Jacques Tati's Playtime in 65MM?
Peter Mason
fact
filmed in 65MM. I notice the In70MM.com website states this is the
case and then shows 70mm frames from the film that are cropped to an
aspect ratio of 1.7:1. If it was filmed originally on 65MM stock why
aren't the 70MM prints 2.2:1 rather than 1.7:1? I was not aware that
France had any 70MM facilities back in the sixties? Would the neg have
been sent to London for processing and printing?
Also Cleopatra which was filmed at Cinecita Studios in Rome. Was the
65MM neg processed by Technicolor in Rome or would this have been sent
to London for processing and workprints? The main titles state Color
by Deluxe.
Regards,
Peter Mason
Richard
wrote:
>Can anybody confirm that Jacques Tati's 1967 release "Playtime" was in
>fact filmed in 65MM.
YES. Playtime was filmed in 65mm.
Martin Hart
cin...@hotmail.com says...
Peter, all I can tell you about is "Cleopatra". The Todd-AO negatives
were flown to DeLuxe in Los Angeles for processing and the "dailies"
were flown back to Rome. Technicolor did do some work for DeLuxe, using
their wet-gate printer to remove some severe negative scratches that
would have otherwise necessitated expensive retakes.
Marty
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com
The American WideScreen Museum
Herbert Born
> In article <5665b2ea.04012...@posting.google.com>,
> cin...@hotmail.com says...
> > Can anybody confirm that Jacques Tati's 1967 release "Playtime" was in
> > fact
> > filmed in 65MM. I notice the In70MM.com website states this is the
> > case and then shows 70mm frames from the film that are cropped to an
> > aspect ratio of 1.7:1. If it was filmed originally on 65MM stock why
> > aren't the 70MM prints 2.2:1 rather than 1.7:1? I was not aware that
> > France had any 70MM facilities back in the sixties? Would the neg have
> > been sent to London for processing and printing?
> >
> > Also Cleopatra which was filmed at Cinecita Studios in Rome. Was the
> > 65MM neg processed by Technicolor in Rome or would this have been sent
> > to London for processing and workprints? The main titles state Color
> > by Deluxe.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter Mason
LTC in Paris was able to process 65mm and print 70mm. Don't know, if they still do.
> >
>
> Peter, all I can tell you about is "Cleopatra". The Todd-AO negatives
> were flown to DeLuxe in Los Angeles for processing and the "dailies"
> were flown back to Rome. Technicolor did do some work for DeLuxe, using
> their wet-gate printer to remove some severe negative scratches that
> would have otherwise necessitated expensive retakes.
>
> Marty
>
> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com
> The American WideScreen Museum
LTC in Paris was able to process 65mm and print 70mm. Don't know, if they still do.
Antti Näyhä
> If it was filmed originally on 65MM stock why aren't the 70MM prints
> 2.2:1 rather than 1.7:1?
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/lfca/lfca.htm has an explanation:
"Tati shot it with 65mm cameras (Mitchell) with the sides of the 2.21:1
masked down to 1.85:1 to enable the use of a then-new 8-track
stereophonic sound playback system. It wasn't clear whether the film was
shown with that particular soundtrack, however."
The approx. 1.7:1 shown in the 70mm screenshot probably then becomes
1.85:1 when projected.
--
Antti
Peter Mason
> Peter Mason wrote:
>
> > If it was filmed originally on 65MM stock why aren't the 70MM prints
> > 2.2:1 rather than 1.7:1?
>
> http://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/lfca/lfca.htm has an explanation:
>
> "Tati shot it with 65mm cameras (Mitchell) with the sides of the 2.21:1
> masked down to 1.85:1 to enable the use of a then-new 8-track
> stereophonic sound playback system. It wasn't clear whether the film was
> shown with that particular soundtrack, however."
>
of stereo sound without even perspecta encoding. Amazing!
Regards,
Peter mason
Peter Mason
>
> > If it was filmed originally on 65MM stock why aren't the 70MM prints
> > 2.2:1 rather than 1.7:1?
>
> http://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/lfca/lfca.htm has an explanation:
>
> "Tati shot it with 65mm cameras (Mitchell) with the sides of the 2.21:1
> masked down to 1.85:1 to enable the use of a then-new 8-track
> stereophonic sound playback system. It wasn't clear whether the film was
> shown with that particular soundtrack, however."
>
Well we certainly learn something new every day. Eight discrete tracks of
stereo sound without even perspecta encoding. Amazing!
Regards,
Peter Mason
Peter Mason
>
> > If it was filmed originally on 65MM stock why aren't the 70MM prints
> > 2.2:1 rather than 1.7:1?
