35mm 4-mag-track BEN HUR screening at the CINEPLEX in FRANKFURT
Herbert Born
BEN HUR (1959)
... in all of its beauty on ...
October 3rd & 4th ...
at the CINEPLEX, Frankfurt, Germany.
Facts:
35mm Technicolor print (mint condition) with all the elements (overtüre,
intermission, end music)
4-track-magnetic sound (new sound heads)
72 feet screen width (new Harkness)
new Schneider ES Cinelux Anamorphic 2x MC (ultrasharp)
BAUER U2 with 5000kw Xenon
In an almost new cinema, 450 comfortable seats, stadium seating.
You will forget all about digital cinema.
Herbert Born
Steve Kraus
Herbert Born
> Were these prints 2.55 : 1 or 2.76 : 1 via height reduction?
The print has a thicker frame line than a usual Cinemascope print,
which will result in more width than the 2.2 : 1. This will also give
us some additional headache how to proper mask the screen. A lot of
work for only two shows. (But it's worth!!!)
Herbert
Herbert Born
Martin Hart <martinB...@widescreenBLOCKmuseum.com> schrieb in im
Newsbeitrag: XsQYa.150508$XV.79...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> In article <3511515.03080...@posting.google.com>,
> hb...@indusma.com says...
> hard matted for 2.5:1 and if you're running anamorphic at the current
> standard of 2.4:1 you may not need to adjust anything. Certainly negative
> splices won't show and as long as you project a steady picture the small
> black area at the top or bottom won't be a problem. If masking adjustment
> is needed then I'd just bring down the top a touch and frame the film for
> that adjustment. I wish I could be there to see that IB print.
>
> Marty
> --
> The American WideScreen Museum
> Online Archive
> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com
Marty,
you may be true. We had no time yet to do a test.
just recently i saw an Technicolor print of HOLLYWOOD OR BUST, a Jerry
Lewis, Dean Martin movie, shoot in Vistavision. Incredible sharp focus ...
Beautiful!!
Herbert
Morgan Montague
WHITE CHRISTMAS on the big screen for the first time several years ago. In
all the medium shots, which is most of the film, pretty much only about 6"
was in true focus at any given time and rest of the imag in front of or
behind the area of focus was pleasantly soft. All the years I had been
watching it on TV I really never noticed the small focus area.
Morgan
"Martin Hart" <martinB...@widescreenBLOCKmuseum.com> wrote in message
news:mf5Za.160864$hV.10...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> In article <bh11hb$vu2$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, hb...@indusma.com says...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Marty,
> >
> > you may be true. We had no time yet to do a test.
> >
> > just recently i saw an Technicolor print of HOLLYWOOD OR BUST, a Jerry
> > Lewis, Dean Martin movie, shoot in Vistavision. Incredible sharp focus
...
> > Beautiful!!
> >
> > Herbert
>
> It's really odd that CinemaScope, VistaVision, Todd-AO, and Ultra
> Panavision were touted as having sharp focus and great depth of field.
> Actually this really applied only to Cinerama because of the short lenses
> involved, but the other systems relied on a monumental increase in
> required illumination to allow for smaller iris settings to be used. And
> while they were telling the public that their new systems had this great
> depth of focus, Paramount stressed it more than the others, they were
> telling the crafts that the systems had very shallow depth of field and
> that they'd have to light their sets to compensate for it. But that's
> Hollywood for you. Bless 'em.
Herbert Born
Martin Hart <martinB...@widescreenBLOCKmuseum.com> schrieb in im
> >
> > you may be true. We had no time yet to do a test.
> >
> > just recently i saw an Technicolor print of HOLLYWOOD OR BUST, a Jerry
> > Lewis, Dean Martin movie, shoot in Vistavision. Incredible sharp focus
...
> > Beautiful!!
> >
> > Herbert
>
> Panavision were touted as having sharp focus and great depth of field.
> Actually this really applied only to Cinerama because of the short lenses
> involved, but the other systems relied on a monumental increase in
> required illumination to allow for smaller iris settings to be used. And
> while they were telling the public that their new systems had this great
> depth of focus, Paramount stressed it more than the others, they were
> telling the crafts that the systems had very shallow depth of field and
> that they'd have to light their sets to compensate for it. But that's
> Hollywood for you. Bless 'em.
>
I'm not talking about depth of field, that's something different.
I'm talking about sharp focus and almost no visible grain, which comes close
to what we see with our eyes. When I'm talking to you, face to face, I do
not have a great depth of field, I even don't want it, because I'm just
seeing you and your eyes, but in sharp focus and without any grain.
For example, in AIRPORT (1970 - TODD AO) there is a scene with Burt
Lancaster and Jean Seberg, sitting in a car, discussing their
"relationship", its a long shot, only their faces are in focus, but in the
70mm print it doesn't look like film, it looks like reality. Crazy ... but
if someone would ask me for a reference scene for comparison to a new
digital projection system, i would choose this scene. A 35 year old print to
be shown with a 44 year old projection system. It's not possible to beat
yet.
Herbert
Peter H.
>>
A 35 year old print to be shown with a 44 year old projection system. It's not
possible to beat yet.
>>
There are more than a few anacronisms out there.
Here's one ...
A cinema stereo sound system which is recorded on a 56 year-old recorder, using
a 65 year-old light valve.
It's called "Dolby Stereo" (AKA "Stereo Variable Area").
Lincoln Spector
>
> I'm talking about sharp focus and almost no visible grain, which comes
close
> to what we see with our eyes. When I'm talking to you, face to face, I do
> not have a great depth of field, I even don't want it, because I'm just
> seeing you and your eyes, but in sharp focus and without any grain.
to something in the background, that something goes into focus and your face
goes out of focus--without my even realizing it. If I'm watching a
widescreen movie (and to a lesser-degree a non-wide-screen movie) and I
decide to look at something in the background, that something may be out of
focus.
Lincoln
Herbert Born
bored and you decide to inspect all the corners and background in a scene
... in this case the screenplay, the director and the DP did not do a good
job. You should pay attention to the story, whats happening now and not
start look around.
Lincoln Spector <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
IOyZa.17$IL4.2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Lincoln Spector
"Herbert Born" <hb...@indusma.com> wrote in message
news:bh7d14$a9e$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> That's true, but if you do not know in a movie where to look now and you
get
> bored and you decide to inspect all the corners and background in a scene
> ... in this case the screenplay, the director and the DP did not do a good
> job. You should pay attention to the story, whats happening now and not
> start look around.
much of Citizen Kane in a way to encouraged the eye to wander. They wanted
to give the audience the opportunity to look around a bit.
This is also very true with specticals. When you look at a film like Ben Hur
(to bring this thread back on topic), your eyes are expected to wander a
bit, and the filmmakers used a huge amount of like to make this possible.
When they didn't want your eyes to wander, they kept the depth of field
small.
Lincoln
sa...@pgcc.org
Cheers,
Sarah Kift
The Hollywood Theatre, Vancouver, BC
Stephen Furley
cinemad
> > BAUER U2 with 5000kw Xenon 5000 kW!
Regards,
Peter Mason
Jeffry L. Johnson
4500KW is 4.5 megawatts, or 4,500 kilowatts. No need for a takeup reel.
4500 Watts or 4.5 kW is correct.