How much does it cost to properly scan and transfer Ultra Panavision 70/MGM Camera 65 Films? (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Gallagher]

Actually, Robert, you've brought up a great point I sincerely wish you'd elaborate upon, namely, how does a projectionist create the best visual representation of the filmmaker's original work on the screen in the theater. What sort of projector calibrations do they perform, and do they follow any notes from the studio as to what is expected to ensure the image looks as the filmmaker's intended? Any light you could shed (no pun intended) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Sorry to butt in here - but this is the kind of thing that used to be sent out to first run theaters. I assume we rarely see this now. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/showmanship.htm

 

[Robert Harris]

Actually, Robert, you've brought up a great point I sincerely wish you'd elaborate upon, namely, how does a projectionist create the best visual representation of the filmmaker's original work on the screen in the theater. What sort of projector calibrations do they perform, and do they follow any notes from the studio as to what is expected to ensure the image looks as the filmmaker's intended? Any light you could shed (no pun intended) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Too much to go into here. Suffice to say that it all begins with training, and then making certain that your 35mm rollers are removed before projecting 70. It creates an overall friendly environment for the film.

 

[mskaye]

I still have a decent HD transfer of Pat Garrett on my Tivo from when TCM were showing it, & it looks very good, but unfortunately it's the Seydor cut & I much prefer the Turner cut. I think you need both of those cuts (just like the DVD set), but I do think it's going to be a job finding all the negative bits to scan to make both versions & maybe for some shots they'd have to use an interpos. or some dupe. There was a buzz over at blu-ray.com when a film maker revealed that he'd done a commentary & word is that Criterion are working on it. We'll see.

Agree with you about liking the Turner cut better. The ending of the Seydor cut is really underwhelming. He goes into his reasonings for his editing choices in his great book about the film but it doesn't add up to a satisfying emotional experience in my opinion. A shame because it's a film of great emotional and visual beauty.

 

[OliverK]

By the time these film were released, projecting 70mm, which is an art unto itself, was in a bad place. The images captured on film are not always accurately projected.

Very true but was not the issue when I watched it. It ran at a festival and back to back with better looking prints, it just wasn't that impressive.
I later was told that some prints that were struck from the negative directly looked really stunning and that others including the one I saw were derived from intermediary elements. That may or may not be true but I certainly was unimpressed with how it looked.

That is one big positive for digital: There are no good and bad prints, one only has to make sure to get the highest quality digital version which is much easier than securing an excellent print.

 

[Robert Harris]

Very true but was not the issue when I watched it. It ran at a festival and back to back with better looking prints, it just wasn't that impressive.
I later was told that some prints that were struck from the negative directly looked really stunning and that others including the one I saw were derived from intermediary elements. That may or may not be true but I certainly was unimpressed with how it looked.

That is one big positive for digital: There are no good and bad prints, one only has to make sure to get the highest quality digital version which is much easier than securing an excellent print.

All 70mm prints until the mid-‘80s were made from camera originals, regardless if the show was shot 65, 35/8 or 35/4.

You would NOT see the different between a 70mm print struck from the 65mm OCN and a print derived from a dupe. All of the 1989 Lawrence prints were struck from 5243 dupes.

You WOULD see a difference between a 70mm print struck from a 35mm OCN, and those derived from a 65mm printing dupe in turn derived from a 35 IP.

If a run of 70mm prints of a 35mm production is needed, one MUST, in order to hold quality, go from the 35 OCN to a 65 IP to a 65 dupe.

 

[Vern Dias]

Too much to go into here. Suffice to say that it all begins with training, and then making certain that your 35mm rollers are removed before projecting 70. It creates an overall friendly environment for the film.

One additional factor was the common use of platters that started in the '70s. Using platters introduced a potential additional source of print damage, including the possibility of static discharges introducing clicks on magnetic tracks.

 

[uncledougie]

I’ve just been made aware that Andy Serkis’s directorial debut, Breathe (2017), with Andrew Garfield was originally presented in the UP ratio of 2.76:1. It was recommended to me by friends and I see it’s to be shown on Starz this coming week, so I have set the DVR. That ratio is certainly a rare choice these days, and I hope it will be shown as originally filmed.

I checked this presentation and it was not in the correct aspect ratio on Starz, which is hit or miss on maintaining correct ratios. So I’ve ordered the Blu-ray, which I understand is supposed to be 2.75:1. Another anomaly I happened upon last night was TCM’s showing of Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines. It was originally a Todd AO 70mm presentation; TCM showed it letterboxed within a 4:3 frame, so it took up about half the screen. Did someone forget to flip an anamorphic switch or was this an inferior print that wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny? The Twilight Time disc looks just fine.

 

[cadavra]

It was a Castle Rock film, so...as far as I can tell, Warner owns the bulk of the Castle Rock catalog.

