Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Apocalypse Now DVD

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Apocalypse Now DVD (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Apocalypse Now DVD

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 08-02-2004 03:20 PM

This 2:1 stuff is big BS. If APOCALYPSE NOW was meant to be seen in that aspect ratio back then, it would have been easy to put a black border to the sides of the picture during release printing.

Jacques tati did it with PLAYTIME, you could simply use a special aperture plate in the camera.

Even in the 70mm APOCALYPSE prints there was no matting, although the optical blow up process would have made this easy. I saw the Redux version just a few weeks ago, and there is not a single shot that would look better in 2:1. During the last years, Storraro has done a lot of promoting his own format which is compatible with nothing, neither theatrical scope, 70mm, special venue formats, HDTV or 16:9.

His claim that 2:1 makes for better composition or more natural viewing is laughable, reminding me of the 1950s discussions whether CinemaScope or VistaVision had the "more natural" composition.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-02-2004 08:21 PM

Christian,
Your refrence to comparing the "more natural" Cinemascope vs. VistaVision aspect ratios leaves me a bit confused. What VistaVision aspect ratio are you thinking about? It could be shown in several different ratios and it would appear that either 1:85 or 1:66 were the two commonly used ratios for VV extraction. Neither are very close to the CS aspect ratio. Also, back when they might have been comparing these two processes the common CS aspect ratio was actually 2.55 to 1 as many CS films were straight mag releases for the first couple of years. After that some were released in both straight mag, and mag/optical .

I will refer you to the VV specification page at the Wide Screen museum so you can digest all the different aspect ratios that VV typically produced and the circumstances for using them.
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vvspecs.htm

BTW: The CS vs VV thing is not even a debate and VV wins hands down because its actually a large film format due to of its usable image area. It also lacked any of the distortions that were inherent in CS of the era. Gee, Paramount saw what other studios did and developed something far superior.

BTW: Many of the 1930's 70mm films were 2 to 1 aspect ratio because of the optical sound track they carried on the print. I don't have any problem with 2 to 1 but I would'nt expect it to become commmon place today. Possibly used for special cases though.

Mark @ CLACO

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 08-04-2004 05:41 PM

Hi Mark,

somewhere in a pile of photocopied (but never properly sorted) [Embarrassed]

articles and technical papers from the 1950s, I have a 1954 ad from Paramount. On the front page there is an image of dancers on a stage, and a rounded "field-of-view" is superimposed over the picture in dotted lines. The tagline says that the Vistavision gives a more natural angle of view and a "more pleasing" frame when compared to other wide screen processes (all that translated into German, so I cannot say what the original leaflet may have said).
The only A.R. advertised was 1.85:1 with the option of going up to 2:1, no mention was made of the other common VV release print formats.

Certainly VV produces a sharper picture than CinemaScope, but I would say that the angle of view is first determined by the taking lens on the camera, not by the negative image size or aspect ratio. When the film is projected, size of screen and the viewer's distance to it decide how the image will be perceived.

I think the question which wide screen system gave the "most natural" look was a mistake in concept because the very idea of wide screen was to make use of peripheral vision and to render the borders of the screen "psychologically invisible". Therefore, I believe that the question should not have been which aspect ratio gave a "better" frame, but how great resolution and angle of vision need to be to create a real-looking projected image.
(IMAX does not have a very wide A.R., but it fills the angle of view and has high-resolution images, so it gives a realistic viewing experience, most effective when wide-angle photography is used).

What I wanted to say was that Storraro's explanation of how 2:1 is supposed to be more convenient than 2.39 or 1.85 or whatever does not really make sense. Personally, I do believe that he made up his theory long after the fact, not when APOCALYPSE NOW was shot. This kind of mythical explanations tend to live forever among DVD collectors and on internet forums... [Smile]

BTW, I love VistaVision, was totally blown away when I saw a 35mm dye transfer print of THE SEARCHERS a decade ago, and sadly job matters kept me from traveling to Bologna/Italy to see some vintage VV prints this summer, among them my favourite Lewis/Martin comedy ARTISTS AND MODELS (1955). I wonder if I'll ever see Shirley MacLaine's gorgeous legs in Technicolor & dye transfer? [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-30-2004 09:31 AM

Christian,

I think that any DP has to shoot dfilm for a number of years in the many different formats before he can decide whats really the most practicle thing. I have to wonder if Storaros feelings were also biased by HDTV's aspect of 16X9 in which 2 to 1 would loose very little, or very little would be left blank on the TV screen. While the other way around it is very close to a current large format cinema standard of 2.2 to 1. What ever his reasons may be I am sure they are good ones.

