70mm Films Released in the Blow Up Age
Bobby Henderson
possible over the years. I did post it here a long time ago. However,
since there are some intriguing questions as to films that were or were not
released in North American with 70mm prints, I thought a repost was
necessary. Anyway, this list covers films from 1970 to today. I don't have
release lists for the 1960's and 1970's, partly because the New York Times
and Los Angeles Times did not have very good movie theater ads back then
that denotes specific film formats for individual theaters.
A lot of these older movies might be of some interest, especially with
regard to the proliferation of 5.1 channel sound on DVD in home theater now.
A good number of these titles are available only in stereo on DVD (such as
"Bladerunner" for instance). It would seem those titles would at least have
a 4.0 or 4.1 discrete channel release, if not remastered for 5.1 Dolby
Digital or DTS.
Anyway, enjoy the list.
Bobby Henderson
---------------------------
70MM IN 1970 (6 titles)
PATTON Fox, 2/4, 65MM Dimension-150
AIRPORT Universal, 3/5 65MM Todd-AO
DARLING LILI Paramount, 7/23, Scope 35
TORA TORA TORA Fox, 9/23, Scope 35
SONG OF NORWAY Cinerama Releasing, 11/4, 65MM Super Panavision 70
RYAN'S DAUGHTER MGM, 11/10, 65MM Super Panavison 70
***NOTE***
After 1970, nearly all 70MM prints were blown-up
from 35MM film elements.
70MM IN 1972 (3 titles)
THE COWBOYS Warner Bros., 1/13
MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS Universal, 2/3, Scope 35
THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE Fox, 12/12, Scope 35
70MM IN 1973 (1 title)
TOM SAWYER United Artists, 3/15, Scope 35
70MM IN 1974 (2 titles)
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT MGM, 5/24, Scope 35
THE TOWERING INFERNO Fox, 12/17, Scope 35
70MM IN 1975 (2 titles)
THE WIND AND THE LION MGM/UA, 5/22, Scope 35
ROLLERBALL United Artists, 6/25, Scope 35
70MM IN 1976 (4 titles)
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART 2 MGM/UA, 5/16, Scope 35
LOGAN'S RUN MGM/UA, 6/23, Scope 35
RETURN OF A MAN CALLED HORSE United Artists, 7/28, Scope 35
A STAR IS BORN Warner Bros., 12/25, Scope 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1977 (3 titles)
STAR WARS Fox, 5/25, Scope 35, Dolby
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS Of the Third Kind Columbia, 11/16, Scope 35, Dolby
***ALSO***
TOMMY Columbia, 10/7, Flat 35 (re-release, first time in 70mm)
70MM IN 1978 (5 titles)
CROSSED SWORDS Warner Bros., 3/2, Scope 35
CAPRICORN ONE Warner Bros., 6/2, Scope 35
SGT. PEPPER'S Lonely Hearts Club Band RSO Films, 7/21, Scope 35, Dolby
DAYS OF HEAVEN Warner Bros., 9/13, Flat 35, Dolby
SUPERMAN: The Movie Warner Bros., 12/15, Scope 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1979 (8 titles)
HURRICANE Paramount, 4/12, Scope 35, Dolby
ALIEN Fox, 5/25, Scope 35, Dolby
THE MUPPET MOVIE ITC/AFD, 6/22, Flat 35, Dolby
APOCALYPSE NOW United Artists/Zoetrope, 8/15, Scope 35, Dolby
THE ROSE Fox, 11/7, Scope 35, Dolby
1941 Universal, 12/14, Scope 35
THE BLACK HOLE Disney, 12/21, Scope 35, Dolby
***ALSO***
THE EXORCIST Fox, 4/11 (re-release, first time in 70mm)
70MM IN 1980 (12 titles)
FAME MGM/UA, 5/16, Flat 35, Dolby
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Fox, 5/21, Scope 35, Dolby
THE ISLAND Universal, 6/13, Scope 35, Dolby
CAN'T STOP THE MUSIC AFD, 6/20, Flat 35, Dolby
THE BLUE LAGOON Columbia, 6/20, Flat 35
RAISE THE TITANIC AFD, 8/1, Scope 35, Dolby
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS Special Edition Columbia, 8/8, Scope 35, Dolby
TWINKLE TWINKLE KILLER KANE UFD, 8/8, Scope 35
DIVINE MADNESS Warner Bros./Ladd, 9/25, Scope 35, Dolby
HEAVEN'S GATE United Artists, 11/19, Scope 35, Dolby
THE JAZZ SINGER AFD, 12/19, Scope 35, Dolby
ALTERED STATES Warner Bros., 12/25, Flat 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1981 (5 titles)
OUTLAND Warner Bros.,/Ladd, 5/22, Scope 35, "Dolby Megasound"
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK Paramount, 6/12, Scope 35, Dolby
SUPERMAN II Warner Bros., 6/19, Scope 35, Dolby
DRAGONSLAYER Paramount, 6/26, Scope 35, Dolby
WOLFEN Orion, 7/24, Scope 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1982 (17 titles)
QUEST FOR FIRE Fox, 2/12, Scope 35, Dolby
ANNIE Columbia, 5/21, Scope 35, Dolby
ROCKY III MGM/UA, 5/28, Flat 35, Dolby
STAR TREK II: The Wrath of Khan Paramount, 6/4, Scope 35, Dolby
POLTERGEIST MGM/UA, 6/4, Scope 35, Dolby
E.T. THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL Universal, 6/11, Flat 35, Dolby
GREASE 2 Paramount, 6/11, Scope 35, Dolby
FIREFOX Warner Bros., 6/18, Scope 35, Dolby
BLADERUNNER Warner Bros.,/Ladd, 6/25, Scope 35, Dolby
THE THING Universal, 6/25, Scope 35, Dolby
TRON Disney, 7/9, Dolby, 65MM/70MM Super Panavision 70
Pink Floyd, THE WALL MGM/UA, 8/6, Flat 35, Dolby
TEMPEST Columbia, 8/13, Scope 35, Dolby
THE ROAD WARRIOR Warner Bros., 8/20, Scope 35, Dolby
YES, GIORGIO MGM/UA, 9/24, Scope 35, Dolby
GANDHI Columbia, 12/8, Scope 35, Dolby
THE DARK CRYSTAL Universal, 12/17, Scope 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1983 (12 titles)
LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER Embassy, 2/11, Flat 35
BLUE THUNDER Columbia/Rastar, 5/13, Scope 35, Dolby
RETURN OF THE JEDI Fox, 5/25, Scope 35, Dolby
WAR GAMES MGM/UA, 6/3, Scope 35, Dolby
OCTOPUSSY MGM/UA, 6/10, Scope 35, Dolby
SUPERMAN III Warner Bros., 6/17, Scope 35, Dolby
STAYING ALIVE Paramount, 7/15, Flat 35, Dolby
KRULL Columbia, 7/29, Scope 35, Dolby
THE STAR CHAMBER Fox, 8/5, Scope 35, Dolby
BRAINSTORM MGM/UA, 9/30, Super Panavision 70 & Super 35, Dolby
NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN Warner Bros., 10/7, Scope 35, Dolby
THE RIGHT STUFF Warner Bros./Ladd, 10/21, Flat 35, Dolby
***SPECIAL***
THX theater certification launched with
RETURN OF THE JEDI.
70MM IN 1984 (14 titles)
GREYSTOKE: The Legend of Tarzan Warner Bros., 3/30, Super 35, Dolby
INDIANA JONES and the Temple of Doom Paramount, 5/23, Scope 35, Dolby
STAR TREK III: The Search For Spock Paramount, 6/1, Scope 35, Dolby
STREETS OF FIRE Universal/RKO, 6/1, Flat 35, Dolby
GREMLINS Warner Bros., 6/8, Flat 35, Dolby
GHOSTBUSTERS Columbia, 6/8, Scope 35, Dolby
THE LAST STARFIGHTER Universal/Lorimar, 7/13, Scope 35, Dolby
AMADEUS Orion, 9/19, Scope 35, Dolby
THE RAZOR'S EDGE Columbia, 10/19, Scope 35, Dolby
2010 MGM, 12/7, Scope 35, Dolby
STARMAN Columbia, 12/14, Scope 35, Dolby
DUNE Universal, 12/14, Scope 35, Dolby
THE COTTON CLUB Orion, 12/14, Flat 35, Dolby
THE RIVER Universal, 12/19, Scope 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1985 (24 titles)
LADYHAWKE Warner Bros., 4/12, Scope 35, Dolby
RAMBO: First Blood Part 2 Tri Star, 5/22, Scope 35, Dolby
THE GOONIES Warner Bros., 6/7, Scope 35, Dolby
COCOON Fox, 6/21, Flat 35, Dolby
LIFEFORCE Tri Star, 6/21, Scope 35, Dolby
RETURN TO OZ Disney, 6/21, Flat 35, Dolby
BACK TO THE FUTURE Universal, 7/3, Flat 35, Dolby
THE EMERALD FOREST Embassy, 7/3, Scope 35, Dolby
SILVERADO Columbia, 7/10, Super 35, Dolby
MAD MAX Beyond Thunderdome Warner Bros., 7/10, Scope 35, Dolby
EXPLORERS Paramount, 7/12, Flat 35, Dolby
THE BLACK CAULDRON Disney, 7/26, Flat 35, Dolby
AMERICAN FLYERS Warner Bros., 8/16, Scope 35, Dolby
THE YEAR OF THE DRAGON MGM, 8/16, Scope 35, Dolby
BRING ON THE NIGHT Concert , 11/8, Flat 35, Dolby
WHITE NIGHTS Columbia, 11/22, Scope 35, Dolby
ROCKY IV MGM, 11/27, Flat 35, Dolby
SANTA CLAUS: The Movie Tri Star, 11/27, Flat 35, Dolby
YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES Paramount, 12/4, Flat 35, Dolby
SPIES LIKE US Warner Bros., Flat 35, 12/6
A CHORUS LINE Columbia, 12/10, Scope 35, Dolby
OUT OF AFRICA Universal, 12/20, Flat 35, Dolby
REVOLUTION Warner Bros., 12/25, Scope 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1986 (16 titles)
CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR Warner Bros., 1/17, Scope 35, Dolby
THE MONEY PIT Universal, 3/26, Flat 35, Dolby
ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS Orion, 4/18, Flat 35, Dolby
TOP GUN Paramount, 5/16, Flat 35, Dolby
COBRA Warner Bros., 5/23, Scope 35, 70MM Ultra Stereo
SPACECAMP Fox, 6/6, Flat 35, Dolby
BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA Fox, 7/2, Scope 35, Dolby
ALIENS Fox, 7/18, Super 35, Dolby
HOWARD THE DUCK Universal, 8/1, Flat 35, Dolby
MANHUNTER DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group, 8/15, Flat 35, Dolby
TOUGH GUYS Touchtone, 10/3, Scope 35, Dolby
THE COLOR OF MONEY Touchtone, 10/17, Flat 35, Dolby
THE MISSION Warner Bros., 10/31, Scope 35, Dolby
NUTCRACKER: The Motion Picture Atlantic, 11/26, Scope 35, Dolby
STAR TREK IV: The Voyage Home Paramount, 11/26, Scope 35, Dolby
LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS Warner Bros., 12/19, Flat 35, Dolby
***SPECIAL***
First 70MM Dolby SR prints run in two L.A. theaters
for STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME
(Billed in stack ads as "Dolby Spectral Sound")
70MM IN 1987 (17 titles)
OVER THE TOP Warner Bros./Cannon, 2/12, Scope 35, Dolby
LETHAL WEAPON Warner Bros., 3/6, Flat 35, Dolby
THE UNTOUCHABLES Paramount, 6/3, Scope 35, Dolby
PREDATOR Fox, 6/12, Flat 35, Dolby
THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK Warner Bros., 6/12, Scope 35, Dolby
SPACEBALLS MGM, 6/24, Flat 35, Dolby
INNERSPACE Warner Bros., 7/1, Flat 35, Dolby
ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING Touchtone, 7/1, Flat 35, Dolby
THE LOST BOYS Warner Bros., 7/31, Scope 35, Dolby
STAKEOUT Touchtone, 8/5, Flat 35, Dolby
WHO'S THAT GIRL Warner Bros., 8/7, Scope 35, Dolby
CRY FREEDOM Universal, 11/6, Flat 35, Dolby
THE RUNNING MAN Tri Star, 11/13, Flat 35, Dolby
THE LAST EMPORER Columbia/Hemdale, 11/20, Scope 35, Dolby
THREE MEN AND A BABY Touchtone, 11/25, Flat 35, Dolby
EMPIRE OF THE SUN Warner Bros., 12/9, Flat 35, Dolby
GOOD MORNING VIETNAM Touchtone, 12/23, Flat 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1988 (12 titles)
SHOOT TO KILL Touchtone, 2/12, Super 35, Dolby
WILLOW MGM/Lucasfilm, 5/20, Scope 35, Dolby
THE PRESIDIO Paramount, 6/10, Scope 35, Dolby
WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT Touchtone, 6/22, Flat 35, Dolby
DIE HARD Fox, 7/15, Scope 35, Dolby
TUCKER Paramount, 8/12, Scope 35, Dolby
THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST Universal, 8/12, Flat 35, Dolby
THE BIG BLUE Columbia/Weintraub, 8/19, Flat 35, Dolby
GORRILLAS IN THE MIST Universal, 9/23, Flat 35, Dolby
ALIEN NATION Fox, 10/7, Super 35, Dolby
COCOON: THE RETURN Fox, 11/23, Flat 35, Dolby
BEACHES Touchtone, 12/21, Flat 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1989 (18 titles)
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA Director's Cut Columbia, 2/8, Super Panavision 70, Dolby
SR
INDIANA JONES and the Last Crusade Paramount, 5/24, Scope 35, Dolby SR
DEAD POETS SOCIETY Touchtone, 6/2, Flat 35, Dolby
STAR TREK V: The Final Frontier Paramount, 6/9, Scope 35, Dolby
BATMAN Warner Bros., 6/23, Flat 35, Dolby
LETHAL WEAPON 2 Warner Bros., 7/7, Scope 35, Dolby
THE ABYSS Fox, 8/9, Super 35, Dolby
CASUALTIES OF WAR Columbia, 8/18, Scope 35, Dolby
IN COUNTRY Warner Bros., 9/15, Flat 35, Dolby
BLACK RAIN Paramount, 9/22, Scope 35, Dolby
THE BEAR Tri Star, 10/25, Scope 35, Dolby
THE LITTLE MERMAID Disney, 11/15, Flat 35, Dolby
VALMONT Orion, 11/17, Scope 35, Dolby
BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II Universal, 11/22, Flat 35, Dolby
GLORY Tri Star, 12/14, Flat 35, Dolby
BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY Universal, 12/20, Scope 35, Dolby SR
TANGO AND CASH Warner Bros., 12/22, Scope 35, Dolby
ALWAYS Universal, 12/22, Flat 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1990 (23 titles)
MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON Tri Star, 2/23, Flat 35, Dolby SR
THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER Paramount, 3/2, Scope 35, Dolby
BACK TO THE FUTURE PART III Universal, 5/25, Flat 35, Dolby
TOTAL RECALL Tri Star, 6/1, Flat 35, Dolby SR
DICK TRACY Touchtone, 6/15, Flat 35,
70MM Cinema Digital Sound & 70MM Dolby
GREMLINS 2 The New Batch Warner Bros., 6/15, Flat 35, Dolby SR
DAYS OF THUNDER Paramount, 6/27, Scope 35,
70MM Cinema Digital Sound & 70MM Dolby
DIE HARD 2 Fox, 7/4, Scope 35, Dolby
ARACHNOPHOBIA Hollywood, 7/18, Flat 35, Dolby
THE TWO JAKES Paramount, 8/10, Flat 35, Dolby
FLATLINERS Columbia, 8/10, Scope 35,
70MM Cinema Digital Sound in L.A., 70MM Dolby SR
AIR AMERICA Tri Star, 8/10, Flat 35, Dolby
THE SOUND OF MUSIC 25th Anniversary Fox, 8/24, 65MM Todd-AO, non-Dolby
FANTASIA 50th Anniv. Restoration Disney, 10/5, Academy 35, SR-Fantasound
MEMPHIS BELLE Warner Bros., 10/12, Flat 35, Dolby
PREDATOR 2 Fox, 11/23, Flat 35, Dolby
EDWARD SCISSORHANDS Fox, 12/7, Flat 35,
70MM Cinema Digital Sound in N.Y. and L.A.
(Ziegfeld and GCC Avco theaters respectively)
THE ROOKIE Warner Bros., 12/7, Scope 35, Dolby
HAVANA Universal, 12/12, Flat 35, Dolby
THE SHELTERING SKY Warner Bros., 12/12, Flat 35, Dolby
THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES Warner Bros., 12/21, Flat 35, Dolby
THE GODFATHER PART III Paramount, 12/25, Flat 35, Dolby SR
70MM IN 1991 (11 titles)
THE DOORS Tri Star, 3/1, Scope 35, Dolby SR (also 35MM CDS)
SPARTACUS Restored Director's Cut Universal, 4/28, VistaVision Scope, Dolby
SR
BACKDRAFT Universal, 5/24, Super 35, Dolby
THE ROCKETEER Touchtone, 6/21, Scope 35, Dolby
TERMINATOR 2: Judgment Day Tri Star, 7/3, Super 35,
70MM CDS, 70MM Dolby SR (also 35MM CDS)
POINT BREAK Fox, 7/12, Super 35, Dolby
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST Disney, 11/13, Flat 35, Dolby
FOR THE BOYS Fox, 11/22, Flat 35, Dolby (35MM CDS announced)
STAR TREK VI: The Undiscovered Country, Paramount, 12/6, Super 35, Dolby
HOOK Tri Star, 12/11, Scope 35, Dolby
THE LAST BOY SCOUT Warner Bros., 12/13, Scope 35, Dolby
***SPECIAL***
First 35MM Dolby SRβ’D test with
STAR TREK VI: The Undiscovered Country in L.A.
