Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,115   Online: 933
      
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    snaggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    325
    Images
    1

    Projecting 70mm frames?

    I've just bought a Hasselblad PCP-80 projector. I've seen some 70mm frames from Star Wars etc. Anybody tried putting one of these in a Gepe mount and projecting them? Be nice to see R2D2 in original 70mm! Are motion picture frames sharp or really only look good at 24fps?

    Daniel.

  2. #2
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,121
    Images
    210

    Projecting 70mm frames?

    I don't even know if 70mm is what they shot in or if those are duplicates of some kind, I work in the industry and all the sets I'm on they always use 35mm...


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #3
    bushpig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Escaped Bakersfield, CA. Now in Indianapolis.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    307
    I wish I was in the industry...

    Anyways, I'm pretty sure that Star Wars was shot on 35mm.

    And to answer your question, Daniel, Most motion picture frames aren't usually sharp.

  4. #4
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,575
    Images
    59
    Appocalypse Now was shot on 70mm - in the jungle!
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #5
    bushpig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Escaped Bakersfield, CA. Now in Indianapolis.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Appocalypse Now was shot on 70mm - in the jungle!
    I didn't know they shot that on 70mm. I know that Kubrick shot 2001 on 70mm. And I know that The Master (with Joaquin Phoenix and Phil Hoffman) was shot on 70mm.

    Of course there were others.

  6. #6
    snaggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    325
    Images
    1
    Found out that whilst Star Wars was shot on 35mm. It was shot in a sideways format that gives it the same width as 70mm on 35mm film stock.

    Daniel.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by snaggs View Post
    Found out that whilst Star Wars was shot on 35mm. It was shot in a sideways format that gives it the same width as 70mm on 35mm film stock.
    The photographic effects of Star Wars were filmed in 8-perf 35 so that when the shots were composited they would look good when intercut with the live action footage shot in 4-perf vertical format. Compositing numerous ships, stars, planets, and animated effects required dozens of successive exposures copying original footage into the final shot, with each successive generation increasing grain and contrast. The larger negative not only allowed for higher quality at this stage, but made it easier to engineer highly precise cameras and optical printers that would maintain all those elements plus their mattes in registration. Most of this I know from tech articles and interviews with the ILM team not long after the film's release. Most release prints were in 4-perf anamorphic ('squeezed' widescreen) but some of the larger markets exhibited the film in 'blown up' 70mm, especially once it took off in popularity. 70 also allowed for the highest quality sound reproduction at the time via multiple magnetic stripes on the film. I used to have a few frames trimmed from a 70mm print and still have numerous 8-perf bits from ILM's dumpster -- mattes, color seps, test footage -- and a ton of 4-perf clips from release prints. The 70s were beautiful but not especially 'sharp', while the 8-perf stuff is quite sharp (ILM used Nikon SLR lenses at this point). The 4 perf clips are really pretty grainy and the FX show significant color shifts but quite a lot of them are from trailers, yet further removed from the original negative.

    By contrast (if you'll pardon the expression) the effects for Star Trek: The Motion Picture were mostly done in 70mm, and in my area at the time the film premiered in 70. The shots of the Enterprise look amazingly lush and real and there's virtually no telltale special-effecty look. The opening sequence, however, was contributed by ILM in the 8-perf format and blown up for release. There's a definite 'grittiness' to the shots and the mattes are not as clean (the grit kind of works, though, because it's the Klingons).

    70MM is very rare as a camera negative anymore due to expense. The economics of theatrical distribution (multiplexes with small screens) don't show it to its best advantage. Producers even economize by using 3-perf 35 (Lord of the Rings) and of course there's the 'other' origination medium we don't discuss on this forum...

    Phillip



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin