would not resemble a traditional screen
> closeup, but I could see the same amount of facial detail I could see
> talking to a real person in real life--no more, no less--AND most of the
> room around them, the rug on the floor, the pictures on the walls, the
> furniture, any cracks in the ceiling plaster, etc.
>
> That's what I think I'd like. I could be wrong.
What you describe is precisely how Cinerama dealt with "close-ups". It
worked. The detail and screen size do what long lenses and shallow depth
of field to in conventional small format films do. When 70mm took over
the curved Cinerama screen, conventional photographic and editorial
methods were used, which resulted in monstrous closeups that were
unnatural looking and didn't do the acting talent a hell of a lot of good
either. Tricks such as gauzes to hide the ladies' crow's feet and smile
lines were obvious and laugh provoking.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.simplecom.net/widefilm/
William Dold
>
> OMNI Theatre" (Omnimax) and seeing movies that appear to be mostly
> conventional footage. I'm not talking about flat versus dome, I'm
> talking about films in which most of the footage seems to have been made
> with conventional film at conventional focal lengths and is just being
> shown big, bright, and blurry...
>
> got a few days off and thought I'd take in an IMAX film and thought, OK,
> this time I'll check with the IMAX site first.
>
> "Mysteries of Egypt," "Everest," and "Olympic Glory."
>
>
> was made by McGillivray Freeman...
>
> Daniel P. B. Smith
> current email address: dpbs...@bellatlantic.net
> "Lifetime forwarding address:" dpbs...@alum.mit.edu
Did you know that most of 'EVEREST' was filmed here in the U.S. ? Some
in New Hampshire as well as in the Rockies !
David Mullen
>> and same equipment that's used for the big panoramic shots. So the
>> real-world image subtends about the same angle as the screen does. So
>> I'd get the feeling of reality and presence as I get from the wide
>> panoramic landscape shots. If the person is talking to me, he or she
>> should be standing about the same distance from the camera as they would
>> be in real life if he or she were having a conversation with me--meaning
>> that the effect when screen would not resemble a traditional screen
>> closeup, but I could see the same amount of facial detail I could see
>> talking to a real person in real life--no more, no less--AND most of the
>> room around them, the rug on the floor, the pictures on the walls, the
>> furniture, any cracks in the ceiling plaster, etc.
You're talking about using a moderately wide-angle lens for shooting
close-ups, which is not considered as flattering as longer lenses (which do
not distort facial features such as noses when the camera gets closer).
Some directors do use the same lens for wide shots as for the close ups
(Roman Polanski comes to mind, as well as the recent work of Wes Anderson -
all of "Rushmore" was shot on a 40mm anamorphic lenses, including almost all
close-ups. It was a good thing that his main actress was so cute...)
There can be some directorial problems with this approach. For one thing,
as you get closer to the actor with a wide-angle lens, the actor cannot see
the actor they were talking to because the camera blocks their view. Often
a tape mark is put next to the edge of the lens as an eyeline; otherwise if
they looked past the side of the camera's mattebox, they look like they are
looking WAY OFF to one side when using a wide-angle lens up close. It can
be distracting for an actor to act to a lens instead of another human being
(most manage but sometimes complain...)
Of course, when that close, camera noise is a big issue, which is why most
IMAX films are looped anyway.
Directors use focal lengths for different psychological effects -- a
close-up shot up close with a wider angle lens and a lot of depth-of-field
has a different effect than a telephoto lens shooting a close-up from
farther away, usually with a lower depth-of-field. Plus by using different
focal lengths, a director is able to adjust the perspective of a shot and
vary how large or small objects become as they recede from the lens. An
over-the-shoulder shot made with a wide-angle lens often makes the
foreground person seem much bigger compared to the main subject - while when
shot with a longer lens, both persons might seem to be of similar size.
