Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres (Page 40)

 
This topic comprises 50 pages: 1  2  3  ...  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  ...  48  49  50   
Author Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 03-08-2006 10:23 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Thomas Hauerslev
Blow ups started in 1963 with "The Cardinal"
quote: Bill Gabel
Depending on sources it was either "Taras Bulba" (UA) or "The Cardinal" (Columbia) both released in 1963.
There is a "wild card" title to consider: Columbia's "Bye Bye Birdie" (released April 1963). This may have been released as a blow-up in France prior to the U.S. release of "The Cardinal." And in the U.S. it may have been an unpromoted blow-up test release, with "The Cardinal" (released December 1963) being the first official blow-up.

The first blow-up released in the U.S. to be clearly and unambiguously promoted as being presented in 70mm was "Becket" (1964). While there's no question "The Cardinal" had 70mm prints in major market engagements, it was promoted in the misleading manner of "Photographed by Leon Shamroy in Panavision 70." Up till that time, the term "Panavision 70" was used for what we now refer to as "Super Panavision 70" and was used on "Exodus" (1960) and "West Side Story" (1961).

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 03-08-2006 11:16 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
Even though scope releases have risen dramatically in the past decade, I do believe 1.85 releases are still the majority.
That's likely, although I should have phrased it "major releases that play most theaters are often in 'scope." Currently, the two first run theaters in my town are playing about 50-50 on 'scope versus flat films. But there's lots of times where nearly every screen is showing a 'scope movie. Sometimes all of them are 'scope.

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

- posted 03-09-2006 03:01 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Larry Myers
"I though FOX sold the rights of CinemaScope to Panavision......."
Nope, Fox didn't sell the trademark rights for "CinemaScope" off - that's their one and only precious 'baby'.

FOX had Bauch & Lomb create the anamorphic attachments from the original design that they had.

But in the mid 60's Panavision came out with far better camera anamorphics that had an adustable diopter lens to get rid of that slight center squeeze syndrome on closeup shots that B&L lenses couldn't remove along with far batter glass elements than B&L could had.

Thus, FOX dropped the B&L lenses for the Panavision cameras and lenses, (the Sand Pebbles was the first film made using Panavision equipment, in 1966 <if I remember>) thus they couldn't use the "CinemaScope" trademark anymore when using Panavision equipment.

But, tons of cinemas STILL use the B&L CinemaScope Attachment I and II for their projectors..

-Monte

 |  IP: Logged
Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 602
From: Southampton. England
Registered: Jul 99

- posted 03-09-2006 05:05 AM      Profile for Ben Wales   Email Ben Wales   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Brian Guckian
SUNDAY 12th MARCH
PICTUREVILLE, BRADFORD

PLEASE MEET IN FOYER AT 5PM
I will be there to give my support.....

 |  IP: Logged
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 03-09-2006 07:27 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
But, tons of cinemas STILL use the B&L CinemaScope Attachment I and II for their projectors..
Even though much better quality modern anamorphic projection lenses are available today. [Frown]

 |  IP: Logged
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

- posted 03-09-2006 07:48 AM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
I was reading a story in American Cinematographer about the first Panavision film. It goes on to say that Fox sold Cinemascope rights to Panavision. At that point, all Cinemascope pictures were labeled Panavision thereafter with the first picture being Sand Pebbles. Again it's only something I read. Freedom of the press means it could be right or it could be wrong.

Now on lenses. How bad do you think the old B&L Cinemascope lenses really were? How much better are the modern lenses. Do they really make a difference and if so how much of a difference? Is it worth $2000 to upgrade to a modern lens?

 |  IP: Logged
Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

- posted 03-09-2006 10:47 AM      Profile for Sam D. Chavez   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Scope lenses from Isco and Schneider made within the last 15 years or so are vastly superior to the originals in terns of chromatic abberation (sic), color accuracy, geometric distortion and just about every other parameter one can think of. Bear in mind that the B & L lenses are now 50 years old and the glue has discolored, etc,. while modern lenses are assembled with no glue.

There are a lot of used very good lenses around for a cost around $500. Just stay away from the Sankor, Kowa and all off-brand lenses, particularly in this difficult to make type of lens.

 |  IP: Logged
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

- posted 03-09-2006 12:19 PM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
Now if that is so. That is, Isco and Schneider being VASTLY SUPERIOR then older equipment, does that mean anything shown before 1990 as being vastly inferior. You can't have it both ways. It has to be a fastly superior lens system today or a vastly inferior system before 1990. So which is it?

This all goes back to the question is 70mm 5 perf needed today? If you got a vastly superior lens system for 35mm today then it looks like you got a not so good 35mm lens system before about 1990. Maybe that what's on the "people who pay the bills" minds when you talk 70mm today.

 |  IP: Logged
Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-09-2006 12:36 PM      Profile for Bernard Tonks   Email Bernard Tonks   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
Nope, Fox didn't sell the trademark rights for "CinemaScope" off - that's their one and only precious 'baby'.
In the early days, Fox also used the trademark “RegalScope” for B+W anamorphic prints.

