Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: TRANSFERRING VISTAVISION 35 TO IMAX

This is topic TRANSFERRING VISTAVISION 35 TO IMAX in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000060

Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 10-31-2000, 04:45 PM:

I am wondering what would be needed to
transfer vistaVision 35 prints to IMAX?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-31-2000, 06:34 PM:

DKP70mm Inc (a Imax company) has a 15perf optical printer and I know back in the late 70 we had them do a test of a reel of 10 commandments printed from the vv neg to the 15 perf print
It can be done

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-01-2000, 05:30 AM:

Gordon

I saw that blow up. Grain the size of baseballs

Matthew

Quality will depend on a number of factors
a) Do you want to blow up a portion of Vistavision frame to fill the 1570 frame or are you going to letterbox the original aspect ratio?
b) The age and speed of the original stock
etc.

The person I would approach would be Chris Reyna at Imagica in LA .e-mail him at chrisr@imagicausa.com.

Imagica USA Inc.
5320 McConnell Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: 310-305-8081
Fax: 310-305-7563

His company do all sorts of blow ups and transfers.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-01-2000, 07:56 AM:

I believe the recent 15-perf 70mm film "Michael Jordan to the Max" had quite a bit of footage "blown up" from 35 mm camera negative:
http://www.mjtothemax.com/mj.html

As Dick Vaughan notes, the image quality depends on the type of negative film used, and the quality of the cinematography. But even the area of an 8-perf VistaVision or a full frame "Super 35" negative won't match the quality of 65 mm origination. Look at the usable image areas available:

IMAX 15-perf 70mm: 2.74 x 1.91 inches (69.60 x 48.5 mm)

8-perf 35 mm VistaVision Negative: 1.472 x 0.997 inches

"Super 35" Full Camera Aperture: 0.980 x 0.735 inches

Imagica USA (Chris Reyna) ( http://www.imagica.com/company/group-e.html ), CFI ( http://www.cfi-hollywood.com/ ) or David Keighley Productions 70 MM Inc. ( http://www.imax.com/corporate/companies.html ) are very expert in this type of lab work.

But, as always, "Size DOES Matter".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-01-2000, 08:56 AM:

Yes but it was a 1950's negative source as well. Even guiness would get a little flat after that many years

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-01-2000, 09:52 AM:

"The Ten Commandments" was likely shot on the old EASTMAN Color Negative film 5248, an EI 25 camera negative introduced in 1952. Not surprising that the grain was "the size of baseballs" on a huge screen. Today's Kodak VISION Color Negative films have vastly superior sharpness and graininess, even though they are all much faster.

Any of today's Kodak Color Negative films would look great in the VistaVision format:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/camera.shtml

(And they look even better in 65 mm formats )

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-02-2000, 01:26 PM:

This post really doesn't belong in Film-Yak.

Transferring to Film Handler's Forum.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 11-03-2000, 04:04 AM:

Why not optically print VistaVision, or better still Technirama, to 15/70 and use the height of the frame for the second corresponding image for 3D!

John is correct, no matter how much I like the Technirmama 70 or Vista Vision (motion picture hi-fidelity) processes, you just can't beat origination in 65mm. Ben Hur or Lawence are sooooo sharp in close ups you can see individual eyelashes!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-03-2000, 08:34 AM:

Q: what would be the point of blowing up from VV as opposed to 4/35? Since you would be extracting a 1.33:1 image from the VV frame, anyway, it would seem that shooting in that format would be a waste. Super-35 (aka "Edison silent frame") would probably be a better choice for a blowup to 15/70. Even then, I would ask "why?" since the whole point of IMAX is super-high-definition pictures. If you just need brightness for a large screen, 8/70 would be cheaper...

In case anyone cares about Vistavision, here's a (pink-faded) frame of probably the strangest VV print ever (a special-venue film): square "Fox hole" perfs and six tracks of mag sound:

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-03-2000, 12:18 PM:

Wow! look at the perf damage on that one!

I would like to have seen a Vista Vision presentation.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2000, 12:22 PM:

Scott:

If you look at the numbers I gave for the image areas of 15-perf 70 mm, VistaVision, and Super-35, I agree with you that the advantage of the more rectanular VistaVision frame over the better-fitting Super 35 frame are minimal.

As to "why?", the Michael Jordan film provides an example of mixing 35 mm "action footage" that would be very expensive or impossible to cover with 15-perf 65 mm, with the "super-high-definition pictures" of the 15-perf 65 mm format. It can work well.

Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 11-03-2000, 01:03 PM:

Come to think of it,your 35 millimeter
still camera such as an SLR for example,
is actually a vistaVision camera,but in
still form.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2000, 02:18 PM:

Matthew:

You're correct about a 35mm still camera producing about the same image area as a VistaVision negative. Every few weeks on r.a.m.t and other newsgroups, someone comes up with the idea of shooting a widescreen (animation or CGI) epic using their 35 mm SLR camera. Nikons with pin-registered movements are in short supply .

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-03-2000, 02:29 PM:

The thing that is best about VistaVision is that it is a large format process and it utilizes standard 35mm film stock. Being the owner of both a VV camera and projector I can honestly say that its is far more practical to shoot it than 65mm. The last price I heard for 65mm film stock was in the area of 7.00 a foot!
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-03-2000, 03:17 PM:

Mark said "The last price I heard for 65mm film stock was in the area of 7.00 a foot!"

Mark: Where did you get that high price???

The September 2000 Price List for Kodak Motion Picture Films lists a 1000-foot roll of 65 mm EASTMAN EXR 100T Color Negative Film 5248 as $1030.00, or a little over a dollar a foot. Even the latest KODAK VISION 800T Color Negative Film 5289 is only $1211.00 for 1000 feet, or $1.211 per foot in 65 mm.

As you might expect, for 65 mm negative, Kodak only charges two times the price of 35 mm film. (Since we get only 19 strips from each wide roll for both 65 mm and 70 mm, compared to 38 for 35 mm).