>
> http://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/lfca/lfca.htm has an explanation:
>
> "Tati shot it with 65mm cameras (Mitchell) with the sides of the 2.21:1
> masked down to 1.85:1 to enable the use of a then-new 8-track
> stereophonic sound playback system. It wasn't clear whether the film was
> shown with that particular soundtrack, however."
>
Well we certainly learn something new every day. Eight discrete tracks of
Peter Mason
I have found a 25 page article about Jacques Tati in the March 1968
CAHIERS
DU CINEMA. On page 15 he talks about "playtime" and the 70MM process.
Is there anybody out there who can read and write fluent French?
CAHIERS: Le tableau que nous voyons la, au mur, semble indiquer
qu'avant le tournage, vous avez un instant hesite sur le format a
employer.Or "Playtime"
est un film que l'on imagine tres mal en Scope,par exemple.....
TATI: Oui, au debut, j'ai hesite, j'ai fait des recherches sur
tous les formats, et celui que vous voyez, en definitive, n'est meme
pas un vrai 70mm.
C'est a-dire que j'ai triche, que j'ai rogne un peu a gauche et a
droite de l'image en mettant de part et d'autre une petite bande de
negatif. Ainsi je me
suis un peu rapproche du format Vistavision, l'ecran est un peu plus
carre qu'il ne l'est reellement en 70mm.
Ce sont des questions qui n'ont pas l'air de toucher les gens d'ici,
mais les
Americains,eux sont stupefaits par las qualite du 70mm obtenue. C'est
tout
simplement parce que le budget considerable qie chez eux est devolu
aux acteurs, dans les super-productions, ici a ete entierement
consacre a la technique.
Any translation would be much appreciated.
Regards,
Peter Mason
manitou910
>
> I have found a 25 page article about Jacques Tati in the March 1968
> CAHIERS
> DU CINEMA. On page 15 he talks about "playtime" and the 70MM process.
> Is there anybody out there who can read and write fluent French?
My French is somewhat rusty, but I have a fairly clear idea of what he
and the interviewer are saying:
> CAHIERS: Le tableau que nous voyons la, au mur, semble indiquer
> qu'avant le tournage, vous avez un instant hesite sur le format a
> employer.Or "Playtime"
> est un film que l'on imagine tres mal en Scope,par exemple.....
"The image we see up on the screen appears to suggest that before
starting production ['tournage' meaning/context is unclear -- CPJ], you
had some misgivings regarding which format to use. Or that "Playtime"
is a film which would have looked poor in Scope?
> TATI: Oui, au debut, j'ai hesite, j'ai fait des recherches sur
> tous les formats, et celui que vous voyez, en definitive, n'est meme
> pas un vrai 70mm.
"Yes, at the start I had concerns and studied all formats. What you see
is not, strictly speaking, true 70mm.
> C'est a-dire que j'ai triche, que j'ai rogne un peu a gauche et a
> droite de l'image en mettant de part et d'autre une petite bande de
> negatif.
"That's to say, I cropped a bit from the left and right sides of the
image, removing some of the [filmed] negative.
> Ainsi je me suis un peu rapproche du format Vistavision, l'ecran
> est un peu plus carre qu'il ne l'est reellement en 70mm.
"Accordingly, it was closer to VistaVision, and the image was slightly
more square shaped than standard 70mm.
> Ce sont des questions qui n'ont pas l'air de toucher les gens d'ici,
> mais les Americains, eux sont stupefaits par las qualite du 70mm
> obtenue.
These issues were not a concern for people here [ie, in France/Europe],
but by the Americans who are overwhelmed by the quality enabled by 70mm.
> C'est tout simplement parce que le budget considerable qie chez eux est
> devolu aux acteurs, dans les super-productions, ici a ete entierement
> consacre a la technique.
"It's fairly simple because the substantial budgets which for them
[Americans?] is allocated to actors for major films, here was set aside
for production and technology costs.
> Any translation would be much appreciated.
I hope this helps -- improvements and corrections fully welcome!
CPJ
Peter Mason
EXCELLENT. Thank you very much. Tres Bien!
Regards,
Peter Mason
manitou910
[snip.......]
>>>C'est tout simplement parce que le budget considerable qie chez eux est
>>>devolu aux acteurs, dans les super-productions, ici a ete entierement
>>>consacre a la technique.
>>
>>"It's fairly simple because the substantial budgets which for them
>>[Americans?] is allocated to actors for major films, here was set aside
>>for production and technology costs.
>>
>>>Any translation would be much appreciated.
>>
>>I hope this helps -- improvements and corrections fully welcome!
>
>
> EXCELLENT. Thank you very much. Tres Bien!
You're welcome. I may send a copy to my high school French teacher (now
86), with whom I've kept in touch.
Since she taught Parisian rather than Quebecois pronunciation [her
rolled Rs were more extreme than those of any genuine francophone I've
known], even the subject matter would appeal to her!
CPJ