Yes, Columbia had the distribution deal with CR, but the latter retained the rights and the negatives. When it was bought by Warner Bros. in 1997, everything went to them.

 

[jayembee]

Yes, Columbia had the distribution deal with CR, but the latter retained the rights and the negatives. When it was bought by Warner Bros. in 1997, everything went to them.

If memory serves, some of the early CR films ended up with MGM through Orion or Polygram or someone like that, before Warner acquired Castle Rock.

 

[cadavra]

If memory serves, some of the early CR films ended up with MGM through Orion or Polygram or someone like that, before Warner acquired Castle Rock.

Yes, I believe they were co-productions in the beginning when CR couldn't fully finance some projects.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It was a Castle Rock film, so...as far as I can tell, Warner owns the bulk of the Castle Rock catalog.

Yes, Columbia had the distribution deal with CR, but the latter retained the rights and the negatives. When it was bought by Warner Bros. in 1997, everything went to them.

If memory serves, some of the early CR films ended up with MGM through Orion or Polygram or someone like that, before Warner acquired Castle Rock.

Yes, I believe they were co-productions in the beginning when CR couldn't fully finance some projects.

The dividing line appears to be 1994,as Turner acquired Castle Rock in late 1993. Castle Rock was founded in 1987 out of the ashes of Act III Communications and has connections to Nelson Entertainment, which acquired Embassy Home Video's library. The long and the short is that most Castle Rock titles pre-Turner acquisition are with MGM, since MGM acquired Orion Pictures [including Nelson Entertainment] in 1999, and those post are with Warner Bros. Discovery because of their acquisition of Turner Entertainment in 1996. Therefore, Hamlet, being a 1996 title, is with WB.

 

[OliverK]

All 70mm prints until the mid-‘80s were made from camera originals, regardless if the show was shot 65, 35/8 or 35/4.

You would NOT see the different between a 70mm print struck from the 65mm OCN and a print derived from a dupe. All of the 1989 Lawrence prints were struck from 5243 dupes.

You WOULD see a difference between a 70mm print struck from a 35mm OCN, and those derived from a 65mm printing dupe in turn derived from a 35 IP.

If a run of 70mm prints of a 35mm production is needed, one MUST, in order to hold quality, go from the 35 OCN to a 65 IP to a 65 dupe.

I have seen several prints from your Lawrence and Spartacus restorations and Hamlet definitely did not look as impressive. Why that was I cannot say but it has been a recurring theme with other new movies with large format origination.

 

[Henry Gondorff]

I felt similarly unimpressed with the print of Hamlet I saw on its initial release. It went very little beyond the look of 35mm to my eyes, and I was watching intently. I had access to the projection room to confirm the 70mm print was running (and in focus). It was also the case for Far and Away, where audiences perceived practically no advantage in the imagery, and the hoped-for comeback of more frequent 70mm origination stalled. The exceptional quality I saw in the 70mm presentations in the 60s and 70s just wasn't there.

 

[mskaye]

I felt similarly unimpressed with the print of Hamlet I saw on its initial release. It went very little beyond the look of 35mm to my eyes, and I was watching intently. I had access to the projection room to confirm the 70mm print was running (and in focus). It was also the case for Far and Away, where audiences perceived practically no advantage in the imagery, and the hoped-for comeback of more frequent 70mm origination stalled. The exceptional quality I saw in the 70mm presentations in the 60s and 70s just wasn't there.

speaking of 65mm, was impressed by the transfer of ICE STATION ZEBRA I saw on HBO Max. there is no mistaking any frame for 35mm. not saying its a great film and 65mm is no friend of some bad 60s cinematography and visual fx.

 

[OliverK]

I felt similarly unimpressed with the print of Hamlet I saw on its initial release. It went very little beyond the look of 35mm to my eyes, and I was watching intently. I had access to the projection room to confirm the 70mm print was running (and in focus). It was also the case for Far and Away, where audiences perceived practically no advantage in the imagery, and the hoped-for comeback of more frequent 70mm origination stalled. The exceptional quality I saw in the 70mm presentations in the 60s and 70s just wasn't there.

Same here. From the 90s only Baraka impressed me and it is of course not a standard feature film. I think the cinematography is also to blame as in both Hamlet and Far and Away it just wasn't suited that well for 65mm origination.

 

[trajan007]

FAR AND AWAY had very heavy soft focus filtering.

 

[Artanis]

Dave has worked on Cinerama titles that were filmed in 70mm also - Holiday in Spain and The Golden Head. Just letting WB know they have another option. Also, someone said they thought Dave would not be interested.

Roland: I can't seem to find a thread regarding the blu-ray for Holiday In Spain. Am I just missing it? I had some questions.

 

[RolandL]

Roland: I can't seem to find a thread regarding the blu-ray for Holiday In Spain. Am I just missing it? I had some questions.

Here and here

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Duplicate post.