70MM IN 1992 (9 titles)
SHINING THROUGH Fox, 1/31, Scope 35, Dolby
HOWARDS END Sony Pictures Classics, 3/13, Super 35, Dolby
LETHAL WEAPON 3 Warner Bros., 5/15, Scope 35, Dolby
FAR AND AWAY Universal, 5/22, Super Panavision 70, Dolby SR
ALIEN 3 Fox, 5/29, Scope 35, Dolby
PATRIOT GAMES Paramount, 6/5, Scope 35, Dolby
THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS Fox, 9/25, Scope 35, Dolby
1492: Conquest of Paradise Paramount, 10/2, Scope 35, Dolby
HOFFA Fox, 12/25, Scope 35, Dolby
70MM IN 1993 (8 titles)
BARAKA Samuel Goldwyn, US Release Date Unknown, 65MM Todd AO, Dolby
CLIFFHANGER Tri Star, 5/28, Scope 35, Dolby SR (also 35MM SRβ’D in Europe)
LAST ACTION HERO Columbia, 6/18, Scope 35, Dolby SR (also 35MM SDDS)
IN THE LINE OF FIRE Columbia, 7/9, Scope 35, Dolby SR (also 35MM SDDS)
SHORT CUTS Fine Line Features, 10/3, Flat 35, Dolby
GETTYSBURG New Line/Turner, 10/8, Flat 35, Dolby SR (also 35MM DTS)
THE REMAINS OF THE DAY Columbia, Super 35, 11/5, Dolby SR
GERONIMO: An American Legend, 12/10, Scope 35, Dolby SR (also 35MM SDDS)
70MM IN 1994 (3 titles)
LITTLE BUDDHA Miramax, 5/27, 65MM (Arri 765)-VistaVision-Super, Dolby
TRUE LIES Fox, 7/15, Super 35, Dolby SR (also 35MM DTS-SRβ’D)
MY FAIR LADY 30th Anniversary Restoration Fox, 9/21,
Super Panavision 70, Dolby SR (also 35MM DTS-SRβ’D)
Special 70MM DTS reel made to test format
***ALSO***
THE LION KING, 6/15,
70MM world premiere, Radio City Music Hall, NYC
70MM presentation with interlocked 35MM SRβ’D sound.
70MM IN 1995 (1 title)
THE WILD BUNCH Restored Director's Cut
Warner Bros, Scope 35, Dolby, 3/3 (also 35MM SRβ’D)
***ALSO***
POCAHONTAS Disney, 6/15,
70MM world premiere, New York's Central Park
Four giant 70MM screens
with interlocked 35MM SRβ’D sound.
70MM IN 1996 (2 titles)
VERTIGO Universal, 10/4-10/6, VistaVision, 70MM DTS
HAMLET Columbia/Castle Rock, 12/25, Super Panavision 70,
70mm Dolby A magnetic (also 35mm SDDS)
***ALSO***
INDEPENDENCE DAY Fox, 9/19-9/22, 70MM DTS
First public showings of 70MM DTS
at The Spektrum, Oslo, Norway.
70MM IN 1997 (1 title)
TITANIC Paramount/Fox, 12/19, Super 35, 70MM DTS
(also 35MM DTS-SRβ’D-SDDS)
***ALSO***
STAR WARS S.E. Fox, 3/20, 3/22, 3/23, 70MM DTS
Special showings at The Spektrum, Oslo, Norway.
70MM IN 1998 (0 titles)
Jayson Ca
Great list! I started to count how many I've seen in 70mm!
Thanks!
Jayson
Jays...@aol.com
"Ladies and Gentlemen - This is CINERAMA!"
Bobby Henderson
>Bobby,
>
>Great list! I started to count how many I've seen in 70mm!
>
>Thanks!
You're welcome, but be careful about assuming you saw many of those shows in
70mm. All of those films on that list had the vast majority of their
release prints struck in 35mm. At the peak of the "blowup age" (which I
call 1970 to 1970), only a little more than 1,000 screen in North America
were equipped with 70mm projection equipment. And far fewer screens
actually received any 70mm prints at all.
Films like "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" had very aggressive 70mm
releases, with nearly 300 prints struck in 70mm out of 3,000 total. Most
releases featuring 70mm print available only had a few struck. "Titanic"
for instance only had 20 prints struck in 70mm. "Edward Scissorhands" had
only two 70mm CDS prints made. Unless you did all your movie going at
palaces such as the Ziegfeld theater in New York, or Mann's Chinese and
General Cinema's Avco in Los Angeles, you might get stuck with a 35mm show
fairly often. I usually paid pretty close attention to New York Times ads
back in my art school days in the big apple and made sure to attend theaters
included under those huge 70mm logos. Too bad the 35mm digital sound
formats aren't as good with their advertising.
With home theater actually doing 5.1 channel digital sound better than
commercial theaters, Hollywood needs to improve things a bit by bringing
back actual 70mm film production. Digital sound has done a lot to pretty
much kill 70mm in the commercial cinema. But with all these oversized
stadium seating screens, 70mm needs to be used. I don't care what kind of a
lamp or reflector is used, 35mm projectors will never adequately light a
screen more than 60 feet wide. The pictures are too dim. High definition
TV and video playback will eventually be happening in the home and that will
demand a better quality picture at the commercial movie theater for them to
stay in business. My movie going at commercial theaters really dropped off
after I purchased my home theater system. Unless the commerical theater can
offer me a real top flight show with stadium seating, a bright picture and
digital sound, I am going to be tempted to stay at home. I would get back
to commercial theaters more often if Hollywood actually filmed something in
70mm format to make the big screen experience more worth the high price.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>At the peak of the "blowup age" (which I
>call 1970 to 1970),
--Whoops! That was supposed to be 1970 to 1990.
Bobby
ROLANDROLA
of "The Dirty Dozen" on TCM today. Instead of them scroling from the very
bottom of the screen to the top, they start a little above the bottom and end a
little below the top. Maybe they were doing this for the 70mm prints which if
cropped to 2.20:1 would look more natural?
Roland Lataille
Sex without love is an empty experience.
Yes, but as far as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.
gordon mcleod
gordon mcleod
On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:17:57 -0500, Bobby Henderson wrote:
> "Edward Scissorhands" had
>only two 70mm CDS prints made. >Bobby Henderson
>
>
>
MC
releases (however limited the number of prints) in the 1980s. Your list also
had the unfortunate effect of reminding me of how many less-than-fine films
I paid to see simply because I wanted to experience 70mm.
A couple of points, from memory...
I'm pretty certain that "Rollerball" was shot in flat 35mm; the 70mm blow-up
was an afterthought. I distinctly recall one extreme closeup of John
Houseman in which his lower lip went missing in the 70mm prints.
In 1977, the Cinerama Dome showed a 70mm print of "Jesus Christ Superstar,"
which previous had been seen only in 'scope 35.
The 70mm blow-up of "The Exorcist" was made earlier -- probably in '75 or
'76. Had a pretty good sound remix, IIRC. Why are the videotapes mono?
You also don't mention a few foreign-language films which played at least a
few dates in 70mm here in Los Angeles -- "Derzu Uzala," Tati's "Playtime,"
and a little-known, rather good Polish epic called "Nights and Days.
How can we forget the notorious flat-70mm version of "This is Cinerama"
which came out in 1972?
And just what was that X-rated film that had a 70mm blow-up in '75 or
therabouts? It has been discussed previously in this newsgroup. I think the
title was "Sex-O-Rama," or something along those lines.
Aaron Sisemore
MC wrote:
>
>
> And just what was that X-rated film that had a 70mm blow-up in '75 or
> therabouts? It has been discussed previously in this newsgroup. I think the
> title was "Sex-O-Rama," or something along those lines.
"Panorama Blue", IIRC... :)
Aaron
SGuttag
CROSSED SWORDS Warner Bros., 3/2, Scope 35
CAPRICORN ONE Warner Bros., 6/2, Scope 35
SGT. PEPPER'S Lonely Hearts Club Band RSO Films, 7/21, Scope 35, Dolby
DAYS OF HEAVEN Warner Bros., 9/13, Flat 35, Dolby
SUPERMAN: The Movie Warner Bros., 12/15, Scope 35, Dolby"<<
Superman deserves honorable mention for being the first Dolby 70mm film with
STEREO SURROUNDS (format 43).
SG
SprocketOil
(SGuttag) wrote:
>
> Superman deserves honorable mention for being the first Dolby 70mm film with
> STEREO SURROUNDS (format 43).
>
It wasn't offically exhibited with stereo surrounds however. It was an
experiment of compatibility when played on a mono surround system.
The first official release that the exhibitors were told was available and
the equipment was available for sale to them was Apocolypse Now.
--
***********************************************************************
NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47,
Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited
commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.
E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it
is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by law.
*************************************************************************
.
Bobby Henderson
>I'm pretty certain that "Rollerball" was shot in flat 35mm; the 70mm
blow-up
>was an afterthought. I distinctly recall one extreme closeup of John
>Houseman in which his lower lip went missing in the 70mm prints.
It has been a while since I have seen "Rollerball," but I could have sworn
the film was shot anamorphic.
>In 1977, the Cinerama Dome showed a 70mm print of "Jesus Christ Superstar,"
>which previous had been seen only in 'scope 35.
>
>The 70mm blow-up of "The Exorcist" was made earlier -- probably in '75 or
>'76. Had a pretty good sound remix, IIRC. Why are the videotapes mono?
>
>You also don't mention a few foreign-language films which played at least a
>few dates in 70mm here in Los Angeles -- "Derzu Uzala," Tati's "Playtime,"
>and a little-known, rather good Polish epic called "Nights and Days.
>
>How can we forget the notorious flat-70mm version of "This is Cinerama"
>which came out in 1972?
>
>And just what was that X-rated film that had a 70mm blow-up in '75 or
>therabouts? It has been discussed previously in this newsgroup. I think the
>title was "Sex-O-Rama," or something along those lines.
My 70mm blowup list is not a totally definitive list on films with 70mm
prints from 1970 to today. There have been quite a few films that have been
blown up to 70mm for special engagements. Even in recent years, some
theaters (like the Spektrum in Europe) have had a number of 70mm prints made
for films we could only experience in 35mm here in the United States.
I'd like to make additions to my list where ever I can. I always try to
include the title, film distributor, day of release, the actual filming
format (such as 35mm scope, flat or 65mm), and the type of 70mm release
print (Dolby A or SR mag, straight mag with no NR, or DTS timecode).
With all the stadium seating theaters and their oversized screens, I really
wish 70mm could make a come back. I am constantly dissapointed by 35mm
projector performance at those theaters. It would be really great if some
filmmakers could actually film a good feature in 70mm format. Perhaps they
don't realize their films are going to look a lot better on DVD and HDTV in
the future if they do that.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>It wasn't offically exhibited with stereo surrounds however. It was an
>experiment of compatibility when played on a mono surround system.
>
>The first official release that the exhibitors were told was available and
>the equipment was available for sale to them was Apocolypse Now.
It is just too bad Zoetrope Studios and Paramount didn't do anything to bill
stereo surround 70mm in their ads. The New York Times had full page ads
running for months leading up to the premiere of "Apocalypse Now" at the
Ziegfeld. Through all the microfilms I examined years ago, I don't think I
had seen newspaper ads for any other film to match the hype of "Apocalypse
Now." I thought it was also pretty peculiar how "Heaven's Gate" disappeared
so quickly after the New York Times panned the film. I think it played at
Cinema 1 on Third Avenue for only two days before Michael Cimino and United
Artists had the 70mm print pulled from exhibition. If memory serves me
correctly, they replaced "Heaven's Gate" with a 70mm showing of "Apolcalypse
Now."
Bobby Henderson
Sydney Assbasket
>
I thought you were making some sort of commentary on the blow-up age :-)
The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd
Remove "bination" to reply.
Bobby Henderson
Sydney Assbasket wrote in message
<19990919144654...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>>--Whoops! That was supposed to be 1970 to 1990.
>>
>
>I thought you were making some sort of commentary on the blow-up age :-)
Nah, it was pretty much just a list of films released during that time. The
one thing I can offer as far as commentary and opinon is concerned is how
unfortunate it was for actual 65mm/70mm film production to virtually
disappear in 1970. Lower budget more socially conscious films like
"Midnight Cowboy" and hits like "The French Connection" did a lot to make
widescreen films suffer. The multiplex age was born at this time and movie
theaters got very small in size. Big budget disappointments, such as
"Ryan's Daughter" did a lot to tarnish the image of 70mm. To this day, the
70mm format seems more tied in with big musicals and lumbering biblical
epics. Even "Far and Away," released in 1992, did more to keep that bad
image of 70mm going rather than help it. I really wish Ron Howard would
have chosen a more action driven picture like "Backdraft" or "Apollo 13" to
test out the updated Super Panavision 70 format. "Tron" is the only
somewhat recent film I can recall that used 65mm/70mm production for an
ultra-modern themed film experience.
Today, we have older movie theaters being replaced with big "mega-plex"
theaters featuring stadium seating, digital sound and oversized screens.
Many of these theaters have screens that are so large 35mm projectors cannot
properly light them. 70mm needs to make a comeback in this regard. Also
with home theater systems doing 5.1 channel digital sound better than their
more expensive commercial theater counterparts, it would seem Hollywood and
the movie exhibition industry would try to bring back the extreme high
definition image of true 70mm production to keep people coming to the
commercial cinema. I have to say my commercial movie theater going has
really dropped off quite a bit after getting my Dolby Digital/DTS equipped
home theater rig put together. But I would glady go back to commercial
theaters more often for 70mm type shows. I even drove 200 miles to Dallas
to see "Titanic" in 70mm DTS.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>I thought that this picture was shot whith the Technirama camera used for
>Sleeping beauty.
>
>> THE BLACK CAULDRON Disney, 7/26, Flat 35, Dolby
I tried checking IMDB and a couple other sites and could find no information
on it. If "The Black Cauldron" was shot in Technirama, as was the case with
"Sleeping Beauty" that would be news to me. If it turns out that way, I'll
certainly make the correction to my 70mm films list.
Bobby Henderson
David Mullen
information
>on it. If "The Black Cauldron" was shot in Technirama, as was the case
with
>"Sleeping Beauty" that would be news to me. If it turns out that way, I'll
>certainly make the correction to my 70mm films list.
Check out "American Cinematographer", July 1985. It mentions that both
"Black Cauldron" and "Sleeping Beauty" were shot in Technirama, although it
makes the error of saying "released" not "photographed". I won't be blamed
for the writing.
Quote:
... And like no Disney feature since "Sleeping Beauty" in 1959, "The Black
Cauldron" is being released in Technirama, meaning that these successive
exposures were recorded vertically on the Plus-X in the camera with a 1.5:1
squeeze, to be later unsqueezed later and rotated to the proper horizontal
angle to make the 65mm interpositive from which 65mm dupe neg and 70mm
release prints are struck.
David Mullen
Steve Kraus
> I tried checking IMDB and a couple other sites and could find no information
> on it. If "The Black Cauldron" was shot in Technirama, as was the case with
> "Sleeping Beauty" that would be news to me. If it turns out that way, I'll
> certainly make the correction to my 70mm films list.
Yup...Technirama or Super Technirama 70 if you prefer.
Bobby Henderson
>Check out "American Cinematographer", July 1985. It mentions that both
>"Black Cauldron" and "Sleeping Beauty" were shot in Technirama, although it
>makes the error of saying "released" not "photographed". I won't be blamed
>for the writing.
>
>Quote:
>
>... And like no Disney feature since "Sleeping Beauty" in 1959, "The Black
>Cauldron" is being released in Technirama, meaning that these successive
>exposures were recorded vertically on the Plus-X in the camera with a 1.5:1
>squeeze, to be later unsqueezed later and rotated to the proper horizontal
>angle to make the 65mm interpositive from which 65mm dupe neg and 70mm
>release prints are struck.
I've made the correction to my own personal list. "Technirama" is something
of a poser when it comes to the term "released in." Technirama, for those
who do not know, is simply the VistaVision format with a 1.5:1 anamorphic
squeeze applied to the image. VistaVision is 35mm film run horizontally
through a camera and projector. The film frame is 8-perfs across, just like
the film used in 35mm still cameras.
Throughout the 1950's and 1960's when a good number of films used the
Technirama format, they were normally converted to 4-perf vertical 35mm
prints or 70mm prints for key premiere theaters. If 70mm prints were not
used at all, then the show might only use the Technirama label. If 70mm
prints were used, then the Technirama 70 title would be used, as was the
case with "Sleeping Beauty." In the 1960's the term "Super Technirama 70"
was used obviously to answer the "Super Panavision 70" term on movies like
"Spartacus."
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
dates and distributor names for many of those, but I guess I can get them
from IMDB. Do you have lists for the 1950's and 1960's? For many of those
additions, I imagine those films played 70mm only in Los Angeles for their
engagements. A number of films over the years, such as "Memphis Belle,"
"The Two Jakes" and "Manhunter" had 70mm prints that only played in Los
Angeles and no place else. The microfilms of the L.A. Times I used for ad
research went only back to 1980. For the listing additions you supplied
between 1980 and 1990, I never found stack ads advertising 70mm engagements.
But I do know a number of movies had 70mm prints struck, probably only to
have for archival purposes and special road show deals.
Bobby Henderson
John P. Pytlak
>
> My 70mm blowup list is not a totally definitive list on films with 70mm
> prints from 1970 to today. There have been quite a few films that have been
> blown up to 70mm for special engagements. Even in recent years, some
> theaters (like the Spektrum in Europe) have had a number of 70mm prints made
> for films we could only experience in 35mm here in the United States.
>
> I'd like to make additions to my list where ever I can. I always try to
> include the title, film distributor, day of release, the actual filming
> format (such as 35mm scope, flat or 65mm), and the type of 70mm release
> print (Dolby A or SR mag, straight mag with no NR, or DTS timecode).
>
> With all the stadium seating theaters and their oversized screens, I really
> wish 70mm could make a come back. I am constantly dissapointed by 35mm
> projector performance at those theaters. It would be really great if some
> filmmakers could actually film a good feature in 70mm format. Perhaps they
> don't realize their films are going to look a lot better on DVD and HDTV in
> the future if they do that.