Fox could not use B & L anamorphic lenses in their London flagship Carlton Theatre, due to the severe projection rake of 32 degrees. Delrama (from Holland) mirror type anamorphic attachments were installed. The top Delrama mirror was air cooled to eliminate expansion and contraction from the 70 amp Peerless arc lamps, the projectors were water cooled. The Carlton had one the finest CinemaScope presentations in the West End of London.

 |  IP: Logged
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

- posted 03-09-2006 12:45 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Sam D. Chavez
Scope lenses from Isco and Schneider made within the last 15 years or so are vastly superior
.. Ain't that the blessed truth....

Yep, seen a few of those old B & L's all discolored with the glue all bubbly inbetween the elements.

Larry,you CAN have it both ways since the camera anamorphics are GATHERING light from a source. Why the B & L lenses get tired is from all of the heat from the lamphouses -carbon and xenon- heating up the elements inside day in and day out.

Glue doesn't last forever.

You need to be a film operator to understand all of this along with playing with SLR cameras.

quote: Bernard Tonks
70 amp Peerless arc lamps, the projectors were water cooled
these would be 9mm positive rods then. Biggest size for the non-rotating copper clad rods. Interesting, that the machine had to be water cooled with the use of this size rod. I can see it they were the big 13.6mm rotators, but not that small of rod.

-Monte

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 03-09-2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Larry Myers
Now if that is so. That is, Isco and Schneider being VASTLY SUPERIOR then older equipment, does that mean anything shown before 1990 as being vastly inferior. You can't have it both ways.
First, film projector lenses are very different things from film camera lenses.

You're also mistating the quality of the old lenses versus the new in clunky absolute terms. Others have said the old B&L lenses were pretty good, but not great and issues like that glue thing would turn into bigger problems over the years. Lens production design is much more sophisticated now, and the newer lenses will last a longer amount of time.

You're also assuming an "all lenses were the same" notion -at least that's the tense of your post. Lots of extremely expensive custom lenses have been made for film cameras over the decades. Some custom lenses have been made in the past for important movie theaters too.

The situation today is that ISCO and Schneider can make a lot more lenses of consistently high quality for a lot more movie theaters.

So, yes, we are going to have it both ways.
[Razz]

quote: Larry Myers
This all goes back to the question is 70mm 5 perf needed today?
No it doesn't. You're assuming the advances in projector lenses is only happening for 35mm projectors.

Also it seems you have already forgotten (or just ignored) many legitimate reasons for 70mm listed on the past 40 pages. Many of these points have been repeated many times -like the undeniable fact 70mm is the ONLY kind of projection that can throw an adequately bright image onto a 60' or larger screen. That reason alone is enough to fully justify 70mm.

I'm 100% convinced you're just trolling. It's likely you could not give two shits about the issues between video projection, 35mm projection and 70mm projection. Basically, you're just posting over and over again to annoy people.

 |  IP: Logged
Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-09-2006 03:02 PM      Profile for Bernard Tonks   Email Bernard Tonks   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
these would be 9mm positive rods then. Biggest size for the non-rotating copper clad rods. Interesting, that the machine had to be water cooled with the use of this size rod. I can see it they were the big 13.6mm rotators, but not that small of rod.
That is correct Monte, the positive rods were 9mm non-rotating copper clad supplied from two generators alternating weekly. The three projectors were water cooled mainly because of the heat on the top Delrama silver coated mirror which also had to be air cooled. Nice cool projectors with absolutely no focus drift on long runs throughout.

At the Columbia Theatre, Shaftsbury Avenue, where I worked freelance for 9 months after my Carlton days. The Scottish brand Peerless arc lamps also used the above 9mm carbons run at 75 amps with the Philips DP 70 projectors for 35/70mm. The 8mm negative rod was fed at a sloping angle, which I have never seen before on a Peerless.

 |  IP: Logged
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

- posted 03-09-2006 03:53 PM      Profile for Larry Myers         Edit/Delete Post 
So are you saying that the older B&L lenses were Vastly Superior in there day just like todays lenses but because of ware and tear over the years, they are now not so good? Or, are you saying Vastly Superior means just a bit better. Or is it like cars. A 2006 Corvette is Vastly Superior to the 1966 427 Corvette but that 66 Corvette is also Vastly Superior to any piece of shit car they build today. That way, you have both ways. Just trying to understand projection lingo.

 |  IP: Logged
Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

- posted 03-09-2006 05:10 PM      Profile for Sam D. Chavez   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Larry,

You are either an idiot, or merely pedantic. Either way, it's extremely annoying to people who debate issues on this forum to increase or share their knowledge base.

The original B & L projection lenses were made as well as the science and manufacturing allowed at the time. Today's best lenses are superior in the ways I outlined. I do not appreciate your mocking tone.

My last words on this topic is "Bite Me". You are wasting everyone's time and I advise all concerned to quit posting on this topic. It will have the effect of turning out the lights and leaving this jerk in the dark. "The Guest Who Wouldn't Leave".

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 03-09-2006 06:25 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps we should just vote to close the thread. I vote yes. All the positive aspects of using 70mm have been repeated many times already.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 50 pages: 1  2  3  ...  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  ...  48  49  50   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.