David Mullen
Bob Morris
>What you describe is precisely how Cinerama dealt with "close-ups". It
>worked. The detail and screen size do what long lenses and shallow depth
>of field to in conventional small format films do. When 70mm took over
>the curved Cinerama screen, conventional photographic and editorial
>methods were used, which resulted in monstrous closeups that were
>unnatural looking and didn't do the acting talent a hell of a lot of good
>either. Tricks such as gauzes to hide the ladies' crow's feet and smile
>lines were obvious and laugh provoking.
The 50's CinemaScope films are remarkable for their absence of close-ups.
I've noticed this a number of times and just recently, in watching
The King and I DVD, remarkable for its color and absence of any grunge,
I don't believe I saw one.
Is is possible that Lawrence of Arabia was the first widescreen film
to *effectively* use close-ups?
Certainly, there are many.
And the quick cut from Lawrence's gorgeous eyes to the Bey's evil mouth
was and still is innovative.
Bob Morris
Martin Hart
mor...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca says...
> The 50's CinemaScope films are remarkable for their absence of close-ups.
>
> I've noticed this a number of times and just recently, in watching
> The King and I DVD, remarkable for its color and absence of any grunge,
> I don't believe I saw one.
The close up was invented to overcome the lack of detail available in the
small frame and old emulsions. When CinemaScope, with its larger screen
size, was introduced, it was felt that the need for closeups was not
nearly as great, which was true. When we see those films on our low res
TV sets we find ourselves begging for closeups. "Ben-Hur" has very few
and the wretched overletterboxed transfer is a prime example. Seen on a
large screen with a good print, the lack of closeups is not a factor.
> Is is possible that Lawrence of Arabia was the first widescreen film
> to *effectively* use close-ups?
Closeups were used in a good many widescreen films before LOA. The ultra
closeups of O'Toole's fingers, eyes, and the Bey's lips were a bit
unusual, however.
> And the quick cut from Lawrence's gorgeous eyes to the Bey's evil mouth
> was and still is innovative.
Similar shots have appeared in many earlier films, but the leering mouth
usually belonged to a guy looking at an endangered woman.
Bob Morris
>Did you know that most of 'EVEREST' was filmed here in the U.S. ? Some
>in New Hampshire as well as in the Rockies !
I believe you're wrong about that.
Everest, like most American films of the last decade, was shot
in Toronto.
For the Everest shoot, the entire inside of SkyDome was used,
with gigantic matte paintings hung from deck 5.
With the Canadian $ being worth about 5 cents American, it was cheaper
to employ an army of artists (and more comfortable) than to schlep
those heavy Imax camera to Tibet.
It's a short hop on TTC streetcars from Imax headquarters to SkyDome.
Bob Morris
norm...@pacbell.net
You are a very wicked man. 8-)
Norm Lehfeldt
mor...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca (Bob Morris) wrotf:
William Dold
Just look at the end credits and you will see what I am talking about.
The filming locations are all listed. Some of the scenes were filmed in
the Tuckerman's Ravine area of Mt. Washington. Talk with former Everest
climbers who have seen the film and they will tell you the same. About
15 minutes of the film was actually shot on Everest.
norm...@pacbell.net
what will enter the folklore is that the film is a fake--which seems to be
not exactly true.
Norm
William Dold <do...@earthlink.net> wrotf:
Daniel P. B. Smith
"David Mullen" <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Directors use focal lengths for different psychological effects -- a
> close-up shot up close with a wider angle lens and a lot of
> depth-of-field
> has a different effect than a telephoto lens shooting a close-up from
> farther away, usually with a lower depth-of-field. Plus by using
> different
> focal lengths, a director is able to adjust the perspective of a shot and
> vary how large or small objects become as they recede from the lens. An
> over-the-shoulder shot made with a wide-angle lens often makes the
> foreground person seem much bigger compared to the main subject - while
> when
> shot with a longer lens, both persons might seem to be of similar size.
Sure. That's traditional cinema visual language. No reason why it
should be the same if the technology is really different. I'm not
professionally involved enough to say what the specific differences are,
but it's obvious that stage visual language is different from cinema
visual language and cinema visual language is different from television
visual language... My own untutored personal opinion is that a lot of
traditional stuff--narrow-angle lens, and cuts, and pans, and "I'll show
you where to look and what to look at"--look fine to me in a traditional
film but irritatingly _wrong_ to me in a large-format film. I think it
must be a somewhat different medium.
I mean, in a movie, the criminal leaving the scene accidentally drops a
clue--a matchbook, say--on the floor, and BOING! they cut to a dramatic
closeup shot of the matchbook cover and the music makes a little
crescendo... Well, on stage you couldn't do that, but they'd find some
way of making sure you _saw_ that matchbook fall _without_ a closeup.
Ditto large-format movies, I think...
My understanding is that a lot of filmmaking technique went out the
window when sound was introduced. In fact I believe a lot of technique
needed to be changed just for Technicolor--traditional ways of telling a
story with _lighting_ couldn't be done that way any more because the
film didn't have the latitude, or something...
Daniel P. B. Smith
Martin Hart <m.b....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> What you describe is precisely how Cinerama dealt with "close-ups". It
> worked. The detail and screen size do what long lenses and shallow depth
> of field to in conventional small format films do. When 70mm took over
> the curved Cinerama screen, conventional photographic and editorial
> methods were used, which resulted in monstrous closeups that were
> unnatural looking and didn't do the acting talent a hell of a lot of good
> either. Tricks such as gauzes to hide the ladies' crow's feet and smile
> lines were obvious and laugh provoking.
I'll certainly be on the lookout for opportunities to see Cinerama
again, and _How the West Was One_ in particular. I can't imagine
travelling GREAT distances just to see it, but...
Scott Norwood
Bob Morris <mor...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>The 50's CinemaScope films are remarkable for their absence of close-ups.
I don't know about this; there are a number of close-ups in, for example,
"Rebel Without a Cause," which was an early 2.55 CinemaScope film. (Has
anyone ever seen a good print of this? They always seem to be kind of soft
and slightly off-color.)
RwoaC is one that comes to mind, but I'm sure that there were plenty of late
1950s scope productions that utilized effective close-up shots.
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
David Mullen
>small frame and old emulsions. When CinemaScope, with its larger screen
>size, was introduced, it was felt that the need for closeups was not
>nearly as great, which was true.
Close-ups, however, have the additional effect of isolating the actor from
the setting. In this case, the higher resolution of a large negative format
may allow the viewer to see the expression on an actor's face but it is
still hard for the director to isolate that face from the surrounding
details.
It's not a right or wrong thing, more a directorial choice. When "Citizen
Kane" came out and was noted for its deep focus look, DP's like James Wong
Howe and directors like Hitchcock (both who experimented also in deep focus
shots) pointed out in interviews the advantages of shallow focus and
close-ups in certain cases when you need to isolate the actor's face from
the background.
Also, cutting up a scene as opposed to playing it more in a medium shot
creates a different rhythm to a scene, for better or worse. "The Passion of
Joan of Arc" by Dreyer is an example of creating a certain atmosphere (of
oppression and paranoia) by intercutting close-ups in a group scene (the
trial) with a minimal use of establishing shots (which Dreyer shot but
didn't use that much.)
David Mullen
Bill Kretzel
> The problem is with audiences, not the formats...
But if the audience isn't satisfied they won't come and films won't get made.
> Most films in any format cross back and forth between being immersive /
3D and being more 2D -- a picture instead of a window...
Nowhere near on the scale of IMAX however.
> "How the West Was Won" proved that a Hollywood film could be shot in
> Cinerama. It isn't less believable because it was shot in Cinerama. It
> uses the format for hyper-immersive moments but also shoots non-spectacular
> dialogue scenes in it also -- in those scenes, maybe the format isn't as
> needed, it's wasted, but it's not a hinderence for the audience either
> (other than making the director's job harder.)
HTWWW was the second and last CINERAMA narrative - yes, yes, for many
complicated reasons - but a BIG one was that it made the director's job
harder and the results of this extra effort were not judged to be worth
the added hassle (and expense).
> That doesn't mean that all the same cinematic devices would work in super
> large formats, but to say that narrative work isn't possible is wrong.
Impossible, no - but worth the added effort/investment? - see above.
> You're suggesting that a hyper-real image works against
> the willing suspension of disbelief, as if the more fuzzy and low-rez and
> image is, the more believable it is.
No, but it is a relationship that cinemagoers have come to accept as
conventional and which they are comfortable with...
A new convention could develop IF large format filmmakers/investors
persist over time but, again... worth the added effort/investment? - see
above.
Bill Kretzel
> _How the West was Won_ was _consciously_ inspired by the idea of
> recreating the history made by _The Great Train Robbery_. Cinerama
> historians, did I guess right?
Actually, as I recall it was initially inspired by a recorded anthology of
traditional folk songs of the West...
Bill Kretzel
>> "characters" are introduced the outsized proportions of things interrupt
>> the willing suspension of disbelief.
>
> I'll bet they said the same thing when sound came in... works great for
> singing and dancing...
>
> large-format film that does closeups the way I'd like to see them done,
> and maybe they're not done that way because it's been tried and it
> doesn't work. The _impression_ I had was that they were doing it the
> way they did out of laziness... or expense... or technical difficulty.
Hey, welcome to the real world! These are compelling reasons if you're in the
business - no excuse for laziness, but it happens - and add: pressure of
deadlines, meeting sponsor preconceptions, cutting to market analysis
results, etc., etc.
Bill Kretzel
> "Daniel P. B. Smith" (dpbs...@bellatlantic.net) writes:
>> _How the West was Won_ was _consciously_ inspired by the idea of
>> recreating the history made by _The Great Train Robbery_. Cinerama
>> historians, did I guess right?
>
> Actually, as I recall it was initially inspired by a recorded anthology of
> traditional folk songs of the West...
And for a really inspired western about the railway, it goes without
saying that the film you really want to see it Leone's "Once Upon a Time in
the West." This one IS worth travelling a great distance to see on the big
screen - makes HTWWW look... well, words escape me (and the CINERAMA guys
[and Debbie Reynolds fan club members] will have a fit if I'm too explicit!)
Joachim Wesner
So, and who will tell us that he definitely knows that MOST part of the
film was actually shot on Super 35, cropped to 1.33:1 and enlarged for
15/70 release prints
(not completely weird IMHO) ???
Happy new year !
Joachim
Djsherlock
15/70 cameras. Most of OLYMPIC GLORY was shot with 8/70 cameras, along with
some 15/70 footage if I remember correctly. This is according to the
discussions at the LFCA conference in 1999.
-Dan
RICHVINCE
I always liked the way Dennis Earl Moore handled the problem in "Flyers".
Close-ups are generally used in dialogue scenes and in "Flyers" Dennis set up
those scenes as if they were on a stage set, with the camera pulled back so
that you could see the actors talking back and forth within the set. This not
only took better advantage of the giant IMAX screen, but maintained the point
of view so that it wasn't a jarring jump for the viewer.
Rich
Bob Morris
>You realize, Bob, that this will circle the globe as gospel in an instant.
>You are a very wicked man. 8-)
"When legend becomes truth, print the legend."
Robert Harris
David Mullen
>traditional stuff--narrow-angle lens, and cuts, and pans, and "I'll show
>you where to look and what to look at"--look fine to me in a traditional
>film but irritatingly _wrong_ to me in a large-format film. I think it
>must be a somewhat different medium.
It's true that formats larger than those like 65mm Super Panavision require
some rethinking of cinematic devices. It's not so much that all of these
techniques (close-ups, inserts, pans, cuts, etc.) are no longer useful but
often have to be minimized due to the huge size of the screen. Composition
is slightly different for IMAX films as well. But as I said in other posts,
a close-ups exits for other reasons than simply seeing the expressions on an
actor's face. An IMAX film would use fewer close-ups and the close-ups
would be less close (or tight) but it doesn't mean that cutting to a closer
angle of an actor during a scene isn't useful for a director in an IMAX film
for various reasons.
Like I said, often cutting to a tighter angle allows the subject to be
isolated from its surroundings. Cutting to an insert of a murder weapon
gives it a dramatic weight that cannot be duplicated simply by filming the
object in a wide shot in IMAX and hoping that detail and clarity alone will
give the object dramatic strength. Even in 35mm, an object like a gun can
be clearly seen in most angles; cutting to a big close-up of it is done for
other reasons than making it clear to the viewer what it is.
However, remember that over the history of 35mm filmmaking, cutting and
camera movement have become more intense even though earlier generations of
filmmakers thought the same things you listed about large formats.
Audiences gradually got used to techniques that seemed "too much" a decade
earlier (some people still think that they are "too much".)
>My understanding is that a lot of filmmaking technique went out the
>window when sound was introduced. In fact I believe a lot of technique
>needed to be changed just for Technicolor--traditional ways of telling a
>story with _lighting_ couldn't be done that way any more because the
>film didn't have the latitude, or something...
It changed. It didn't go "out the window" -- only the first few years of
sound filmmaking were shot with cameras trapped in "iceboxes" restricting
camera movement. And most films made in the 1930's were not shot in
Technicolor, but in black & white. By the late 1930's, most of the camera &
lighting styles of the 1920's were possible again, even though tastes had
changed (some lighting units changed due to sound problems however).
What changed was the cinematic language itself due to the ability of sound
itself to carry narrative information, for better or worse.
Technicolor films did require a higher level of light than b&w films, which
affected style. But the change in style was also due to the fact that color
was involved and that color was being "sold", was being shown-off. And the
company Technicolor was very involved in making sure that their product was
being seen at its best; they discouraged artistic risk-taking with color
photography (although it did happen.)
Overall though, color films in the 1930's and 1940's did not use a different
cinematic grammer than the b&w films of the time.
David Mullen
Bobby Henderson
news:dpbsmith-
> The technical credits rolled by quickly and I wasn't taking notes, but
> there were at lot of "65 mm this" and "65 mm that" credits. Any idea
> what that was about?
65mm negative is used for the actual film shoot for any large format 70mm
film process. 70mm film itself simply has a slightly wider film strip area
outside the sprocket holes for either magnetic soundtrack striping or time
code processes. The image area between the perfs for both 65mm and 70mm are
identical in size.
Bobby Henderson
Daniel P. B. Smith
djshe...@aol.com (Djsherlock) wrote:
The technical credits rolled by quickly and I wasn't taking notes, but
there were at lot of "65 mm this" and "65 mm that" credits. Any idea
what that was about?
--
David Richards
William Dold <do...@quinebarge.com> wrote:
>Just look at the end credits and you will see what I am talking about.
>The filming locations are all listed. Some of the scenes were filmed in
>the Tuckerman's Ravine area of Mt. Washington. Talk with former Everest
>climbers who have seen the film and they will tell you the same. About
>15 minutes of the film was actually shot on Everest.
Well, since only about 20 minutes of the film takes place on the mountain,
they didn't have to fudge much. What's the beef? I'm still annoyed they
don't film the Star Trek movies on a real starship!
Dave
David Richards
Martin Hart <m.b.har...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In article <morris.9...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca>,
>mor...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca says...
>
>small frame and old emulsions. When CinemaScope, with its larger screen
>size, was introduced, it was felt that the need for closeups was not
>TV sets we find ourselves begging for closeups.
Excellent point, Marty! Getting back to the film of the subject line,
I felt the images in Olypic Glory were composed like a TV show. There
were many, many telephoto/shallow focus shots. Perhaps the worst example
was the skaters, going by at the near end of the rink completely filling
the frame! The strobing was excruciating. I believe when they were
discussing the "clap skate" or whatever it's called, there's actually a
close up of a skater's legs filling the frame from the knee down!
Completely unnecessary. The video release will probably look pretty good
though!
Dave
Scott Marshall
<< "How the West Was Won" proved that a Hollywood film could be shot in
Cinerama. >>
"Brothers Grimm" and "How the West Was Won" proved that Cinerama was EXCELLENT
for storytelling.
"Flyers" proved that IMAX was excellent for storytelling.
"Across the Sea of Time" proved that IMAX 3D was excellent for storytelling.
Only by seeing these films in their original formats will this be apparent.
User@
thinking...Say a fish, see a fish...or you'll confuse the poor ignorant viewers
(standards set in stone by television news consultants, worldwide).
Cheers,
Frank Otto (a newsgatherer when NPPA ment something)
Controlled Entertainment Company
Daniel P. B. Smith
(David Richards) wrote:
> Excellent point, Marty! Getting back to the film of the subject line,
> I felt the images in Olypic Glory were composed like a TV show.
Yes.
> There
> were many, many telephoto/shallow focus shots. Perhaps the worst example
> was the skaters, going by at the near end of the rink completely filling
> the frame! The strobing was excruciating.
Yes, but what can you do about it? 24 fps is 24 fps.
I believe when they were
> discussing the "clap skate" or whatever it's called, there's actually a
> close up of a skater's legs filling the frame from the knee down!
> Completely unnecessary. The video release will probably look pretty good
> though!
Still, it was worth it just to be on the top of the ski jump for that
instant! And to be in the middle of the ski slope with that grey sky
and the snow coming down all around...
David Richards
User@ <cecv...@nospamtotheworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I don't have a credit list handy but the shot selection tends to follow TV News
>thinking...Say a fish, see a fish...or you'll confuse the poor ignorant viewers
>(standards set in stone by television news consultants, worldwide).
Speaking of speech, the other thing that bugged me about the film was Stacey
Keach's heavily dramatic narration. His announcing of event results was
given with the somber tones one might use in a documentary on Nazi death
camps. Hey! Large-format filmmakers: try making a movie without a narration.
Lots of films get by without one. I dare You!
Dave
David Richards
Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbs...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>In article <84sdgj$g74$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, dave...@netcom.com
>(David Richards) wrote:
>> I felt the images in Olypic Glory were composed like a TV show.
>> was the skaters, going by at the near end of the rink completely filling
>> the frame! The strobing was excruciating.
>
>Yes, but what can you do about it? 24 fps is 24 fps.
You can get further away from the action. You can use a wider lens. This
reduces the relative displacement of the image of the subject from frame to
frame, resulting in less absolute displacement on the big screen, thus, less
strobing. Backing away from moving objects is the same idea as panning
slowly on a landscape (of course it makes them look like they're moving
slower too, which is probably why it was done the way it was in the first
place). Anyway, people don't need to be that big in 15/70. A person
occupying 1/4 to 1/2 the screen height is perfectly adequate.
Dave
Daniel P. B. Smith
(David Richards) wrote:
> You can get further away from the action. You can use a wider lens.
> This
> reduces the relative displacement of the image of the subject from frame
> to
> frame, resulting in less absolute displacement on the big screen, thus,
> less
> strobing. Backing away from moving objects is the same idea as panning
> slowly on a landscape (of course it makes them look like they're moving
> slower too, which is probably why it was done the way it was in the first
> place).
For my money, once you start to see strobing, any impression of speed is
gone. For example, the point-of-view sequences from the bobsled run.
I'll bet that SOUNDED wonderful. I wonder whether they had second
thoughts about including it when they saw how it actually LOOKED! In
this case... well, let me think... if you're going 100 miles per hour =
150 feet per second = 6 feet per frame... yep, that's actually what I
was about to say before I did the calculation. It looked you were
moving something like six feet per frame--with the walls maybe three
feet apart? And the next turn maybe sixty feet away? You barely had a
sensation of _motion_, let alone speed--it looked more like those
"experimental" movies that were so trendy a few decades ago where people
did crude animation by directly drawing onto 35 mm (maybe even 16 mm)
film...