>
> Bobby Henderson
I really miss the "glory days" of 70mm, when even cities like Rochester
and Buffalo would have a few movies presented "In the Splendor of 70mm"
each year:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december98/pppp.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml
I personally believe one reason distributors are not making 70mm prints
available, even when they are needed to light huge screens properly, is
that CGI effects are often not being done with sufficient resolution to
"hold up" well under the sharp eye of a 70mm print. It simply costs
more to "do it right" in order to fill the screens that are 60-plus feet
wide.
Dominique Laruelle
Sleeping beauty.
> HE BLACK CAULDRON Disney, 7/26, Flat 35, Dolby
Jeffry L. Johnson
>70MM IN 1970 (6 titles)
>PATTON Fox, 2/4, 65MM Dimension-150
>AIRPORT Universal, 3/5 65MM Todd-AO
>DARLING LILI Paramount, 7/23, Scope 35
>TORA TORA TORA Fox, 9/23, Scope 35
>SONG OF NORWAY Cinerama Releasing, 11/4, 65MM Super Panavision 70
>RYAN'S DAUGHTER MGM, 11/10, 65MM Super Panavison 70
THE HORSEMEN Columbia
TCHAIKOVSKY USSR, Warner Bros
TOO LATE THE HERO Cinerama Releasing, Panavision blowup
WOODSTOCK
> ***NOTE***
> After 1970, nearly all 70MM prints were blown-up
> from 35MM film elements.
70MM in 1971
FIDDLER ON THE ROOF United Artists, Panavison blowup
THE LAST VALLEY Cinerama Releasing, Todd-AO
THE RED TENT USSR/Italy Paramount
SOLARIS USSR
WATERLOO Italy/USSR Paramount, Panavision
WILD ROVERS MGM, Panavision
>70MM IN 1972 (3 titles)
>THE COWBOYS Warner Bros., 1/13
>MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS Universal, 2/3, Scope 35
>THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE Fox, 12/12, Scope 35
THE CONCERT FOR BANGLADESH 20th-Fox, 16mm blowup
DELIVERANCE Warner Bros, Panavision blowup
THE EMIGRANTS Sweden Warner Bros
THE GREAT WALTZ MGM, Super Panavision
MAN OF LA MANCHA United Artists, blowup
>70MM IN 1973 (1 title)
>TOM SAWYER United Artists, 3/15, Scope 35
GODSPELL Columbia, blowup
THE NEW LAND Warner Bros
PANORAMA BLUE Ellman Films
>70MM IN 1974 (2 titles)
>THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT MGM, 5/24, Scope 35
>THE TOWERING INFERNO Fox, 12/17, Scope 35
AIRPORT 75 Universal, Panavision blowup
>70MM IN 1975 (2 titles)
>THE WIND AND THE LION MGM/UA, 5/22, Scope 35
>ROLLERBALL United Artists, 6/25, Scope 35
DERSU UZALA Japan/USSR New World
THE JOLSON STORY Columbia reissue cropped blowup from 1.37:1 to 2.2:1
LUCKY LADY 20th-Fox, blowup
NASHVILLE Paramount, Panavision blowup
ONE BY ONE (CHECKERED FLAG) Ellman Films
>70MM IN 1976 (4 titles)
>THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT PART 2 MGM/UA, 5/16, Scope 35
>LOGAN'S RUN MGM/UA, 6/23, Scope 35
>RETURN OF A MAN CALLED HORSE United Artists, 7/28, Scope 35
>A STAR IS BORN Warner Bros., 12/25, Scope 35, Dolby
LOVE IN 3-D Stereovision
THE SLIPPER AND THE ROSE Universal, Panavision blowup
>70MM IN 1977 (3 titles)
>STAR WARS Fox, 5/25, Scope 35, Dolby
>CLOSE ENCOUNTERS Of the Third Kind Columbia, 11/16, Scope 35, Dolby
> ***ALSO***
> TOMMY Columbia, 10/7, Flat 35 (re-release, first time in 70mm)
BLACK ORPHEUS France/Brazil Kino Int'l, reissue cropped blowup from 1.37:1 to
2.2:1
>70MM IN 1978 (5 titles)
>CROSSED SWORDS Warner Bros., 3/2, Scope 35
>CAPRICORN ONE Warner Bros., 6/2, Scope 35
>SGT. PEPPER'S Lonely Hearts Club Band RSO Films, 7/21, Scope 35, Dolby
>DAYS OF HEAVEN Warner Bros., 9/13, Flat 35, Dolby
>SUPERMAN: The Movie Warner Bros., 12/15, Scope 35, Dolby
COMES A HORSEMAN United Artists, Panavision blowup
COMING HOME United Artists, blowup
CRASH (STUNT ROCK) Film Ventures Int'l, Todd-AO
THE DEER HUNTER Universal, Panavision blowup maintained 2.35:1
GREASE Paramount, Panavision blowup
METAMORPHOSES Japan Sanrio, Panavision
>70MM IN 1979 (8 titles)
>HURRICANE Paramount, 4/12, Scope 35, Dolby
>ALIEN Fox, 5/25, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE MUPPET MOVIE ITC/AFD, 6/22, Flat 35, Dolby
>APOCALYPSE NOW United Artists/Zoetrope, 8/15, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE ROSE Fox, 11/7, Scope 35, Dolby
>1941 Universal, 12/14, Scope 35
>THE BLACK HOLE Disney, 12/21, Scope 35, Dolby
> ***ALSO***
> THE EXORCIST Fox, 4/11 (re-release, first time in 70mm)
THE BLACK STALLION United Artists, blowup
HANOVER STREET Columbia, Panavision blowup
MOONRAKER United Artists, Panavision blowup
STAR TREK--THE MOTION PICTURE Paramount, Panavision blowup
TIME AFTER TIME Warner Bros, Panavision blowup
>70MM IN 1980 (12 titles)
>FAME MGM/UA, 5/16, Flat 35, Dolby
>THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Fox, 5/21, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE ISLAND Universal, 6/13, Scope 35, Dolby
>CAN'T STOP THE MUSIC AFD, 6/20, Flat 35, Dolby
>THE BLUE LAGOON Columbia, 6/20, Flat 35
>RAISE THE TITANIC AFD, 8/1, Scope 35, Dolby
>CLOSE ENCOUNTERS Special Edition Columbia, 8/8, Scope 35, Dolby
>TWINKLE TWINKLE KILLER KANE UFD, 8/8, Scope 35
>DIVINE MADNESS Warner Bros./Ladd, 9/25, Scope 35, Dolby
>HEAVEN'S GATE United Artists, 11/19, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE JAZZ SINGER AFD, 12/19, Scope 35, Dolby
>ALTERED STATES Warner Bros., 12/25, Flat 35, Dolby
DANCE CRAZE Nu-Image
FLASH GORDON Universal, Todd-AO35 blowup
FLYING HIGH ,70mm prints in Australia
LION OF THE DESERT United Film Dist
ROADIE United Artists, Panavision blowup
ROLLER BOOGIE United Artists, blowup
ROUGH CUT Paramount, 70mm prints in Australia
SATURN 3 AFD/Universal, blowup
THE SPACE MOVIE Int'l Harmony
TESS Columbia, Panavision blowup
>70MM IN 1981 (5 titles)
>OUTLAND Warner Bros.,/Ladd, 5/22, Scope 35, "Dolby Megasound"
>RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK Paramount, 6/12, Scope 35, Dolby
>SUPERMAN II Warner Bros., 6/19, Scope 35, Dolby
>DRAGONSLAYER Paramount, 6/26, Scope 35, Dolby
>WOLFEN Orion, 7/24, Scope 35, Dolby
DAS BOOT W. Germany Columbia, blowup
CHARIOTS OF FIRE Warner Bros, blowup
THE INS AND THE OUTS (LES UNS ET LES AUTRES; BOLERO) France The Moreno Company
ROAR
SHARKY'S MACHINE Orion, blowup
ZOOT SUIT Universal, blowup, Sensurround Plus
>70MM IN 1982 (17 titles)
>QUEST FOR FIRE Fox, 2/12, Scope 35, Dolby
>ANNIE Columbia, 5/21, Scope 35, Dolby
>ROCKY III MGM/UA, 5/28, Flat 35, Dolby
>STAR TREK II: The Wrath of Khan Paramount, 6/4, Scope 35, Dolby
>POLTERGEIST MGM/UA, 6/4, Scope 35, Dolby
>E.T. THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL Universal, 6/11, Flat 35, Dolby
>GREASE 2 Paramount, 6/11, Scope 35, Dolby
>FIREFOX Warner Bros., 6/18, Scope 35, Dolby
>BLADERUNNER Warner Bros.,/Ladd, 6/25, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE THING Universal, 6/25, Scope 35, Dolby
>TRON Disney, 7/9, Dolby, 65MM/70MM Super Panavision 70
>Pink Floyd, THE WALL MGM/UA, 8/6, Flat 35, Dolby
>TEMPEST Columbia, 8/13, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE ROAD WARRIOR Warner Bros., 8/20, Scope 35, Dolby
>YES, GIORGIO MGM/UA, 9/24, Scope 35, Dolby
>GANDHI Columbia, 12/8, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE DARK CRYSTAL Universal, 12/17, Scope 35, Dolby
BRIMSTONE & TREACLE United Artists Classics, blowup rumored
HAIR United Artists, blowup for 1982 reissue
HELLS ANGELS FOREVER FOREVER HELLS ANGELS RKR Releasing
INCHON United Artists
NAPOLEON Universal, blowup maintains 1.33:1 and 3x1.33:1
NIGHT CROSSING Buena Vista, blowup
ONE FROM THE HEART Columbia, blowup maintains 1.37:1
THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE Universal, blowup
SUMMER LOVERS Orion, blowup rumored
>70MM IN 1983 (12 titles)
>LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER Embassy, 2/11, Flat 35
>BLUE THUNDER Columbia/Rastar, 5/13, Scope 35, Dolby
>RETURN OF THE JEDI Fox, 5/25, Scope 35, Dolby
>WAR GAMES MGM/UA, 6/3, Scope 35, Dolby
>OCTOPUSSY MGM/UA, 6/10, Scope 35, Dolby
>SUPERMAN III Warner Bros., 6/17, Scope 35, Dolby
>STAYING ALIVE Paramount, 7/15, Flat 35, Dolby
>KRULL Columbia, 7/29, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE STAR CHAMBER Fox, 8/5, Scope 35, Dolby
>BRAINSTORM MGM/UA, 9/30, Super Panavision 70 & Super 35, Dolby
>NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN Warner Bros., 10/7, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE RIGHT STUFF Warner Bros./Ladd, 10/21, Flat 35, Dolby
> ***SPECIAL***
> THX theater certification launched with
> RETURN OF THE JEDI.
THE ENTITY 20th-Fox, blowup
THE KEEP Paramount, blowup
SAHARA MGM/UA, rumored
TWILIGHT ZONE THE MOVIE Warner Bros, rumored
>70MM IN 1984 (14 titles)
>GREYSTOKE: The Legend of Tarzan Warner Bros., 3/30, Super 35, Dolby
>INDIANA JONES and the Temple of Doom Paramount, 5/23, Scope 35, Dolby
>STAR TREK III: The Search For Spock Paramount, 6/1, Scope 35, Dolby
>STREETS OF FIRE Universal/RKO, 6/1, Flat 35, Dolby
>GREMLINS Warner Bros., 6/8, Flat 35, Dolby
>GHOSTBUSTERS Columbia, 6/8, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE LAST STARFIGHTER Universal/Lorimar, 7/13, Scope 35, Dolby
>AMADEUS Orion, 9/19, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE RAZOR'S EDGE Columbia, 10/19, Scope 35, Dolby
>2010 MGM, 12/7, Scope 35, Dolby
>STARMAN Columbia, 12/14, Scope 35, Dolby
>DUNE Universal, 12/14, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE COTTON CLUB Orion, 12/14, Flat 35, Dolby
>THE RIVER Universal, 12/19, Scope 35, Dolby
THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BANZAI ACROSS THE EIGHTH DIMENSION 20th-Fox, blowup
THE BOUNTY Orion, Panavision blowup
CITY HEAT Warner Bros, blowup
COUNTRY Buena Vista, blowup
FORT SAGANNE France Albina/Films A2/SFPC -- Roissy Films, Technovision blowup
METROPOLIS Cinecom Int'l, Moroder version
ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA Warner Bros, rumored
A PASSAGE TO INDIA Columbia, rumored
SHEENA Columbia
SUPERGIRL Tri-Star, Panavision blowup
TIGHTROPE Warner Bros, rumored
>70MM IN 1985 (24 titles)
>LADYHAWKE Warner Bros., 4/12, Scope 35, Dolby
>RAMBO: First Blood Part 2 Tri Star, 5/22, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE GOONIES Warner Bros., 6/7, Scope 35, Dolby
>COCOON Fox, 6/21, Flat 35, Dolby
>LIFEFORCE Tri Star, 6/21, Scope 35, Dolby
>RETURN TO OZ Disney, 6/21, Flat 35, Dolby
>BACK TO THE FUTURE Universal, 7/3, Flat 35, Dolby
>THE EMERALD FOREST Embassy, 7/3, Scope 35, Dolby
>SILVERADO Columbia, 7/10, Super 35, Dolby
>MAD MAX Beyond Thunderdome Warner Bros., 7/10, Scope 35, Dolby
>EXPLORERS Paramount, 7/12, Flat 35, Dolby
>THE BLACK CAULDRON Disney, 7/26, Flat 35, Dolby
>AMERICAN FLYERS Warner Bros., 8/16, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE YEAR OF THE DRAGON MGM, 8/16, Scope 35, Dolby
>BRING ON THE NIGHT Concert , 11/8, Flat 35, Dolby
>WHITE NIGHTS Columbia, 11/22, Scope 35, Dolby
>ROCKY IV MGM, 11/27, Flat 35, Dolby
>SANTA CLAUS: The Movie Tri Star, 11/27, Flat 35, Dolby
>YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES Paramount, 12/4, Flat 35, Dolby
>SPIES LIKE US Warner Bros., Flat 35, 12/6
>A CHORUS LINE Columbia, 12/10, Scope 35, Dolby
>OUT OF AFRICA Universal, 12/20, Flat 35, Dolby
>REVOLUTION Warner Bros., 12/25, Scope 35, Dolby
BABY--SECRET OF THE LOST LEGEND Buena Vista, blowup
THE LAST DRAGON Tri-Star
TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. MGM/UA, blowup
>70MM IN 1986 (16 titles)
>CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR Warner Bros., 1/17, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE MONEY PIT Universal, 3/26, Flat 35, Dolby
>ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS Orion, 4/18, Flat 35, Dolby
>TOP GUN Paramount, 5/16, Flat 35, Dolby
>COBRA Warner Bros., 5/23, Scope 35, 70MM Ultra Stereo
>SPACECAMP Fox, 6/6, Flat 35, Dolby
>BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA Fox, 7/2, Scope 35, Dolby
>ALIENS Fox, 7/18, Super 35, Dolby
>HOWARD THE DUCK Universal, 8/1, Flat 35, Dolby
>MANHUNTER DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group, 8/15, Flat 35, Dolby
>TOUGH GUYS Touchtone, 10/3, Scope 35, Dolby
>THE COLOR OF MONEY Touchtone, 10/17, Flat 35, Dolby
>THE MISSION Warner Bros., 10/31, Scope 35, Dolby
>NUTCRACKER: The Motion Picture Atlantic, 11/26, Scope 35, Dolby
>STAR TREK IV: The Voyage Home Paramount, 11/26, Scope 35, Dolby
>LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS Warner Bros., 12/19, Flat 35, Dolby
> ***SPECIAL***
>First 70MM Dolby SR prints run in two L.A. theaters
>for STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME
>(Billed in stack ads as "Dolby Spectral Sound")
DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS Buena Vista, blowup
HIGHLANDER 20th-Fox, blowup
Additions and corrections are definitely welcome. Sorry if I missed a listing
and included a duplicate.
--
Jeffry L. Johnson (aa...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu, ac...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu)
Projectionist, Centrum Theatre; IATSE Local 160 Officer: Examining Board
Sysop: The Movie Marquee (xx062) your entrance to the movie areas on Freenet,
CWRU Film Society (xx062, xx433)
Gary Couzens
Bobby Henderson wrote in message ...
<snip introduction>
A fascinating list, thank you. Many of these didn't play in 70mm here in the
UK.
If I may offer a few corrections... (Some of the earlier ones I'm not sure
of, as I've only seen them on TV/video. From about 1984 onwards I'm on surer
ground as I saw the films in question in a cinema.
>DAYS OF HEAVEN Warner Bros., 9/13, Flat 35, Dolby
Aspect ratio for this is 2:1, presumably as a blowup to 70mm was intended
from the start.
>TWINKLE TWINKLE KILLER KANE UFD, 8/8, Scope 35
Not certain, but I think this is 1.85:1
>Pink Floyd, THE WALL MGM/UA, 8/6, Flat 35, Dolby
Scope 35
>THE RIVER Universal, 12/19, Scope 35, Dolby
Flat 35 (1.85:1)
>
>THE BLACK CAULDRON Disney, 7/26, Flat 35, Dolby
Super Panavision 70
>WHITE NIGHTS Columbia, 11/22, Scope 35, Dolby
Flat 35
>SANTA CLAUS: The Movie Tri Star, 11/27, Flat 35, Dolby
Scope 35
>REVOLUTION Warner Bros., 12/25, Scope 35, Dolby
Super 35 (2.35:1) - process credited as "System 35"
>
>ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS Orion, 4/18, Flat 35, Dolby
Super 35 aka "System 35" (2.35:1)
>TOP GUN Paramount, 5/16, Flat 35, Dolby
Super 35 (2.35:1)
>COBRA Warner Bros., 5/23, Scope 35, 70MM Ultra Stereo
Flat 35
>ALIENS Fox, 7/18, Super 35, Dolby
Flat 35
>MANHUNTER DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group, 8/15, Flat 35, Dolby
Definitely in Scope (Super 35?)
>THE BIG BLUE Columbia/Weintraub, 8/19, Flat 35, Dolby
Scope 35
>THE TWO JAKES Paramount, 8/10, Flat 35, Dolby
Super 35 (1.85:1)
>THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES Warner Bros., 12/21, Flat 35, Dolby
Super 35 (1.85:1)
>THE GODFATHER PART III Paramount, 12/25, Flat 35, Dolby SR
Super 35 (1.85:1)
>
>SHORT CUTS Fine Line Features, 10/3, Flat 35, Dolby
Super 35 (2.35:1)
Regards,
Gary Couzens
Gary Couzens
Gary Couzens wrote in message <7s4lb9$92f$2...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
>
>
>>THE BLACK CAULDRON Disney, 7/26, Flat 35, Dolby
>
>Super Panavision 70
>
Sorry, that should read "Super Technirama 70", as per other posts in this
thread.
Gary Couzens
Bobby Henderson
>I personally believe one reason distributors are not making 70mm prints
>available, even when they are needed to light huge screens properly, is
>that CGI effects are often not being done with sufficient resolution to
>"hold up" well under the sharp eye of a 70mm print. It simply costs
>more to "do it right" in order to fill the screens that are 60-plus feet
>wide.
Even the CGI thing is a misnomer. A number of films with 70mm prints,
including "Titanic," "Terminator 2: Judgement Day," "The Abyss," "Willow"
and "In the Line of Fire" all had CGI effects that translated well to the
70mm gauge. One reason for this is many CGI effects are rendered on 65mm
film or VistaVision 8-perf 35mm. It isn't like the 70mm CGI thing hasn't
already been done. A good number of large format special venue theater
films in 8-perf 70mm, Showscan and even IMAX have employed heavy use of CGI
effects. James Cameron plans to film an IMAX-based voyage to Mars film that
will use lots of CGI effects.
Now, it may cost more to properly render a 70mm frame that it would for a
35mm print. Likely 250% more is you translate straight film real estate
differences between 4-perf 35mm and 5-perf 70mm. But computer systems and
software for CGI has gotten so much more advanced over the years that the
costs differences should be dulled down some. Rendering times are certainly
nowhere near what they used to be.
Bobby Henderson
Scott Marshall
made actually had 70mm trailers made to run with 70mm features. It is possible
that someone could hold in their hand a 70mm frame of a film never printed in
70mm and claim it as "proof" that the film was released in 70mm, yet it may be
difficult to conclusively determine whether or not that frame only came from a
70mm trailer.
Re: Disney Premiers, you mention Pocahontas's world premier which actually ran
eight 70mm prints on four screens (for backup). I understand Hunchback also
used 70mm prints at its world premier, as well as Mulan.
I've believe I heard that a 70mm print of SW:SE was made, shown once at the
Oslo Norway Spectrum, and then was locked away and is no longer available.
Scott Marshall
Editor, Wide Gauge Film and Video
http://members.aol.com/widegauge/
John P. Pytlak
>
> Even the CGI thing is a misnomer. A number of films with 70mm prints,
> including "Titanic," "Terminator 2: Judgement Day," "The Abyss," "Willow"
> and "In the Line of Fire" all had CGI effects that translated well to the
> 70mm gauge. One reason for this is many CGI effects are rendered on 65mm
> film or VistaVision 8-perf 35mm. It isn't like the 70mm CGI thing hasn't
> already been done. A good number of large format special venue theater
> films in 8-perf 70mm, Showscan and even IMAX have employed heavy use of CGI
> effects. James Cameron plans to film an IMAX-based voyage to Mars film that
> will use lots of CGI effects.
>
> Now, it may cost more to properly render a 70mm frame that it would for a
> 35mm print. Likely 250% more is you translate straight film real estate
> differences between 4-perf 35mm and 5-perf 70mm. But computer systems and
> software for CGI has gotten so much more advanced over the years that the
> costs differences should be dulled down some. Rendering times are certainly
> nowhere near what they used to be.
>
> Bobby Henderson
John Pytlak replied:
I agree with you. My point wasn't that CGI worthy of 70mm couldn't be
done, but that lower resolution was being used to save money and
rendering time. When SFX resolution is less than optimum, it isn't as
obvious with a 35mm print as it would be with a razor-sharp 70mm print.
Great as the effects in "Titanic" were, the digital passengers were more
detectable in 70mm than in 35mm. But I overwhelmingly prefered the 70mm
prints that I watched.
The same argument applies to 65mm origination. Sure, we'd all like to
see a revival of 65mm production. But the fact that 35mm scope (or even
Super-35) isn't as "perfect" as 65mm shouldn't keep distributors from
making 70mm prints available to theatres with huge screens. I'd rather
see a bright but slightly grainy blow-up to 70mm on a 70-foot screen,
than a 35mm print barely able to reach 8 footlamberts without suffering
heat damage or focus flutter from 7000 watts being forced through a
frame the size of a postage stamp.
Steve Kraus
> I personally believe one reason distributors are not making 70mm prints
> available, even when they are needed to light huge screens properly, is
> that CGI effects are often not being done with sufficient resolution to
> "hold up" well under the sharp eye of a 70mm print. It simply costs
> more to "do it right" in order to fill the screens that are 60-plus feet
> wide.
Yeah but they are still showing the movie on those
screens so are you saying the 70mm blowup print
will show the limited resolution of the 35mm (perhaps
Super 35) image so much better than will the 35mm
print that the even lower resolution of the CGI will
become apparent?
Bobby Henderson
<19990920193623...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>Re: Disney Premiers, you mention Pocahontas's world premier which actually
ran
>eight 70mm prints on four screens (for backup). I understand Hunchback also
>used 70mm prints at its world premier, as well as Mulan.
>
>I've believe I heard that a 70mm print of SW:SE was made, shown once at the
>Oslo Norway Spectrum, and then was locked away and is no longer available.
There are lots of cases like that, and I certainly didn't list them all.
One thing I also did not do was include them in the standard list. Instead
I placed them under a "Special" heading. For my qualifications on a true
70mm engagment (at least as far as my North American list is concerned), the
film must play in 70mm at a normal commercial North American cinema. It is
preferable the film be advertised as such. To also keep from getting
knocked into the "Special" category in some instances, the film should have
had 70mm release prints in its original theatrical release.
A good number of custom prints have been struck, such as 70mm DTS prints of
films like "Goldeneye," "Independence Day," and the Star Wars Special
Edition trilogy. That does confuse matters, especially since many of those
70mm prints are completely unavailable to commercial theaters. The
existence of 70mm film frames from a certain film also does not necessarily
mean the movie was released in 70mm. Lots of movies had trailers attached
to 70mm releases --take the "Hard Rain" trailer attached to "Titanic."
For all the films on the list I posted, all were released with 70mm film
prints in support.
Bobby Henderson
jsk...@nospamdc.infi.net
>In 1977, the Cinerama Dome showed a 70mm print of "Jesus Christ Superstar,"
>which previous had been seen only in 'scope 35.
JC SUPERSTAR had a national 70mm reissue. I remember the newspaper ads for
this, which previously had shown "Todd-AO 35" in the credits for this reissue
showed "Todd-AO." A little deceptive....
John Skoda
jskoda at dc dot infi dot net
mike_...@my-deja.com
Those were some interesting additions you listed.
However, I have a hard time believing that they
all played in the U.S. How do you know about those
titles? Where did they play and why werenβt they
advertised? Due to the cost of making 70mm prints
and the prestige factor, it was customary for 70mm
prints to be heavily advertised in newspapers and
on theatre marquees. Were the movies you listed
only for βspecial screeningsβ such as a premiere
or Academy Award consideration screening? Bobbyβs
list was not 100% complete but was complete as far
as those 70mm releases that were advertised in
L.A. and New York. I find it hard to believe that
70mm prints would be screened in theatres outside
L.A., New York or London (the three biggest 70mm
markets for English-language movies). I suppose it
could happen occasionally, but certainly not on a
regular basis.
MIKE
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
mike_...@my-deja.com
mike_...@my-deja.com
mike_...@my-deja.com
mike_...@my-deja.com
mike_...@my-deja.com
MIKE
In article <7s4ad4$oq$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
aa...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffry L. Johnson)
wrote:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
mike_...@my-deja.com
Those were some interesting additions you listed. However, I have a hard
time believing that they all played in the U.S. How do you know about
those titles? Where did they play and why werenβt they advertised? Due
to the cost of making 70mm prints and the prestige factor, it was
customary for 70mm prints to be heavily advertised in newspapers and on
theatre marquees. Were the movies you listed only for βspecial
screeningsβ such as a premiere or Academy Award consideration screening?
Bobbyβs list was not 100% complete but was complete as far as those 70mm
releases that were advertised in L.A. and New York. I find it hard to
believe that 70mm prints would be screened in theatres outside L.A., New
York or London (the three biggest 70mm markets for English-language
movies). I suppose it could happen occasionally, but certainly not on a
regular basis.
MIKE
In article <7s4ad4$oq$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
aa...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffry L. Johnson) wrote:
>
Bobby Henderson
>I find it hard to believe that
>70mm prints would be screened in theatres outside
>L.A., New York or London (the three biggest 70mm
>markets for English-language movies). I suppose it
>could happen occasionally, but certainly not on a
>regular basis.
This is why I concentratred mainly on the New York and Los Angeles listings.
I haven't come across an original North American movie release with 70mm
print support that didn't have 70mm prints playing in NY or LA. Los Angeles
has been the top 70mm market in the world. It has the most 70mm equipped
screens and has had a number of films play their 70mm prints exclusively in
Los Angeles. It is certainly possible for there to be a number of European
releases with 70mm prints that played only 35mm here in the States.
However, my list does not include a complete rundown of European 70mm
releases.
Other markets I have checked include Toronto, London, Chicago, Boston,
Atlanta and Seattle, but that is mainly to see how some of the more generous
70mm print issues played in areas across the country. You do get certain
exceptions, such as Chicago having the most 70mm prints of "Backdraft" with
five (since the film was shot there). New York had only one at the
Ziegfeld, and I believe Los Angeles had two.
Bobby Henderson
Lincoln Spector
> this, which previously had shown "Todd-AO 35" in the credits for this
reissue
> showed "Todd-AO." A little deceptive....
(a little like Cinerama going single lens). the first time I noticed it was
Logan's Run. The credits said "Todd-AO," but it sure didn't look like 65 to
me.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
> was used obviously to answer the "Super Panavision 70" term on movies like
> "Spartacus."
the process itself, just the name. It's got all the buzzwords of the period
rolled into one.
Lincoln
Stephen Pickard
If I recall correctly, London's Warner Theater was deprived of a 70mm
print of "SUPERMAN" because there was some arguement over the fact that
it had to be run on a platter.
Sincerely,
Stephen Pickard.
MC
mike_...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7sb5d1$k9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Jeffry -
>
>Those were some interesting additions you listed. However, I have a hard
>time believing that they all played in the U.S. How do you know about
>those titles? Where did they play and why werenβt they advertised? Due
>to the cost of making 70mm prints and the prestige factor, it was
>customary for 70mm prints to be heavily advertised in newspapers and on
>theatre marquees. Were the movies you listed only for βspecial
>screeningsβ such as a premiere or Academy Award consideration screening?
>Bobbyβs list was not 100% complete but was complete as far as those 70mm
>releases that were advertised in L.A. and New York. I find it hard to
>believe that 70mm prints would be screened in theatres outside L.A., New
>York or London (the three biggest 70mm markets for English-language
>movies). I suppose it could happen occasionally, but certainly not on a
>regular basis.
I recall the 70mm scene here in Los Angeles pretty vividly. Many of the
titles Jeffry listed as 70mm were seen here solely in 35mm. I can't speak
for overseas venues, obviously. I'll add a few random comments.
1970:
ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER -- does anyone recall if there were 70mm
prints struck?
1971:
>> WOODSTOCK
This DID play in 70mm, if I recall correctly.
>> FIDDLER ON THE ROOF United Artists, Panavison blowup
I believe this was indeed in 70mm.
1972:
>> SOLARIS USSR
Never played in 70mm in Los Angeles. It premiered here at the Nuart theatre
in the late '70s. I have no doubt there were 70mm prints in Russia.
>> DELIVERANCE Warner Bros, Panavision blowup
I believe this did indeed play here in 70mm at the Dome.
>> THE EMIGRANTS Sweden Warner Bros
If there were any 70mm prints struck, they did not "emigrate" to Los
Angeles!
1973
>> GODSPELL Columbia, blowup
This flat film premiered here in Los Angeles at a 35mm-only house.
>> THE NEW LAND Warner Bros
Nope.
>> AIRPORT 75 Universal, Panavision blowup
I'd be surprised if there were 70mm prints of this title playing anywhere.
The 35mm print that played at the Dome was mono!
>> >70MM IN 1975 (2 titles)
>> THE JOLSON STORY Columbia reissue cropped blowup from 1.37:1 to 2.2:1
This is true! It played at a now-defunct house in Beverly Hills. Yikes!
>> LUCKY LADY 20th-Fox, blowup
Oh, hell. I recall seeing this notorious piece of dreck at the Egyptian. But
it was indeed in 70mm. What a waste of 70mm stock!
>> NASHVILLE Paramount, Panavision blowup
The most over-rated film of all time premiered at L.A.'s Fox Village in 35mm
four-track mag.
>> >70MM IN 1976 (4 titles)
>> THE SLIPPER AND THE ROSE Universal, Panavision blowup
I am pretty certain this was 35mm here in L.A.
>> >70MM IN 1978 (5 titles)
>> THE BLACK STALLION United Artists, blowup
Shot, and shown, in flat 35mm. I saw it at a studio screening, and later
during its first run.
>> STAR TREK--THE MOTION PICTURE Paramount, Panavision blowup
Maybe outside America, but not in L.A.! I still recall how disappointed I
was that no 70mm prints were struck for its run at the Chinese. I did hear
rumors that it played in 70mm in Britain, though -- can anyone confirm?
>> >70MM IN 1980 (12 titles)
>> FLASH GORDON Universal, Todd-AO35 blowup
I recall seeing this in 70mm. Rotten film, too.
>> ROLLER BOOGIE United Artists, blowup
I refuse to believe that there were ever any 70mm prints of this.
>> >70MM IN 1981 (5 titles)
>> DAS BOOT W. Germany Columbia, blowup
Shot, and shown (at least here in L.A.) in flat 35mm.
>> >70MM IN 1982 (17 titles)
>> ONE FROM THE HEART Columbia, blowup maintains 1.37:1
I know this played in 1.37 at the Chinese, but I am sure a 35mm print was
used.
>> >70MM IN 1983 (12 titles)
>> THE ENTITY 20th-Fox, blowup
>> THE KEEP Paramount, blowup
I recall otherwise for both these titles. BTW, THE ENTITY was anamorphic,
but wasn't THE KEEP flat?
>> >70MM IN 1984 (14 titles)
>> ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA Warner Bros, rumored
>> A PASSAGE TO INDIA Columbia, rumored
I strongly doubt such rumors concerning these two flat-35mm films. They were
never shown in 35mm here in Los Angeles.
Also...
In '85 or '86 an adventure film about a young boy in Brazil played at the
now-denuded Plitt theatre in 70mm. Wasn't a bad picture. But it never had a
wide release, and for the life of me I now cannot recall the name of the
thing!
Braxus
> release prints struck in 35mm.
Was there no Star Trek 1 70mm print ever made in 79? I have those dinky 70mm
print displays of a frame from the film, so I assume they must of made a
70mm print along the line somewhere.
> Films like "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" had very aggressive 70mm
> releases, with nearly 300 prints struck in 70mm out of 3,000 total.
Wow that's impressive. Did they look better than the 35mm counterparts?
"Titanic"
> for instance only had 20 prints struck in 70mm.
It would of been o if Cameron hadn't stepped in and fought for it and
ended up paying for them himself. Studios don't care about presentation
anymore when it comes to the picture quality itself.
you might get stuck with a 35mm show
> fairly often.
Funny a Vancouver theater here played Titanic when it was out in their main
large auditorium #1 theater. It can play 70mm prints and had DTS, but for
some reason it got stuck with the regular 35mm DD print. That theater has a
very large screen for most theaters in the city and I think it has well over
500- maybe close to 1000 seats. (Capitol 6). They never use the 70mm side of
the dual projector anymore.
Too bad the 35mm digital sound
> formats aren't as good with their advertising.
True. Good as CD quality- not! Too bad short sightedness runs things now a
days.
>
> With home theater actually doing 5.1 channel digital sound better than
> commercial theaters, Hollywood needs to improve things a bit by bringing
> back actual 70mm film production.
I said the exact same thing years ago. No one listens. No one cares. At
least no one in control or who actual makes these films today. It seems they
truly want to kill the 5/70 format at all costs so it will permanently go
away so they don't have to worry about using it or have to present in it in
the future. IMAX is not the answer either as its not a fictional drama based
medium. Its only for eye candy. How does one asthetically compose an image
in IMAX and have it not look strange for the audience to properly view it?
And actors would never get dramatic closeups in IMAX so how does one shoot
such shots other than wide?
Digital sound has done a lot to pretty
> much kill 70mm in the commercial cinema.
Yup. As they say you can't have 2 features like digital sound and 70mm . Its
one or the other.
But with all these oversized
> stadium seating screens, 70mm needs to be used.
I agree but what stadium theater even has 70mm projection? None as far as I
know. I doubt they'll fork over the money to put one in on the amount of
70mm films being released now either. Catch 22.
I don't care what kind of a
> lamp or reflector is used, 35mm projectors will never adequately light a
> screen more than 60 feet wide. The pictures are too dim.
What theater chain or film studio really cares about this? And the excuse is
what normal film goer would even notice this? Most don't. Maybe that's why
they want 70mm to go away because they don't want the audience to see the
difference in quality between 35mm and 65mm origination. Who of them really
go to IMAX and see Citizen Kane in such a theater?
High definition
> TV and video playback will eventually be happening in the home and that
will
> demand a better quality picture at the commercial movie theater for them
to
> stay in business.
It'll only happen when they practically have to. And only then.
My movie going at commercial theaters really dropped off
> after I purchased my home theater system. Unless the commerical theater
can
> offer me a real top flight show with stadium seating, a bright picture and
> digital sound, I am going to be tempted to stay at home.
Maybe that's why more young people are the ones going now. They don't care.
And they're the ones that won't shut up in watching the films too. The
ellegant extravegant classy elite road show presentions that were true
showmanship are so rare now who would miss them in todays movie going
audiences?
I would get back
> to commercial theaters more often if Hollywood actually filmed something
in
> 70mm format to make the big screen experience more worth the high price.
What director has the balls to actually force the studio to allow him to
shoot 5-65mm? They won't merit the extra cost, even though inflated actors
budgets like $20 million they won't flinch at. I think priorites and
restraint need some exercise here. Tone down the egos and bring back some
quality movies that don't insult your intelligence. Kubricks last film
reminded me of the way movies were made before all this sequal no brainer
copycat cr@p has infultrated theaters the last 10 to 20 years. Dumb and
Dumber. Who is which?
Martin Hart
lin...@dnai.com says...
To my knowledge, "Logan's Run" was the only Todd-AO 35 film that was
incorrectly credited. It was most definitely a 35mm anamorphic film.
Marty
--
Relive the panoramic past:
Visit The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.simplecom.net/widefilm/
David Mullen
>incorrectly credited. It was most definitely a 35mm anamorphic film.
You should listen to Michael Anderson's commentary on the DVD. He rambles
on about how he convinced MGM to let him shoot "Logan's Run" in Todd-AO, and
how great it was and how he had used it on "Around the World in 80 Days" --
and then finally tossing in "of course, we were shooting the 35mm version of
Todd-AO" as if it was almost the same thing as the 65mm format...
Ernest Laszlo did a pretty good job with those Todd-AO anamorphics,
however -- the film looks pretty rich and sharp. I don't know for sure, but
I wouldn't be surprised if the optics were slightly better than Panavision's
"C" series anamorphics of the time.
David Mullen
Saul Pincus
Braxus wrote:
> All of those films on that list had the vast majority of their
> > release prints struck in 35mm.
>
> Was there no Star Trek 1 70mm print ever made in 79? I have those dinky 70mm
> print displays of a frame from the film, so I assume they must of made a
> 70mm print along the line somewhere.
>
Trek I was finished so late that there were few 70mm prints. I do recall one in
Montreal (it ran at the now-defunct Kent on Sherbrooke west), but this was after
the film had been out for a week or so. And if there was a print in Montreal,
there had to have been others around.
> > Films like "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" had very aggressive 70mm
> > releases, with nearly 300 prints struck in 70mm out of 3,000 total.
>
> Wow that's impressive. Did they look better than the 35mm counterparts?
In terms of color saturation and sharpness (not to mention sound), *much* nicer
in 70mm.
Saul.
Steve Spicer
Spike
Bobby Henderson
>Was there no Star Trek 1 70mm print ever made in 79? I have those dinky
70mm
>print displays of a frame from the film, so I assume they must of made a
>70mm print along the line somewhere.
If there was a 70mm print of it, it probably played on Los Angeles only and
did so unadvertised. If 70mm frames of the film exist, then a special print
of it must have been made for the purpose of being snipped apart for
collectors items. The film certaily had no 70mm prints in New York City. I
know that for sure. With "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" being such a big
event at the time, if 70mm prints were available then the Big Apple should
have gotten at least one or two of the things.
>Wow that's impressive. Did they look better than the 35mm counterparts?
The 70mm prints of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" did indeed look
noticeably better than the 35mm counterparts. 70mm blowups are printed in
real time and often from a better interpositive source than what is used for
high speed 35mm mass print production. The color looked washed out on the
35mm Dolby SR version. The 70mm version I saw at the Loews Astor Plaza
looked very good, rich in color and sufficiently bright, even on the large
screen in that 1,500 seat subterrainean theater.
Super 35 films also take a noticeable jump forward in picture quality when
properly blown up to 70mm. The 70mm print of "The Abyss" I watched at the
Ziegfeld theater in Manhattan looked awesome. Same goes for films like
"Backdraft," which played 70mm in the same venue.
>It would of been o if Cameron hadn't stepped in and fought for it and
>ended up paying for them himself. Studios don't care about presentation
>anymore when it comes to the picture quality itself.
Perhaps those bean counters in Hollywood might care if they saw how terrible
their films look projected onto large screens with only 35mm sources. I am
sure a number of filmmakers would be up in arms about it if they saw the
deplorable situation for themselves. But it isn't very often that an
influential filmmaker can visit a typical stadium seated multiplex without
drawing attention. And those types usually have their own well-put-together
private screening rooms anyway.
>Funny a Vancouver theater here played Titanic when it was out in their main
>large auditorium #1 theater. It can play 70mm prints and had DTS, but for
>some reason it got stuck with the regular 35mm DD print. That theater has a
>very large screen for most theaters in the city and I think it has well
over
>500- maybe close to 1000 seats. (Capitol 6). They never use the 70mm side
of
>the dual projector anymore.
There probably were not enough 70mm prints to go around for the Vancouver
theater you cite to get booked as such. There are still close to 1,000
theater screens in North America equipped with 70mm capability. Very few of
these theaters were booked with 70mm film prints, even at the peak years of
the "blowup age."
> Digital sound has done a lot to pretty
>> much kill 70mm in the commercial cinema.
>
>Yup. As they say you can't have 2 features like digital sound and 70mm .
Its
>one or the other.
In Dolby's initial marketing for Dolby Digital, they had their new 35mm SRD
format designed as a replacement for 70mm equipped screens, with Dolby SR
optical being good enough for everyone else. That is really a shame. The
following year, DTS did the correct thing by saying ALL movie theaters
should be able to have digital sound, even the little tiny neighborhood
complexes. Their system was priced to do that (the $2500 and $3500 intro
tags for DTS versus the $20,000 price Dolby was asking for SRD then). To
DTS' credit, they have tried to do what they can to keep 70mm alive. They
worked to get their 70mm time code reader developed and got the system
running. Dolby and Sony have made no efforts to develop 70mm versions of
their sound on film systems. With the high cost of mag-striping and new
rules from OSHA and the EPA, the Dolby A and SR mag coat 70mm print is
nearly a thing of the past. Most new 70mm theatrical and special venue
prints are time coded for DTS.
>I agree but what stadium theater even has 70mm projection? None as far as I
>know. I doubt they'll fork over the money to put one in on the amount of
>70mm films being released now either. Catch 22.
There are a few theaters here and there which have 70mm projection
capability. The only one I know of in Dallas, for instance, is the largest
screen at Loews Keystone Park. Other theaters in the metroplex, such as the
two big theaters at the UA Galaxy and the largest screening rooms at the
Cinemark 17 sorely need 70mm projection equipment and prints to show. 35mm
really looks terrible on screens that large.
>What theater chain or film studio really cares about this? And the excuse
is
>what normal film goer would even notice this? Most don't. Maybe that's why
>they want 70mm to go away because they don't want the audience to see the
>difference in quality between 35mm and 65mm origination. Who of them really
>go to IMAX and see Citizen Kane in such a theater?
"Citizen Kane" wasn't filmed in such a format. However, if you wanted to
show the movie on an IMAX screen, you would need to blow it up to 15-perf
70mm, or at least 8-perf 70mm, to get the picture illuminated properly. It
would be completely hopeless to do an acceptable job with 35mm in that
application.
As far as 65mm origination goes, it really doesn't cost much more than 35mm.
Especially with the fast film stocks available today. And not all of the
studios are joined at the hip or the brain on this subject either. It only
takes one of them to make a statement with it. If Kenneth Brannagh could do
a four hour "Hamlet" in true 70mm format and keep the cost of the movie
below $20 million, then there is really very little excuse for major
features not to pursue it.
>What director has the balls to actually force the studio to allow him to
>shoot 5-65mm? They won't merit the extra cost, even though inflated actors
>budgets like $20 million they won't flinch at. I think priorites and
>restraint need some exercise here. Tone down the egos and bring back some
>quality movies that don't insult your intelligence.
The film gauge should not be used as a scapegoat for bad writing or
filmmaking. Unfortunately, some folks in Hollywood have been so laughably
idiotic to go so far as doing that. Even "Variety" magazine was trying to
go that route in their skeptical articles about 70mm origination when "Far
and Away" was released. If Ron Howard had enough clout to get that show
going in 70mm, then there shouldn't be any problem with other big directors
doing the same thing.
Bobby Henderson
Scott Norwood
Bobby Henderson <bob...@sirinet.net> wrote:
>
>With the high cost of mag-striping and new
>rules from OSHA and the EPA, the Dolby A and SR mag coat 70mm print is
>nearly a thing of the past. Most new 70mm theatrical and special venue
>prints are time coded for DTS.
Why is mag striping of prints such a big deal? How is it any different
than 16mm or 35mm mag fullcoat stock, which is readily available and not
particularly expensive?
Regarding digital sound--suppose I were to make a film in 35mm and
produce a six-track mix on magnetic fullcoat. What would it cost me
to have digital encoding (which I assume is a soundtrack negative plus
CDs or CD-Rs for DTS) done for each of the three major digital formats?
Is it cheaper to have soundtrack negatives made for one format or another?
How is the pricing structured? Is it a per-foot cost (as with optical
tracks), or is it calculated in some other way?
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Peter
bob...@sirinet.net sez ...
>>
>Was there no Star Trek 1 70mm print
>ever made in 79? I have those dinky
>70mm print displays of a frame from
>the film, so I assume they must of made a
>70mm print along the line somewhere.
If there was a 70mm print of it, it probably played on Los Angeles only and
did so unadvertised. If 70mm frames of the film exist, then a special print
of it must have been made for the purpose of being snipped apart for
collectors items. The film certaily had no 70mm prints in New York City. I
know that for sure. With "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" being such a big
event at the time, if 70mm prints were available then the Big Apple should
have gotten at least one or two of the things.
>>
ST:TMP played in 70mm at the Century 21 in San Jose.
San Jose is a city of 750,000 population about 45 miles south of the slightly
smaller (in population) San Francisco.
If Paramount was able to come up with a 70mm print for San Jose (part of the #5
market, the #45 market on it's own), you would surely think that they could
come up with one for New York (the #1 market).
The 70mm release print was prominently mentioned in the print media.
The text "In 70mm and 6-track Stereo" was featured on the marquee, too.
The stereo score was fine. The dialog appeared to be mono.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I read personal responses (to my e-mail address) before I read general
responses (to the NG). If you respond to both places, please so indicate.
gordon mcleod
prints running or star teck 4 there were 16 prints
todate we still have over 50 screens equiped for 70mm of which 3 have dts70
capability. All of which have the 70mm capability checked during routine
service
gordon mcleod
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:51:17 GMT, mike_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Jeffry -
>
>Those were some interesting additions you listed.
>However, I have a hard time believing that they
>all played in the U.S. How do you know about those
>titles? Where did they play and why werenβt they
>advertised? Due to the cost of making 70mm prints
>and the prestige factor, it was customary for 70mm
>prints to be heavily advertised in newspapers and
>on theatre marquees. Were the movies you listed
>only for βspecial screeningsβ such as a premiere
>or Academy Award consideration screening? Bobbyβs
>list was not 100% complete but was complete as far
>as those 70mm releases that were advertised in
>L.A. and New York. I find it hard to believe that
>70mm prints would be screened in theatres outside
>L.A., New York or London (the three biggest 70mm
>markets for English-language movies). I suppose it
>could happen occasionally, but certainly not on a
>regular basis.
>
>MIKE
gordon mcleod
It is in dolby format 43 split surrounds
gordon mcleod
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 19:27:00 -0500, Bobby Henderson wrote:
>Dominique Laruelle wrote in message <37E56B01...@club-internet.fr>...
>>I thought that this picture was shot whith the Technirama camera used for
>>Sleeping beauty.
>>
>>> THE BLACK CAULDRON Disney, 7/26, Flat 35, Dolby
>
>I tried checking IMDB and a couple other sites and could find no information
>on it. If "The Black Cauldron" was shot in Technirama, as was the case with
>"Sleeping Beauty" that would be news to me. If it turns out that way, I'll
>certainly make the correction to my 70mm films list.
>
>Bobby Henderson
>
>
gordon mcleod
using 2 EV electronic crossovers mounted in the back of the rack behind the
Cp100
gordon mcleod
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:50:13 -0800, SprocketOil wrote:
>In article <19990918222801...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, sgu...@aol.com
>(SGuttag) wrote:
>
>>
>> Superman deserves honorable mention for being the first Dolby 70mm film with
>> STEREO SURROUNDS (format 43).
>>
>
>
>It wasn't offically exhibited with stereo surrounds however. It was an
>experiment of compatibility when played on a mono surround system.
>
>The first official release that the exhibitors were told was available and
>the equipment was available for sale to them was Apocolypse Now.
>
>--
>***********************************************************************
>NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47,
>Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited
>commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
>download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.
>E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
>By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
>meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it
>is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
>Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
>punishable by law.
>*************************************************************************
>..
>
Martin Hart
dav...@earthlink.net says...
> >To my knowledge, "Logan's Run" was the only Todd-AO 35 film that was
> >incorrectly credited. It was most definitely a 35mm anamorphic film.
>
> You should listen to Michael Anderson's commentary on the DVD. He rambles
> on about how he convinced MGM to let him shoot "Logan's Run" in Todd-AO, and
> how great it was and how he had used it on "Around the World in 80 Days" --
> and then finally tossing in "of course, we were shooting the 35mm version of
> Todd-AO" as if it was almost the same thing as the 65mm format...
Anderson, it would appear, may be a nice man but he is not technically
savvy. He is quoted in American Cinematographer as saying that 80 DAYS
was filmed in Todd-AO and CinemaScope. In his mind, "Logan's Run" may
have been in the same Todd-AO as the 35mm prints of 80 DAYS.
> Ernest Laszlo did a pretty good job with those Todd-AO anamorphics,
> however -- the film looks pretty rich and sharp. I don't know for sure, but
> I wouldn't be surprised if the optics were slightly better than Panavision's
> "C" series anamorphics of the time.
L.B. Abbot discusses the lenses in his book "Special Effects", published
by ASC. They were not without problems but Todd-AO would fix them up or
make him a new one immediately. I'm not sure what that indicates.
MC
Peter wrote in message <19990923142722...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>If there was a 70mm print of it, it probably played on Los Angeles only and
>did so unadvertised.
It did not play in 70mm at the Chinese, where I saw the film on opening
night. It was not advertised in 70mm. I can tell the difference between 35mm
at 70mm at that venue -- for one thing, you can see into the projection
booth.
I believe there was a massive rush to finish the special effects in time for
the premiere of this film, whcih may have prevented the striking of 70mm
prints. A few such prints may have been struck for later playdates, which
may explain...
>ST:TMP played in 70mm at the Century 21 in San Jose.
A terrific theatre. Bet it looked great there.
Bobby Henderson
The biggest 70mm market was toronto canada which for Indian Jones had 12
70mm
prints running or star teck 4 there were 16 prints
todate we still have over 50 screens equiped for 70mm of which 3 have dts70
capability.
I strongly disagree that Toronto Canada was the largest 70mm theater market.
Both New York and Los Angeles markets boasted well over double the total
listed above for Toronto. "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" debuted in
the New York market with 23 70mm prints. The Los Angeles market had over 30
prints of the same film.
Los Angeles is the world's leading market for 70mm equipped screens. L.A.
has always had more movies playing there in 70mm than any other place in the
world. Los Angeles usually gets more 70mm prints than any other market for
films with such print availability. Exceptions to this rule are very rare,
such as the case with Chicago getting 5 "Backdraft" prints in 70mm, versus
the 2 in LA and 1 in NY.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>Why is mag striping of prints such a big deal? How is it any different
>than 16mm or 35mm mag fullcoat stock, which is readily available and not
>particularly expensive?
The chemicals used to create the mag-coating on film are what is in
question. New rules require new handling and disposal of the waste
by-products of the chemicals and results of the process. Lawful handling
and disposal can be very costly. The HAZMAT sheets and lots of other
paperwork is a pain in the ass to deal with. Kinda makes it a cost
prohibitive thing.
Generating time code on a 70mm print is no more difficult than putting
together the digital sound negatives for standard 35mm release. Considering
the large size of the data blocks DTS uses for their 70mm time code, I would
say the process has a good bit more room for error, making the process much
more forgiving of printing mistakes than what 35mm systems can afford. The
DTS 70mm time code has been tailored to just about every 70mm film format,
both special venue and 5-perf theatrical.
>Regarding digital sound--suppose I were to make a film in 35mm and
>produce a six-track mix on magnetic fullcoat. What would it cost me
>to have digital encoding (which I assume is a soundtrack negative plus
>CDs or CD-Rs for DTS) done for each of the three major digital formats?
I don't know what DTS currently charges filmmakers for their licensing fee
and having a disc manufacturer create the glass master and stamper master
sets, and replicate a few thousand CD-ROM discs. CD-ROM mass replication is
relatively cheap. Two master sets for two different CD-ROM disc runs should
cost no more than about $750 to $1500 depending on where you get the discs
made. The CD-ROMs themselves can be replicated for as little as pennys a
piece. Dolby and Sony, charge a relatively small licensing fee to studios
for use of their Dolby Digital and SDDS formats respectively.
The big thing that is going to cost you is having the 5.1 channel soundtrack
recorded and mastered in the first place. A good movie sound posting house
can get the 5.1 or 7.1 channel mixes created and recorded onto a number of
different archive formats. DASH-8 tapes are getting pretty popular now for
storing uncompressed digital master mixes. Some masters are still recorded
to a six-track 35mm full mag coat print with Dolby SR noise reduction and
SMPTE timecode. I don't know what it costs to have a mag printmaster made.
But I assume the thing has to cost well into the thousands of dollars, if
not over $10,000. Mag striping 70mm film can as much as double the cost of
the print. It is a lot cheaper to just have a 70mm print time coded.
>Is it cheaper to have soundtrack negatives made for one format or another?
>How is the pricing structured? Is it a per-foot cost (as with optical
>tracks), or is it calculated in some other way?
Dolby and Sony charge a flat licensing fee. DTS charges a licensing fee and
usually there is an additional charge for the CD-ROM production.
Supposedly, the film exhibition companies share in paying the cost for the
discs, but I haven't heard anything definitive on that.
Neither digital sound format costs any more than the other to have their
data or time code included on the print. A negative has to be produced for
each digital sound format. Most professional 35mm high speed print houses
have film printing cameras that can print the visual picture, SVA optical
track, DTS time code, Dolby Digital data between sprocket holes and SDDS
soundtracking on the sides of the strip all at the same time.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
Peter wrote in message <19990923142722...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>If Paramount was able to come up with a 70mm print for San Jose (part of
the #5
>market, the #45 market on it's own), you would surely think that they could
>come up with one for New York (the #1 market).
You would, indeed, surely think "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" would have
had a 70mm print or two playing in New York for its opening. However, that
never happened. Only 35mm prints were shown in New York for that film. All
of the other films in the Star Trek series up to sequel #6, "The
Undiscovered Country" had numerous 70mm prints in New York. That really
popular 70mm logo, used most often on Paramount releases, was first used for
the advertisements of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan."
Bobby Henderson
Peter
>>
[ Michael ] Anderson, it would appear, may be a nice man but he is not
technically savvy. He is quoted in American Cinematographer as saying that 80
DAYS was filmed in Todd-AO and CinemaScope.
>>
Anderson also claimed that the best "take", either the Todd-AO version *or* the
CinemaScope version, was incorporated into the final film ... clearly an
impossibility.
>>
L.B. Abbot discusses the [ Todd-AO 35 anamorphic ] lenses in his book "Special
Effects", published by ASC. They were not without problems but Todd-AO would
fix them up or make him a new one immediately. I'm not sure what that
indicates.
>>
Abbot, Fox's long-time sfx guru (after Sersen's retirement) knew how to fix
anamorphic mumps, too.
Observe how few Fox 'scope films suffer from that purported "defect".
Peter
>>
>ST:TMP played in 70mm at the Century 21 in San Jose.
A terrific theatre. Bet it looked great there.
>>
It's not as good as AMC's Town and Country, which is just across the street
from the Century 21.
The T&C is an original Todd-AO installation (there was one other in San Jose,
but it's now a "Doc in the Box").
The last time I saw a 70mm film at the T&C they were still using dual AA-IIs in
changeover mode and the original Ampex 120 watt tube power amps (push-pull
parallel 807s).
The sound was vastly superior to the Century 21, which was a platter house and
had a JJ or something similar, plus solid-state amps.
Greg Faris
>The film gauge should not be used as a scapegoat for bad writing or
>filmmaking. Unfortunately, some folks in Hollywood have been so laughably
>idiotic to go so far as doing that. Even "Variety" magazine was trying to
>go that route in their skeptical articles about 70mm origination when "Far
>and Away" was released.
While this statment will get little argument here, I have worked enough in
specialty venues and large formats to see that sometimes the latter do get the
better of some directors. The additional technical constraints serve to
hinder, and who knows, perhaps even intimidate some otherwise high stature
directors and DP's.
Though I hate to admit it, there is some validity in the argument. After a few
disappointments, I have heard some knowlegable professionals say, "those
formats PREVENT good directors from making good films!".
Not every director/DP team is a LEAN/YOUN combo.
Greg
Greg Faris
>Why is mag striping of prints such a big deal? How is it any different
>than 16mm or 35mm mag fullcoat stock, which is readily available and not
>particularly expensive?
>
Actually, fullcoat and mag stripe are two very different things, from a
manufacturing standpoint, and to some degree from a performance standpoint.
Fullcoat can be manufactured just like tape, benefiting from all the
manufacturing advances made over the years - like "calandering", rolling it
under a huge press to improve uniformity and surface qualities, backcoating,
binder improvements, etc.
Striping onto an already processed (read very fragile) release print is by
comparison a very crude process - done one reel at a time in a little shop of
horrors somewhere. The resulting surface qualities, along with the thickness
and stiffness of the film and the binders required to stick the two together
result in a magnetic medium of poorer quality than tape, and at vastly higher
cost.
The environmental issue can be resolved, however. Solvent recovery programs
are now current in all tape manufacturing facilities, and actually pay for
themselves over time, as the solvents can be re-used.
Lincoln Spector
What I'd like to see is a 70mm version of SDDS rather than DTS. DTS is the
same in 35mm & 70mm. SDDS could be much better.
For one thing, there are those optional 2 extra front tracks. 70mm SHOULD
have 5 front tracks, and SDDS could make that a requirement for 70mm.
Also, SDDS puts its tracks on the outer edges of the film, outside the
sprocket holes. 70mm has larger edges than 35mm. You could double the
bit-rate and really improve the sound of things.
Lincoln
Scott Norwood
Lincoln Spector <lin...@dnai.com> wrote:
>
>What I'd like to see is a 70mm version of SDDS rather than DTS. DTS is the
>same in 35mm & 70mm. SDDS could be much better.
>
>For one thing, there are those optional 2 extra front tracks. 70mm SHOULD
>have 5 front tracks, and SDDS could make that a requirement for 70mm.
Theoretically, this could be done with DTS. Imagine using the existing
timecode track, but with either more CDs or perhaps DVD-ROM disks carrying
a soundtrack with more channels (and, possibly, less compression and/or
a higher sampling rate).
>Also, SDDS puts its tracks on the outer edges of the film, outside the
>sprocket holes.
So does DTS-70.
Lincoln Spector
btw, how many of those 50 screens are curved?
Lincoln
________________
gordon mcleod <gmc...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:tzpyrbqvqverpgpb...@bigmomma.idirect.com...
The biggest 70mm market was toronto canada which for Indian Jones had 12
70mm
prints running or star teck 4 there were 16 prints
todate we still have over 50 screens equiped for 70mm of which 3 have dts70
Lincoln Spector
> incorrectly credited. It was most definitely a 35mm anamorphic film.
credited as in Todd-AO. I may be wrong.
I checked IMDB, and it said Todd-AO 35. But it also said that about Logan's
Run.
Lincoln
Jeffry L. Johnson
<bob...@sirinet.net> wrote:
Sorry for the delay. I'm out of town right now. Here's my list of wide
gauge films from 1955-1969. My apologies for any errors. All corrections
are welcome. I haven't actively worked on this list since 1987.
1955
The Miracle of Todd-AO
1955
USA
Todd-AO
short
Oklahoma
1955; 1982--reissue
USA
Magna; Samuel Goldwyn--reissue
Todd-AO (30 fps)
1956
Around the World in 80 Days
1956; 1983--reissue
USA
United Artists; Warner Bros--reissue
Todd-AO (30 fps)
Carousel
1956
USA
20th-Fox
CinemaScope 55
The King and I
1956; 1961--reissue
USA
20th-Fox
CinemaScope 55; Grandeur 70--reissue
1957
Raintree County
1957
USA
MGM
Camera 65 (Panavision 70)
1958
South Pacific
1958
USA
Magna; Samuel Goldwyn
Todd-AO
1959
Ben-Hur
1959
USA
MGM
Camera 65 (Panavision 70)
The Big Fisherman
1959
USA
Buena Vista
Panavision 70
Porgy and Bess
1959
USA
Columbia
Todd-AO
Sleeping Beauty
1958; 1986--reissue
USA
Buena Vista
Technirama 70
animated
Solomon and Sheba
1959
USA
United Artists
Technirama 70
1960
The Alamo
1960
USA
United Artists
Todd-AO
Black Tights
[One, Two, Three, Four]
[Un, deux, trois, quatre!]
[Les collants noirs]
1960; 1962
France
Magna
Super Technirama 70
released in 35mm only
ballet film
Can-Can
1960
USA
20th-Fox
Todd-AO
Carthage in Flames
[Cartagine in fiamme]
[Carthage en flammes]
1960; 1961
France/Italy
Columbia
Super-Technirama 70
only 35mm in USA
Exodus
1960
USA
United Artists
Panavision 70
The Man with the Green Carnation
[The Green Carnation]
[The Tirals of Oscar Wilde]
1960
Great Britain
Kingsley International; United Artists Classics--reissue
Super Technirama 70
The Savage Innocents
[Les dents du diable]
[Ombre bianche]
1960; 1961
France/Great Britain/Italy
Paramount
Technirama 70
Scent of Mystery
[Holiday in Spain--1962 reissue title]
1960
USA
Michael Todd Jt; NT Assets Corp
Todd 70 (Todd-AO)
Smell-O-Vision
Spartacus
1960
USA
Universal
Super Technirama 70
The Unforgiven
1960
USA
United Artists
Panavision 70 (Technirama?)
1961
Barabbas
1961; 1962
Italy
Columbia
Technirama 70
El Cid
1961
USA/Italy
Allied Artists
Super Technirama
Hercules and the Captive Women
[Ercole alla conquista di Atlantide]
[Hercule Γ la coquΓͺte de l'Atlantide]
[Hercules and the Conquest of Atlantis]
[Hercules Conquers Atlantis]
1961; 1963
France/Italy
Woolner Bros
70mm Supertechnirama
The King and I
see 1956 listing
King of Kings
[Jesus]
1961
USA
MGM
Super Technirama
Madame
[Madame Sans-GΓͺne]
1961; 1963
France/Italy/Spain
Embassy
Technirama 70
only 35mm in USA
Sodom and Gomorrah
[Sodoma e Gomorra]
[Sodome et Gomorrhe]
1961; 1963
USA/France/Italy
20th-Fox
Technirama 70
only 35mm in USA
Story of the Flaming Years
[Povyest plamyennykh lyet]
[Povest plamennykh let]
[The Flaming Years]
[L'histoire des annes de feu]
1961
USSR
Mosfilm
Sovscope 70
West Side Story
1961
USA
United Artists
Panavision 70
1962
The Great Wall
[Shin no shikotei]
1962; 1965
Japan
Magna
70mm Super Technirama
only 35mm in USA
Journey to the Stars
1962
USA
Seattle World Exhibition
Spacearium
short
Lafayette
[La Fayette]
[Lafayette (Una spada per due bandiere)]
1962; 1963
France/Italy
Maco Film Corp
Supertechnirama 70
Lawrence of Arabia
1962
Great Britain
Columbia
Super Panavision
The Music Man
1962
USA
Warner Bros
Technirama 70
Mutiny on the Bounty
1962
USA
MGM
Ultra Panavision 70
1963
Buddha
[Shaka]
[Life of Buddha]
[Sakya]
1963
Japan
Lopert
Technirama 70
only 35mm in USA
The Cardinal
1963
USA
Columbia
Panavision (blowup)
Cleopatra
1963
USA/Great Britain
20th-Fox
Todd-AO
55 Days at Peking
1963
USA
Allied Artists
Super Technirama 70
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
1963
USA
United Artists
Ultra-Panavision
The Leopard
[Il gattopardo]
1963
Italy
20th-Fox
Technirama
only 35mm in USA
The Optimistic Tragedy
[An Optimistic Tragedy]
[Optimisticheskaya tragediya]
1963; 1964
USSR
Artkino; Corinth
70mm Kinopanorama
only 35mm in USA
Scheherazade
[SchΓ©hΓ©razade]
[La schiava di Bagdad]
[Scheherezade]
1963; 1965
France/Italy/Spain
Shawn International/Four Star
Super Technirama-70 or Superpanorama-70
La tulipe noire
[The Black Tulip]
1963
France
70mm
1964
Becket
1964
USA/Great Britain
Paramount
Panavision (blowup)
The Carpetbaggers
1964
USA
Paramount
Panavision (blowup)
Cheyenne Autumn
1964
USA
Warner Bros.
Super Panavision 70
Circus World
[The Magnificent Showman]
1964
Paramount
Super Technirama-70
The Fall of the Roman Empire
1964
USA
Paramount
Ultra-Panavision
only 35mm in USA
The Golden Head
1964
USA/Hungary
Cinerama
Technirama 70
Journey to the Moon and Beyond
1964
USA
New York World's Fair
Spacearium
short
The Long Ships
[Dugi brodovi]
1964
Great Britain/Yugoslavia
Columbia
Technirama 70
Mediterranean Holiday
[Flying Clipper -- traumreise unter weissen segeln]
1964
West Germany
Continental
Modern Cinema System 70mm (Wonderama)
My Fair Lady
1964
USA
Warner Bros.
Super Panavision 70
The Pink Panther
1964
USA
United Artists
70mm Super Technirama
released in 35mm Technirama only
Shatterhand
[Old Shatterhand]
[Les cavaliers rouges]
[Old βSeterhend]
[La battaglia di Fort Apache]
[Apache's Last Battle]
1964; 1967
France/Italy/West Germany/Yugoslavia
Goldstone Film Entertainment
70mm Superpanorama
only 35mm CinemaScope in USA
The Sleeping Beauty
[Spyaschaya krasavitsa]
1964; 1966
USSR
Royal Films International
Kinopanorama (Techniscope)
Zulu
1964
Great Britain
Embassy
Super-Technirama 70
1965
The Agony and the Ecstasy
1965
USA
20th-Fox
Todd-AO
Battle of the Bulge
1965
USA
Warner Bros.
Ultra-Panavision
The Blizzart
1965
USSR
Sovscope 70
Bolshoi Ballet 67
[Sekret uspekha]
1965; 1966
USSR
Paramount
copyright in 70mm, released in 35mm
Doctor Zhivago
1965
USA
MGM
Panavision (blowup)
The Enchanted Desna
1965
USSR
Sovscope 70
An Evening with the Royal Ballet
1965
Great Britain
Sigma III
one sequence filmed in 70mm: "Le corsaire"
released in 35mm only
ballet
Genghis Khan
[Dschingis Khan]
[Dβzingis-Kan]
1965
USA/Great Britain/West Germany/Yugoslavia
Columbia
Panavision
70mm in West Germany
The Great Race
1965
USA
Warner Bros.
Super Panavision
The Greatest Story Ever Told
1965
USA
United Artists
Ultra Panavision 70
The Hallelujah Trail
1965
USA
United Artists
Ultra-Panavision
In Harm's Way
1965
USA
Paramount
Panavision (blowup)
Lord Jim
1965
USA/Great Britain
Columbia
Super Panavision
The Sound of Music
1965
USA
20th-Fox
Todd-AO
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines; or How I Flew from London
to Paris in 25 Hours and 11 Minutes
1965
Great Britain
20th-Fox
Todd-AO
Uncle Tom's Cabin
[Onkel Toms HΓΌtte]
[La case de l'oncle Tom]
[Cento dollari d'odio]
[βCiβca Tomina koliba]
1965
France/Italy/West Germany/Yugoslavia
Kroger Babb & Assoc
70mm Superpanorama
1966
The Bible...In the Beginning
[La Bibbia]
[The Bible]
1966
USA/Italy
20th-Fox
Dimension 150
Cinerama's Russian Adventure
[Russian Adventure]
1966
USA/USSR
United Roadshow Presentations
Cinerama & Sovscope 70
Dr. Coppelius
[El fantastico mundo del Dr. Coppelius]
[Dr.?? Copelius!!]
[The Mysterious House of Dr. C]
1966; 1968
USA/Spain
Childhood Productions
70mm Superpanorama
ballet
Grand Prix
1966
USA
MGM
Super Panavision
Hawaii
1966
USA
United Artists
Panavision 70
Is Paris Burning?
[Paris brΓ»le-t-il?]
1966
USA/France
Paramount
70mm
Khartoum
[Battle for Khartoum]
1966
Great Britain
United Artists
Ultra Panavision
Der kongress amuesiert sich
[The Congress of Love --ad title]
1966
West Germany/Austria
Superpanorama 70
Nights of Farewell
1966
USSR
70mm
The Sand Pebbles
1966
USA
20th-Fox
Panavision (blowup)
Savage Pampas
[Pampa salvaje]
1966; 1967
USA/Argentina/Spain
Comet Film Dist
70mm Super-Panorama
only 35mm in USA
The Third Youth
1966
USSR
70mm
Three Fat Men
[Tri tolstyaka]
1966
USSR
70mm
1967
Anna Karenina
1967; 1975
USSR
Mosfilm (Unifilm)
70mm
Camelot
1967
USA
Warner Bros.
Panavision (blowup)
The Comedians
1967
USA/Bermuda/France
MGM
Panavision (blowup)
Custer of the West
[A Good Day for Fighting]
[Custer]
1967
USA
Cinerama Releasing Corp
Super Technirama
The Dirty Dozen
1967
USA/Great Britain
MGM
blowup?
Dr. Aibolit - 66
[Dr. Aibolit, 66]
[Dr. Ai Bolit]
1967
USSR
Dr. Dolittle
1967
USA
20th-Fox
Todd-AO
Far from the Madding Crowd
1967
Great Britain
MGM
Panavision (blowup)
Gone with the Wind
1939; 1967--reissue
USA
MBM
blowup from 1.37:1 to 2.2:1 for 1967 reissue
Katerina Izmailova
1967; 1969
USSR
Artkino
70mm
only 35mm in USA
Playtime
1967; 1973
France
Continental
70mm
The Tale of Tsar Saltan
[The Tale of Czar Saltan]
1967
USSR
Corinth
Thoroughly Modern Millie
War and Peace
[Voyna i mir]
1962-1967; 1968
USSR
Continental; Kino International
Sovscope 70
The Young Girls of Rochefort
[Les demoiselles de Rochefort]
1967; 1968
France
Warner Bros
70mm
only 35mm in USA
1968
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
1968
Great Britain
United Artists
Super Panavision 70
The Confluence of Cultures in the United States
1968
USA
US Dept of Commerce; San Antonio Expo
2 parts 3x35mm, 1 part 3x70mm
Finian's Rainbow
1968
USA
Warner Bros.
Panavision (blowup)
Funny Girl
1968
USA
Columbia
Panavision (blowup)
Ice Station Zebra
1968
USA
MGM
Super Panavision
Martin fierro
1968
Argentina
70mm
Oliver!
1968
Great Britain
Columbia
Panavision (blowup)
The Shoes of the Fisherman
1968
USA
MGM
Panavision (blowup)
Siuzhet dlya nebelshovo rasskaza
[Syuzhet dlya nebelshogo raskaza]
[Lika -- Chechov's Love]
[Lika, Tchekhov's Love]
[Theme for a Short Story]
[Subject for a Short Story]
[A Plot for a Short Story]
1968
USSR/France
Mosfilm
70mm
Star!
[Those Were the Happy Times --reissue title]
1968
USA
20th-Fox
Todd-AO
2001: A Space Odyssey
1968
USA/Great Britain
MGM
Super Panavision
The Young Rebel
[Le avventure e gli amori di Miguel Cervantes]
[Les aventures extraordinaires de Cervantes]
[Cervantes]
1968; 1969
France/Italy/Spain
American International/Commonwealth United Entertainment
70mm Totalscope
only 35mm Colorscope in USA
1969
Anne of the Thousand Days
1969
Great Britain
Universal
Panavision (blowup)
The Brothers Karamazov
1969
USSR
Du bist min, ein deutsches tagebuch
[A German Diary]
1969
West Germany
70mm
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
1969
USA/Great Britain
MGM
Panavision
Hello, Dolly!
1969
USA
20th-Fox
Todd-AO
Krakatoa, East of Java
1969
USA
Cinerama Releasing Corp
70mm
MacKenna's Gold
1969
USA
Columbia
Super Panavision
Marooned
1969
USA
Columbia
Panavision 70
Paint Your Wagon
1969
USA
Paramount
Panavision (blowup)
Quele do pajeu
1969
Brazil
70mm
The Stewardesses
[Airline Stewardess]
[The Special Edition: The Stewardesses --reissue title]
1969
USA
Sherpix
(blowup)
3-D soft-X
reissued in 35mm only in 1980 with hardcore footage inserted
Sweet Charity
1969
USA
Universal
Panavision (blowup)
Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies
[Monte Carlo or Bust!]
[Quei temerari sulle loro pazze, scatenate, scalcinate carriole]
1969
France/Great Britain/Italy
Paramount
Panavision
Where Eagles Dare
1969
Great Britain
MGM
Panavision 70
The Wild Bunch
1969
USA
Warner Bros.
Panavision 70
Winning
1969
USA
Universal
Panavision 70
--
Jeffry L. Johnson <j...@apk.net>
Projectionist, Landmark Centrum Theatre, Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Projectionist, Great Lakes Science Center OMNIMAX Theater
IATSE Local 160 Officer, Examining Board
Jeffry L. Johnson
> Those were some interesting additions you listed.
> However, I have a hard time believing that they
> all played in the U.S. How do you know about those
> titles? Where did they play and why werenβt they
> advertised?
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all those titles played in the USA. My
sources include newspaper ads, trade magazine articles, reviews, and ads
(like Boxoffice and Variety), and Dolby's "Heard Any Good Movies Lately?"
lists from the 1970's to the present. Some titles I learned about from
handling the prints, examining head and foot leaders, or by examining
shipping case labels and reel bands.
I realize that not all of these sources may be reliable.
Martin Hart
>
> >The film gauge should not be used as a scapegoat for bad writing or
> >filmmaking. Unfortunately, some folks in Hollywood have been so laughably
> >idiotic to go so far as doing that. Even "Variety" magazine was trying to
> >go that route in their skeptical articles about 70mm origination when "Far
> >and Away" was released.
>
> specialty venues and large formats to see that sometimes the latter do get the
> better of some directors. The additional technical constraints serve to
> hinder, and who knows, perhaps even intimidate some otherwise high stature
> directors and DP's.
>
> Though I hate to admit it, there is some validity in the argument. After a few
> disappointments, I have heard some knowlegable professionals say, "those
> formats PREVENT good directors from making good films!".
>
> Not every director/DP team is a LEAN/YOUN combo.
I think you've pointed out the problem. It's not really a Lean/Young
combo that was successful, it was a director who let the technicians take
care of things and didn't insist on carrying a Panaflex around on their
shoulder like Cameron. The director should try to envision the final
image and the crafts can do a pretty good job of giving it to him, if
he'll just leave them the hell alone. One thing would probably have to
change if someone wanted to do a real 70mm film. They'd have to give up
the MTV sort of drek that's been so common.
Martin Hart
says...
> In article <rubeht...@corp.supernews.com>, "Bobby Henderson"
> <bob...@sirinet.net> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay. I'm out of town right now. Here's my list of wide
> gauge films from 1955-1969. My apologies for any errors. All corrections
> are welcome. I haven't actively worked on this list since 1987.
Here are a few corrections/recommendations for this list:
> 1957
> Raintree County
> 1957
> USA
> MGM
> Camera 65 (Panavision 70)
This is ULTRA Panavision 70 (1.25x anamorphic)
> 1958
> South Pacific
> 1958
> USA
> Magna; Samuel Goldwyn
> Todd-AO
>
> 1959
> Ben-Hur
> 1959
> USA
> MGM
> Camera 65 (Panavision 70)
This is ULTRA Panavision 70 (1.25x anamorphic)
There was also a M-G-M short done in Camera 65, called "Innocents
Abroad". I can find no information on the film.
> The Big Fisherman
> 1959
> USA
> Buena Vista
> Panavision 70
Advertised as Panavision 70 in some ads and Panavision in others, this is
what came to be called SUPER Panavision 70 by 1962.
> Exodus
> 1960
> USA
> United Artists
> Panavision 70
Main titles say Panavision 70 but poster art says SUPER Panavision 70
> The Man with the Green Carnation
> [The Green Carnation]
> [The Tirals of Oscar Wilde]
> 1960
> Great Britain
> Kingsley International; United Artists Classics--reissue
> Super Technirama 70
Probably only 35mm in the US.
> The Savage Innocents
> [Les dents du diable]
> [Ombre bianche]
> 1960; 1961
> France/Great Britain/Italy
> Paramount
> Technirama 70
I have no record of 70mm prints in the US.
> Scent of Mystery
> [Holiday in Spain--1962 reissue title]
> 1960
> USA
> Michael Todd Jt; NT Assets Corp
> Todd 70 (Todd-AO)
> Smell-O-Vision
Descented for the reissue.
> The Unforgiven
> 1960
> USA
> United Artists
> Panavision 70 (Technirama?)
Poster art said CinemaScope in some cases. It was actually done in 35mm
anamorphic Panavision. Screen credits say only "Photographic Lenses by
Panavision". Doubtful about any 70mm printing.
> Hercules and the Captive Women
> [Ercole alla conquista di Atlantide]
> [Hercule Γ la coquΓͺte de l'Atlantide]
> [Hercules and the Conquest of Atlantis]
> [Hercules Conquers Atlantis]
> 1961; 1963
> France/Italy
> Woolner Bros
> 70mm Supertechnirama
May have never been seen outside Continental Europe, in any gauge other
than 16mm TV prints.
> Sodom and Gomorrah
> [Sodoma e Gomorra]
> [Sodome et Gomorrhe]
> 1961; 1963
> USA/France/Italy
> 20th-Fox
> Technirama 70
> only 35mm in USA
This film was shot in 35mm flat, with mono sound.
> West Side Story
> 1961
> USA
> United Artists
> Panavision 70
Spherical optics - SUPER Panavision 70
> The Golden Head
> 1964
> USA/Hungary
> Cinerama
> Technirama 70
The three strip film shot at the beginning of production was never seen
theatrically.
> The Pink Panther
> 1964
> USA
> United Artists
> 70mm Super Technirama
> released in 35mm Technirama only
There is no difference between Technirama and Super Technirama 70 unless
70mm prints are made. This film carries only Technirama credits. Many
Technirama movies did not have 70mm prints, though it was "cool" to carry
the Super Technirama credit anyway.
> The Sleeping Beauty
> [Spyaschaya krasavitsa]
> 1964; 1966
> USSR
> Royal Films International
> Kinopanorama (Techniscope)
The Soviets used the "Kinopanorama" name for anything wider than normal.
If this film was done in the equivalent of Techniscope then it was
definitely not a large format film and blowing up such a small Sovcolor
negative to 70mm would point out the glaring inadequacies of that old
Agfacolor derived stock.
> Zulu
> 1964
> Great Britain
> Embassy
> Super-Technirama 70
Not sure that the US got anything other than 35mm prints. Embassy didn't
market the film heavily in the States, which was a mistake because it was
a great film.
> The Great Race
> 1965
> USA
> Warner Bros.
> Super Panavision
Erroneously carried Super Panavision credits in some media. It was a 35mm
anamorphic Panavision film.
> Cinerama's Russian Adventure
> [Russian Adventure]
> 1966
> USA/USSR
> United Roadshow Presentations
> Cinerama & Sovscope 70
This was neither Cinerama nor Sovscope 70. It was three strip
Kinopanorama. Most venues ran a 70mm composite copy. Grain, grain, grain.
> Hawaii
> 1966
> USA
> United Artists
> Panavision 70
35mm anamorphic Panavision. A few 70mm six track MONO prints were made.
> Is Paris Burning?
> [Paris brΓ»le-t-il?]
> 1966
> USA/France
> Paramount
> 70mm
35mm anamorphic Panavision
> The Dirty Dozen
> 1967
> USA/Great Britain
> MGM
> blowup?
35mm flat. Some 70mm prints were made.
> MacKenna's Gold
> 1969
> USA
> Columbia
> Super Panavision
Screen credits and ad materials all lie. The film was done in 35mm
anamorphic with some effects work done in flat and blown up to 35mm
anamorphic. A dreadful film.
> Marooned
> 1969
> USA
> Columbia
> Panavision 70
35mm anamorphic Panavision.
> Where Eagles Dare
> 1969
> Great Britain
> MGM
> Panavision 70
35mm Panavision anamorphic.
> The Wild Bunch
> 1969
> USA
> Warner Bros.
> Panavision 70
35mm Panavision anamorphic.
> Winning
> 1969
> USA
> Universal
> Panavision 70
35mm Panavision anamorphic.
Braxus
> format "Hamlet" was filmed in? Todd-AO? Super Panavision 70?
Super Panavision 70, though I did see a photo that had an Arri 70 on the
balcony looking down at the ballroom.
Man I wish I never missed my chance to see the film in 70mm.
Peter
>>
The environmental issue can be resolved, however. Solvent recovery programs
are now current in all tape manufacturing facilities, and actually pay for
themselves over time, as the solvents can be re-used.
>>
Absolutely true, as the computer products industry has already proved.
"Vapor recovery" was standard in that industry for several decades.
Why was the film industry so slow to recognize the importance of this
technology?
Sydney Assbasket
the film was made in Vistavision 1.85:1 like Vertigo, but would a Super 35 or
open matte 1.85:1 film really benefit from 70mm?
The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd
Remove "bination" to reply.
Sydney Assbasket
>a four hour "Hamlet" in true 70mm format and keep the cost of the movie
>below $20 million, then there is really very little excuse for major
>features not to pursue it.
>
I'm not sure whether too many filmmakers really care about 70mm nowadays. If
Branagh can shoot a 4 hour film in 65mm, there's no reason that another
filmmaker couldn't make a 2 hour film in that format. What was the name of the
format "Hamlet" was filmed in? Todd-AO? Super Panavision 70?
The Indian DVD Resource: http://www.fly.to/indiadvd
Remove "bination" to reply.
Gary Couzens
Lincoln Spector wrote in message ...
Gary Couzens
Greg Faris
snor...@redballoon.net says...
>
>>Also, SDDS puts its tracks on the outer edges of the film, outside the
>>sprocket holes.
>
>So does DTS-70.
>
The 70mm DTS track is not on the extreme outside edge of the film, but
immediately outside of the perforations. This, in my estimation, is a
regrettable engineering choice, and I have seen many failures resulting from
it. It's extremely difficult to "protect" this area from abuse - while the
area immediately inside the perforations was available and could have been
used as it was for the CDS track. In fact they even could have "inherited" the
engineering work done for that earlier process, and in many cases the modified
parts themselves, which were manufactured for many projectors, then never
used.
Too bad - there was enough discussion about it at the time that it could have
been avoided.
It's funny how seasoned professionals can sit around for months discussing
something, with all of the pertinent information in front of them, then still
make the wrong choice. Like CDS' choice in the first place to use the
traditional soundtrack area of the 35mm print, thus making an incompatible
print, with no analog backup - that led to their demise.
Scott Marshall
L. Johnson) writes:
>Carousel
> 1956
> USA
> 20th-Fox
> CinemaScope 55
>The King and I
> 1956; 1961--reissue
> USA
> 20th-Fox
> CinemaScope 55; Grandeur 70--reissue
As far as anyone can tell, both of these were released in 35mm only except for
the "Grandeur 70" reissue of K&I which, I am told, was a blowup from a 35mm
reduction.
>Scent of Mystery
> [Holiday in Spain--1962 reissue title]
> 1960
> USA
> Michael Todd Jt; NT Assets Corp
> Todd 70 (Todd-AO)
I wouldn't call this Todd-AO, since as far as I know, none of the photographic
equipment was from the Todd-AO company. When Scent of Mystery was filmed, Todd
Jr. had no connection with the Todd-AO company and they apparently were
adversaries.
In article <MPG.1254abfa...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
m.b.har...@worldnet.att.net (Martin Hart) writes:
>The Soviets used the "Kinopanorama" name for anything wider than normal.
I believe the name Kinopanorama was used (outside the USSR) to indicate either
their 3-strip "Soviet Cinerama" process or their 70mm Cinerama process. Their
anamorphic 35mm process was called Sovscope, and their flat 70mm process was
called Sovscope 70 (either filmed in 70 or blown up from 35). Within the Soviet
Union, some of these names may have differed.
>Main titles say Panavision 70 but poster art says SUPER Panavision 70
The phrase "Panavision 70" was used for Super Panavision, Ultra Panavision
(IIRC), and blowups of 35mm Panavision and is therefore almost meaningless. In
some cases the wording in the credits, the actual photographic and release
formats all need to be specified in our lists.
>> The Golden Head
>> 1964
>> USA/Hungary
>> Cinerama
>> Technirama 70
>
>The three strip film shot at the beginning of production was never seen
>theatrically.
Ditto for "The Greatest Story Ever Told"
In article <19990923223027...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
drag...@aol.combination (Sydney Assbasket ) writes:
>Why are some of these 70mm blow ups from 1.85:1 source? I can understand if
>the film was made in Vistavision 1.85:1 like Vertigo, but would a Super 35 or
>open matte 1.85:1 film really benefit from 70mm?
1) 70mm makes it easier to light a very large screen.
2) Before digital, 70mm had better sound than 35mm.
3) There is less generation loss in printing 35mm to 70mm (if properly done)
than 35 to 35.
Scott Marshall
Editor, Wide Gauge Film and Video
http://members.aol.com/widegauge/
Scott Marshall
<gjco...@btinternet.com> writes:
>If memory serves, wasn't "Dune" credited as being in Todd-AO [35]?
The internet movie database is where you should look to confirm this.
Bob Morris
>I think you've pointed out the problem. It's not really a Lean/Young
>combo that was successful, it was a director who let the technicians take
>care of things and didn't insist on carrying a Panaflex around on their
>shoulder like Cameron.
Hey, Cameron had two guys carrying around 70mm cameras on their shoulders
for Terminator 2 3-D! And the toughest part was maintaining intra-ocular
distance. I hear he whipped them good!
Now he's going to have two guys carrying around Imax cameras on their
shoulders for Mars 3-D! And maintaining intra-ocular distance!
Arnold has already been hired for camera 1!
Cameron's doing casting calls for camera 2!
Volunteers?
LRM
Bob Morris
>What was the name of the
>> format "Hamlet" was filmed in? Todd-AO? Super Panavision 70?
>Super Panavision 70, though I did see a photo that had an Arri 70 on the
>balcony looking down at the ballroom.
Nope. The name was changed to Panavision Super 70 just for the film!
I have the press kit in front of me.
Something to do with promoting the fact that they were using the newer
lightweight cameras.
Bob Morris
Steve Kraus
> The 70mm DTS track is not on the extreme outside edge of the film, but
> immediately outside of the perforations. This, in my estimation, is a
> regrettable engineering choice, and I have seen many failures resulting from
> it. It's extremely difficult to "protect" this area from abuse -
"many failures" ?? Of DTS/70mm? That's not the impression
I had. I was told it was very reliable. Anyone with further
direct knowledge care to comment?
> while the area immediately inside the perforations was available and
> could have been used as it was for the CDS track.
The CDS choice was unfortunate because it was wider than
the mag track that normally sits there and resulted in a
narrowing of the aperture unless you shift things laterally.
I think DTS' choice was a sound one (yes, a pun). By staying
outside the perfs it *could* allow for a widening of the
projectable area so we can have an aspect ratio that is
closer to if not identical to 35mm/Scope.
> In fact they even could have "inherited" the engineering work
> done for that earlier process, and in many cases the modified
> parts themselves, which were manufactured for many projectors,
> then never used.
Huh? What parts? CDS penthouses? To be used as DTS timecode
readers? I know that was done with some special venue setups
before there was an official 70mm version of DTS but egad, talk
about overkill to read a stinkin' timecode track.
> It's funny how seasoned professionals can sit around for months discussing
> something, with all of the pertinent information in front of them, then still
> make the wrong choice. Like CDS' choice in the first place to use the
> traditional soundtrack area of the 35mm print, thus making an incompatible
> print, with no analog backup - that led to their demise.
CDS made a number of errors, the main one being their lack of
data reduction leading to the small dot size. Using the standard
analog track area looks silly in retrospect but I think they were
looking at their process as a premium system in place of using 70mm
blowups primarily for sound. Double inventory didn't seem that awful
in that light. The other consideration was the width they needed
with their already-minimal spot size and not having the further
complication of dividing up the track to fit somewhere else with
multiple light source/optics/CCDs/related electronics to read it.
That and the need for maximum protection of their frail track.
In hindsight this was all a colossal mistake. No analog backup,
of course, meant that every digital failure was a disaster.
For those who didn't already know it: The chief designer
of CDS went on the develop SDDS for Sony.
I have a small bit of CDS-related info on my web site
(the original brochure, spec sheet, and images of the
actual CDS track, compared to SDDS and SR-D). Scroll
down to the movie section.
fred
> The 70mm DTS track is not on the extreme outside edge of the film, but
> immediately outside of the perforations. This, in my estimation, is a
> regrettable engineering choice, and I have seen many failures resulting from
> it.
I would think it should be safe enough... The 70mm DTS track is fairly
large... any damage at that area would seem to indicate that there is
a basic film handling problem.
What kind of failures have you seen? Distorted sprocket holes, or
scraped off emulsion, etc?
Richard L. Lenoir
<bob...@sirinet.net> wrote:
>
>
>This is why I concentratred mainly on the New York and Los Angeles listings.