As to VistaVision and its brethern....Technirama and such. In general VistaVision had better depth of field for a given angle of view than even Todd-AO did, with the exception of the bug eye lens which was rarely used and retired early on because of its inherent distortion. The frame size of VV dictates the use of a series of shorter focal lentgh lenses than Todd-AO to achieve the same degrees of coverage in a given frame. Shorter focal length lenses always have greater depth of field than do longer lengths. When it cames to Technirama the same VV aspects apply but with Super Technirama the squeeze was minor compared to other anamorphic systems and as a result there was much greater depth of field available if and when needed. Just about every VV, Technirama or Super Technirama film I've watched shows impressive depth of field for its drame coverage unless the director intentionally did not want it that way(Hitchcock for instance). The other benefit the VV system had in its heydays was the use of the famous Leica camera lenses which were undoutedly the finest glass made back in those days.... of course there is better now though.

"Artists and Models" was the first I.B. Tech film I ever aquired as a collector. Its not that great of a film and believe me Technicolor is the real star of it!! Eventually the edge of the film fell off and the print became un-runnable. Which is only one reason why I don't collect film any more and have not for quite some time..... vinegar is another reason and so on.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 09-02-2004 09:39 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
When it cames to Technirama the same VV aspects apply but with Super Technirama the squeeze was minor compared to other anamorphic systems and as a result there was much greater depth of field available if and when needed.

Hm, I see what you mean when VV/Technirama is compared to Todd-AO, but which other anamorphic system do you mean?

The lower anamorphic squeeze will certainly improve sharpness and minimize correction problems compared to 2:1 lenses. But VistaVision and Technirama have the same depth of field rendering because the anamorphic lens does not change that at all.

The same goes for 35mm formats: A 50mm anamorphic lens has exactly the same D.O.F. as a spherical lens of the same focal length.
The smaller the format, the greater D.O.F. will be, so a 35mm film shot with a 40mm anamorphic lens will have a greater D.O.F. than a VistaVision/Technirama film shot with a lens of the same horizontal angle, provided the same f-stop is maintained for both.
But I agree with you, on the screen most Technirama films have deep focus, maybe cinematographers just used more light than for an average scope movie, and by stopping down, the depth of field was enhanced.

You are perfectly right about ARTISTS AND MODELS, but Ms. MacLaine's dancing must have made a great impression on me in my formative years - too late to change it. [Embarrassed]

Still, I find the scene with the evil child at the comic book editor's office very funny.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-09-2004 08:41 PM

"The same goes for 35mm formats: A 50mm anamorphic lens has exactly the same D.O.F. as a spherical lens of the same focal length."

That is definately not true. A scope lens will have much less depth of field at the same apeature as its equivelent spherical focal length, partly due to the fact that anamorphic lenses don't really focus like a spherical lens... you are really adjusting both an actual focus for the back up lens and an astigmatism adjustment for the anamorphic section. lenses with less squeeze such as Technirama also have way less inherent astigmatism. I can state this from experience having owned quite a few anamorphic camera lenses. The lack of depth of field on scope lenses is one of the main reasons for the existance of Super 35 and like formats where spherical lenses excel in depth, and they are much lighter and cheaper to rent. A good film to watch for anamorphic depth of focus effect is the later "Cape Fear" which was shot anamorphic. A good customer of mine pulled focus on that film. Take a look at the scene in the darkened bedroom where the camera is in constant motion around the actors.... That was the most difficult focus pull my customer ever did out of a boatload of anamorphic films he's worked on... and they did that scene in one take. That shot is a good example of how critical focus is with anamorphics.

For a great VV depth of field shot just watch "The Searchers" at the beginning and end shots where the camera moves through the open door going outside.... the door jam stays in focus all they way past the camera....within inches.... its almost a 3D sensation seeing it even in lousy a 35mm reduction. Its a really neat shot and one of the best examples of how great the depth of focus can be with that format!! You kind of feel like you're being pushed on a rolling chair through that door.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-09-2004 09:51 PM

So, why the heck isn't the "Hearts of Darkness" documentary available on any home format except for crappy VHS? It's a fantastic documentary and well worth watching for any fan of the film. It had a limited theatrical release in the early '90s (35mm prints do exist) and played on PBS; one would hope that it will be made available on DVD at some point.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 09-09-2004 10:37 PM

IMHO, Paramount should have done some negotiating and had the "Hearts of Darkness" documentary included in the "Apocalypse Now" DVD package. I still bought the original DVD when it was released. But if the documentary had been included in something like a 2-disc special edition package the "Apocalypse Now" DVD release would have been much more significant.

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 09-12-2004 04:28 PM

Mark, I believe that both the "ASC Manual" and Samuelson's "Hand-On Manual for Cinematographers" recommend using the same DOF tables for spherical and anamorphic lenses of the same focal length. Let me quote cinematographer David Mullen, ASC (who lensed many anamorphic features) from a cameraguild.com forum thread:

cameraguild.com thread

quote:
Re: Anamorphic Lenses
Author: David Mullen, ASC (---.dialup.mindspring.com)
Date: 04-26-04 21:26

Scope lenses have a 2X squeeze (compression) horizontally, making it pretty easy to figure this out. It sees twice as much horizontally compared to a spherical lens of the same focal length.

Basically a 50mm anamorphic lens has the horizontal view of a 25mm lens but the vertical view of a 50mm lens (hence why most people just use the same depth of field charts for anamorphic lenses.)

What's "normal" is a matter of debate. Since anamorphic lenses "feel" more wide-angle because of their greater horizontal view, the tendency is to use longer lenses (hence the lower depth of field many people notice.) Although early CinemaScope movies used the anamorphic lens as a way of seeing wider and thus did not use long lenses much (except for Kurosawa's scope movies.)

But in practical production work, Super 35 indeed will give more depth of field - because it uses lenses of (roughly) half the focal length compared to Scope to cover the same angle of view.

Your examples regarding shallow depth of field are perfectly right, but this problem didn't exist in hundreds of anamorphic films of the 1960s which show a great depth of field. Cinematographers back then generally used high light levels, so they could stop down to f5.6 or f8, thereby getting good depth rendering. From my own work as a cinematographer, I feel that anything below f4 looks unpleasant, but today f2.8 or f2 is considered appropiate for Scope. I recall watching the shallow-focus/steadicam-shot party scene from MISSION TO MARS on a huge theatre screen. Being short-sighted, I felt like having lost my glasses.
In many pre-1970 films, wide angle lenses (35 or 40mm) were used much more than in today's anamorphic cinematography, only a few "old-fashioned" directors like John Carpenter seem to like that panoramic look. It seems to me that many modern DOPs detest a sharp, deep-focus image and prefer a shallow focus look that makes it necessary to pull focus very often. Maybe they consider this format to be just a wider screen, they don't seem to care for the unique look of wide-angle Scope. Can't argue with creative decisions...

THE SEARCHERS in a vintage print is, just as you said, a great visual experience, they used a lot of light and worked at a decent f-stop to create that almost three-dimensional look. Saw it many years ago, and nothing compared to it but Todd-AO.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-12-2004 07:04 PM

My experience working with scope camera lenses has been that they have alot less depth of focus even when stopped down. I really don't care what the manuals say in regards to this.... I've shot film with both B&L and Panavision anamorphics and a B&L anamorphic attachment. The depth of focus does improve at smaller T stops but is still no where near as great as the bare backup lens would be. Mostly in part to the astigmatism thats introduced by the anamorphic lens characteristics themselves. There is really no way around the physical laws of anamorphic optics in this regard. Try focusing(actually adjusting the astigmatism) of a really good quality projection anamorphic some time and you'll see how critical it is. Camera lenses with the same squeeze ratio are every bit the same in regards to this. Anamorphics really can't be designed for depth of focus as can the backup lens, only for squeeze factor. The depth of focus of the anamorphic section is more determined by the squeeze ratio.

FYI: the original B&L anamorphic camera prismatic attachment and the later cylindrical anamorphic attachments were meant to be used only with prime lenses of 50mm focal length and up so I think you would find that there were more long focal length lenses, 75mm & 100mm, used on old Cinemascope features than you might think. These early attachment lenses will vignette with anything shorter than 50mm. Of course the later integrated B&L scopes which went as short as the very rare 24mm solved this and the anamorphic mumps problem for the most part. The mumps problem was solved by introducing slightly too much squeeze when the lens was focused at its closest focus distance of say 3 feet. At longer focus distances the squeeze was actually not quite enough but who'd notice. Panavision solved the problem by introducing counter rotating diopters between the backup and anamorphic sections. The diopter pair was geared to the focus mechanics through the hump that is seen on many of their lenses. Amazingly, even my 38mm focal length Panavision Camera 65 lens has these counter rotating diopters inside it.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 09-13-2004 11:31 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
the original B&L anamorphic camera prismatic attachment and the later cylindrical anamorphic attachments were meant to be used only with prime lenses of 50mm focal length and up

Do you mean the first attachment built by B&L to replace the original Hypergonar lens used for THE ROBE? I didn't know it was prismatic, always thought that Technicolor/De Oude Delft Co. did it first for cinematography (projection attachments excluded here). Do you happen to have a picture of that attachment, and is it known why they returned to cylinder optics afterwards?

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-13-2004 06:54 PM

I'll have to see if I can locate a photo of the B&L prismatic adaptor. I saw one in person once at a now defunct motion picture camera store(Lloyds Camera Exchange) in Hollywood years ago. Marty Hart may have a picture of one on his site. B&L made them very briefly until the cylindrical lens adaptors became available, after that the B&L integrated camera lenses were put into general use, but it took a couple of years for them to be designed and produced. The set of B&L'S that I used to own was produced in 1956 and were from Warner Brothers which in itself is very interesting. It was much more difficult to do the grinding calculations for cylindrical anamporphic lenses and the machinery had to be specially built whilst the prism lenses were just flat ground surfaces and quick to be produced for the onslaught of CS productions being done at the time.

Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.