>I haven't come across an original North American movie release with 70mm
>print support that didn't have 70mm prints playing in NY or LA. Los Angeles
>has been the top 70mm market in the world. It has the most 70mm equipped
>screens and has had a number of films play their 70mm prints exclusively in
>Los Angeles. It is certainly possible for there to be a number of European
>releases with 70mm prints that played only 35mm here in the States.
>However, my list does not include a complete rundown of European 70mm
>releases.
>
The Longest day and Is Paris Burning were re-released in 70mm
(black and white) in Paris and in Brussels.
Also Battle of Britain was shown in 70mm in Brussels. It was
at the Variety Cinerama Theatre.
Richard L. Lenoir
>
>mike_...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7sb5d1$k9s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>Jeffry -
>>
>
>>> STAR TREK--THE MOTION PICTURE Paramount, Panavision blowup
>
>Maybe outside America, but not in L.A.! I still recall how disappointed I
>was that no 70mm prints were struck for its run at the Chinese. I did hear
>rumors that it played in 70mm in Britain, though -- can anyone confirm?
>
>
Was shown in 70mm in Brussels (Scala Theatre)
>>> DAS BOOT W. Germany Columbia, blowup
>
>Shot, and shown (at least here in L.A.) in flat 35mm.
>
>
>>> >70MM IN 1982 (17 titles)
>
>
Shown in 70mm in Paris (Rex Theatre 1) and in Brussels (Metropole)
fred
> something, with all of the pertinent information in front of them, then still
> make the wrong choice. Like CDS' choice in the first place to use the
> traditional soundtrack area of the 35mm print, thus making an incompatible
> print, with no analog backup - that led to their demise.
I'm guessing of course, but CDS' choices may have been limited. They
may have needed that large an area (the optical soundtrack) to hold
the required data (was CDS data compressed?) At the time, there were
companies/people who wanted to use one outside edge of the film for
a bar-code system to set formats automatically. So, now only the other
film edge could be used, which might not have been enough. There may
not have been CCD cameras or DSP's fast enough or cheap enough at the
time to do "in between the sprocket holes" reading like SR-D.
As far as backup is concerned, no one wants to admit that their system
may fail....
Print incompatibility should have been a big issue (look at the mag-optical
history) but maybe CDS thought that with a big company like Kodak behind
them, they could force the industry to accept it.
Following are random thoughts- I'm not saying they are right or wrong:
Separate picture and sound:
Thought bad after Vitaphone(sp?) now
thought good after DTS. (I'm not including special interlocked screenings.)
No backup of CDS; concept fails.
No backup of mag-only CinemaScope; optical added.
No backup of DTS 70mm (unless you buy another system); system lives.
Martin Hart
> No backup of mag-only CinemaScope; optical added.
The optical track added to the four track mag sound in CinemaScope was
not for backup purposes. It was to eliminate dual inventory. 70mm mag
never had an optical backup and that was not a problem. Optical only
prints don't have a backup and that's also not a problem.
Gary Couzens
Scott Marshall wrote in message
<19990924083815...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>In article <7sf8mn$kvf$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>, "Gary Couzens"
><gjco...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>>If memory serves, wasn't "Dune" credited as being in Todd-AO [35]?
>
>The internet movie database is where you should look to confirm this.
>
Gary Couzens
Greg Faris
sf-k...@BLOCKERgovst.edu says...
>
>"Many failures" ?? Of DTS/70mm? That's not the impression
>I had. I was told it was very reliable. Anyone with further
>direct knowledge care to comment?
Now you'll embarrass me, because I wouldn't want to go saying
disparaging things about a good company, with a good product and
good customer support to boot. Let's just say it's conceivable - in
specialty venues, where prints run thousands of times, instead of
the hundreds they run in conventional theatre circuits - just
conceivable that some of the pressure surfaces in projector gates,
over time, could cause smearing and scratching of the timecode
track. I just think the 70mm version could have been an even better
product by taking this possibility into consideration, and taking
avail of the work already done by a predecessor, CDS.
>
>
>The CDS choice was unfortunate because it was wider than
>the mag track that normally sits there and resulted in a
>narrowing of the aperture unless you shift things laterally.
Agreed - albeit very slightly. But read on.
>
>I think DTS' choice was a sound one (yes, a pun). By staying
>outside the perfs it *could* allow for a widening of the
>projectable area so we can have an aspect ratio that is
>closer to if not identical to 35mm/Scope.
>
We spend a lot of time in this group mulling over aspect ratios and
formats that don't exist, and never will. I share your temptation to
retain such considerations, however fictitious aspect ratios are not
a good basis for engineering choices - especially in this day as the
sun slowly sets on the film-based moving image.
>
>Huh? What parts? CDS penthouses?
CDS designed, in and some cases actually manufactured, in
cooperation with major projector manufacturers, special modification
kits to protect the sensitive soundtrack area. You will still find
Century JJ-3 gate parts with tension shoes slightly narrower than
standard, or pressure pads milled out on the inner edge for this
purpose. Not to mention their folly with sync motor adapter kits
hooked up to every conceivable projector under the pretext that the
system was sensitive to speed fluctuation.
Now imagine the purely hypothetical situation where you have a
timecode track OUTSIDE the perfs being damaged by projector shoes
and pressure pads. It becomes a real nightmare to design a kit to
protect this area and still maintain the film adequately.
>
>
>CDS made a number of errors, the main one being their lack of
>data reduction leading to the small dot size.
I disagree here. Data reduction in 1988 was not what it is today,
and I believe the R&D team correctly eschewed its use, aside the
Delta/Mod scheme, fearing severe criticism from the industry - much
more "purist" in those days than today. Others, including EMT and
even Dolby had suffered some searing criticism for their own forays
into digital data reduction at the time.
I think they were
>looking at their process as a premium system in place of using 70mm
>blowups primarily for sound. Double inventory didn't seem that
awful
>in that light.
True enough. One could almost attribute their mistakes to an
illusory marketing posture. They felt, by being first out the door
with a top-quality product, they could eclipse all the others,
cornering the world market. Their market projections, if I may
caricature only slightly, were really [COST of CDS kit X NUMBER of
projectors in the world]! And they expected this to happen in a very
short time. They literally threw the traditional soundtrack out the
window.
What's funny though, to get back to my original argument, is that
you say "in retrospect", when in fact every single aspect we are
discussing was clearly evoked at the time, discussed to death and
evaluated, by experienced professionals, knowledgable of the
market, and they still made choices which were shown up as technical
and marketing hinderances from day one.
>For those who didn't already know it: The chief designer
>of CDS went on the develop SDDS for Sony.
>
I didn't know that, not that it should surprise us. Howard Fleming
was a brilliant inventor - a sort of genius in my book.
Greg
Bobby Henderson
>
>>The film gauge should not be used as a scapegoat for bad writing or
>>filmmaking.
>While this statment will get little argument here, I have worked enough in
>specialty venues and large formats to see that sometimes the latter do get
the
>better of some directors. The additional technical constraints serve to
>hinder, and who knows, perhaps even intimidate some otherwise high stature
>directors and DP's.
What additional technical constraints? The days of 50-speed only 65mm film
are long gone. Almost any speed of 35mm film can be obtained for 65mm film
gauge as well. There are fantastic camera and lens systems from Panavision,
Arri and others that rival any 35mm package. Stedicams have been outfitted
with IMAX cameras for crying out loud. It is no harder to compose for a
70mm film frame --it is basically no different that staging an anamorphic
2.39:1 or Super35 production. The only difference is a much more high
resolution, more boldly colorful image as the result. The 65mm originated
film winds up looking better on both 35mm and 70mm release prints. I would
even go so far as to say the thing would turn out better for its various
home video incarnations too.
>
>Though I hate to admit it, there is some validity in the argument. After a
few
>disappointments, I have heard some knowlegable professionals say, "those
>formats PREVENT good directors from making good films!".
Those people are making stupid, closeminded statements. If that were the
case, then all films should be shot in Academy Frame (1.33:1 ratio) and
there should be no widescreen format around. 1.85:1 would encourage some
bad filmmaking and 2.39:1 would inspire truly horrible visions according to
that argument. They know it is a stupid argument they are trying to
support. They are just hiding behind excuses.
Larger film formats only gain better image quality. Sharper detail and much
richer color. If those idiots' stated arguments were true, then
professional still photographers would throw away their 2ΕΊ, 4X8 and 8X10
view cameras and just use the inferior 35mm still camera for their
professional production. Take those Hasselblad cameras away from Ansel
Adams to keep him from shooting huge, jaw dropping landscape photos. Grainy
35mm film is good enough for everyone.
I'm sorry to be such a hard ass on this subject. But when Hollywood studios
can blow well over $100 million on a production, I'd like to see some of
that cost actually get onto the screen. I am completely unimpressed by some
actor getting a $20 million-plus payday while the end product I paid $7 to
see is so freaking dim I'd call it "Movies By Braille." There is no excuse
for this crap. Especially when movie theater companies are expecting me to
be impressed by their new 80 foot wide screens. Sorry, if there isn't 70mm
projection involved with that, it won't matter if the screen is the size of
a skyscraper. I'll say it sucks.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>
>What I'd like to see is a 70mm version of SDDS rather than DTS. DTS is the
>same in 35mm & 70mm. SDDS could be much better.
How so? Aside from the 7.1 channel format, what advantage does SDDS have
over DTS theatrical. DTS also has an 8-channel P-8 system available for
special venue theaters. That could be employed in some situations.
>For one thing, there are those optional 2 extra front tracks. 70mm SHOULD
>have 5 front tracks, and SDDS could make that a requirement for 70mm.
70mm sound is laid out very differently from 35mm film. First, there is
absolutely no room inside the sprocket holes for any soundtracking of any
kind. In the mag-stripe Dolby versions of 70mm prints, two of the magnetic
sound channels were printed OVER image area. Totally unacceptable if you
ask me. The remaining four tracks on a 70mm mag print laid on the outside
edges of the sprocket holes.
All DTS requires is a very large printed time code to reside on the outer
left edge of the 70mm film strip. This leaves the entire image area inside
of the sprocket holes completely unobstructed.
>Also, SDDS puts its tracks on the outer edges of the film, outside the
>sprocket holes. 70mm has larger edges than 35mm. You could double the
>bit-rate and really improve the sound of things.
SDDS has no sound reader compatible with 70mm film. Their 4-perf 35mm film
reader will not work with a 5-perf 70mm layout. The data spots for 70mm are
much much smaller than the gigantic time code blocks of DTS 70mm. You WILL
need a analog failsafe track for a 70mm SDDS system. Same goes for a 70mm
Dolby Digital system as well. Dolby Digital has been used for sound on a
70mm presentation, but that only came from a totally non-soundtracked 70mm
print interlocked to a 35mm Dolby Digital print with SR optical backup. Too
freaking cumbersome a setup for normal presentations. SDDS will have the
same problem.
The other problem with any sound on film system regarding 70mm are the
numerous formats used by 70mm. DTS can manage them all. 5-perf 70mm 24fps
theatrical, 5-perf 70mm 60fps Showscan, 6-perf 70mm, 8-perf 70mm @ 24 or
30fps, 10-perf 70mm Imagine 360 and 15-perf 70mm IMAX. Do you want to have
to develop a separate sound head for each one of those formats in
conjunction with a sound-on-film system? Sorry, but the dual system,
time-code driven approach is the only correct way to do 70mm
anymore --especially when it comes to digital sound playback. Unless SDDS
can develop a time code driven dual system of their own for 70mm, they
should not even try in the first place.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>The 70mm DTS track is not on the extreme outside edge of the film, but
>immediately outside of the perforations. This, in my estimation, is a
>regrettable engineering choice, and I have seen many failures resulting
from
>it.
Where specifically did these failures occur? DTS 70mm time code can be read
by the reader at up to two feet away! Misreads are all but impossible. The
only failures that will occur are from hardware problems in a DTS Digital
Sound player itself.
>It's funny how seasoned professionals can sit around for months discussing
>something, with all of the pertinent information in front of them, then
still
>make the wrong choice. Like CDS' choice in the first place to use the
>traditional soundtrack area of the 35mm print, thus making an incompatible
>print, with no analog backup - that led to their demise.
That was a bad choice on the part of Optical Radiation Corp to design CDS
with no analog failsafe track for their 35mm system. Dolby Digital's
18-months worth of vaporware didn't help their cause at all either.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>For those who didn't already know it: The chief designer
>of CDS went on the develop SDDS for Sony.
>
>I have a small bit of CDS-related info on my web site
>(the original brochure, spec sheet, and images of the
>actual CDS track, compared to SDDS and SR-D). Scroll
>down to the movie section.
The data spot size for CDS 35mm was no smaller than that of SDDS. The
problem with CDS was that high speed 35mm print production technology and
the primitive state of CCD digital imaging cameras made their small data
spot size unreliable. I have no doubt at all that CDS would perform much
better with today's techology. It is too bad CDS failed. Their Delta
Modulation sound compression scheme made for some very good sounding 5.1
digital soundtracks. Sony's Super Audio CD is using a similar compression
techology for their high res audio system.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>Now you'll embarrass me, because I wouldn't want to go saying
>disparaging things about a good company, with a good product and
>good customer support to boot. Let's just say it's conceivable - in
>specialty venues, where prints run thousands of times, instead of
>the hundreds they run in conventional theatre circuits - just
>conceivable that some of the pressure surfaces in projector gates,
>over time, could cause smearing and scratching of the timecode
>track. I just think the 70mm version could have been an even better
>product by taking this possibility into consideration, and taking
>avail of the work already done by a predecessor, CDS.
If you have seen the large and easily discernable time-code on a DTS 70mm
print, you would quickly dispense with the argument DTS 70mm is going to
fail for time code printing mistakes or wear. Even the 35mm system fairs
very well in this regard. Comparing a time code synch system with a sound
on film system with much much smaller data spots is akin to comparing apples
to oranges. Time code is an extemely well-proven synch sound technology.
None of the arguments for CDS' failures can rightfully apply to DTS 70mm at
all. I've talked with people who have run DTS soundtracked Showscan system
with film ripping through the projector at 60 frames per second (and
rewinding back through the gate at the same speed). The DTS time code holds
up under even that stress.
>>The CDS choice was unfortunate because it was wider than
>>the mag track that normally sits there and resulted in a
>>narrowing of the aperture unless you shift things laterally.
What? Are you talking about the CDS 70mm system? The soundtracking was
outside the sprocket holes. The failures with CDS occured with their 35mm
system, which did supplant the SVA optical track. There was much less room
for digital soundtracking on a 35mm CDS print than there was with a 70mm CDS
print.
>Now imagine the purely hypothetical situation where you have a
>timecode track OUTSIDE the perfs being damaged by projector shoes
>and pressure pads. It becomes a real nightmare to design a kit to
>protect this area and still maintain the film adequately.
This is a non-issue with DTS, in both 35mm and 70mm formats. Both Dolby
Digital and SDDS can overlook only four frames worth of bad film before
failing to analog SVA on 35mm. Often, it takes much less for them to do
that. DTS can overlook up to two seconds of bad timecode before failing to
analog --that is 48 frames. Not too many things are going to screw up that
bad without stopping the entire show, such as a wraparound or some other
catastrophic event. There is no nightmare with DTS time code. It is much
more reliable than any sound on film system.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
Sydney Assbasket wrote in message
<19990923223027...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>Why are some of these 70mm blow ups from 1.85:1 source? I can understand
if
>the film was made in Vistavision 1.85:1 like Vertigo, but would a Super 35
or
>open matte 1.85:1 film really benefit from 70mm?
A good number of flat films were blown up to 70mm merely to take advantage
of the six-track magnetic Dolby Stereo sound.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
>Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all those titles played in the USA. My
>sources include newspaper ads, trade magazine articles, reviews, and ads
>(like Boxoffice and Variety), and Dolby's "Heard Any Good Movies Lately?"
>lists from the 1970's to the present. Some titles I learned about from
>handling the prints, examining head and foot leaders, or by examining
>shipping case labels and reel bands.
Some of those sources are not very reliable. For instance, Dolby's 70mm
listings seem to be off in a few cases. They had "Dances With Wolves" and
"Robocop" listed as being released in 70mm when those films played
theatrically only in 35mm. Lots of movies have had six-track printmasters
created with Dolby A and SR noise reduction without being blown up to 70mm
release prints.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
> The Longest day and Is Paris Burning were re-released in 70mm
>(black and white) in Paris and in Brussels.
> Also Battle of Britain was shown in 70mm in Brussels. It was
>at the Variety Cinerama Theatre.
And those are European engagements, of which I had no reference material to
go on at the time for developing a 70mm Europe or 70mm Asia list. Such
lists would really be interesting to have if they can be assembled reliably.
Bobby Henderson
David Mullen
>>Though I hate to admit it, there is some validity in the argument. After a
>few
>>disappointments, I have heard some knowlegable professionals say, "those
>>formats PREVENT good directors from making good films!".
By this logic, these directors would make even better films by shooting in
16mm rather than those larger 35mm cameras.
David Mullen
Steve Kraus
> The data spot size for CDS 35mm was no smaller than that of SDDS.
May I ask where you get your information?
The CDS spec sheet gives their spot size for 35mm
as 0.00055 x 0.00055 inches. Times 25.4 mm/inch
you get 0.01397mm square.
According to the Sony SDDS Format Laboratory Process
Printing Specifications Manual (page 7) the SDDS spot
dimension is 0.024mm (H) x 0.0225mm (V).
That's about 72% wider and 61% taller and an increase
in area of from 0.0001952mm^2 to 0.00054000mm^2. Just
the amount of the increase in area (0.0003448mm^2)
is bigger than the old CDS spot. They are in fact
176% bigger!
http:i.am/cinerama
Steve Kraus
> What? Are you talking about the CDS 70mm system? The soundtracking was
> outside the sprocket holes.
Um no. At least not on the sample 70mm segments
I had (but can sadly no longer find). Where did
you see it on the outside?
Scott Norwood
Bob Morris <mor...@circe.sce.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>Now he's going to have two guys carrying around Imax cameras on their
>shoulders for Mars 3-D! And maintaining intra-ocular distance!
>
>Arnold has already been hired for camera 1!
>Cameron's doing casting calls for camera 2!
Ouch! Personally, I thought that the 16BL was too heavy to hand-hold
for any length of time!
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?