Interesting new "facts" about Cinerama and 70mm from the latest Widescreen Review (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Gallagher]

I don't really know where to post this new information I just discovered, but thought some here might find it interesting.

According to an article about higher frame rates in the just-released Widescreen Review
"Early in its development, Cinerama was conceived to offer even higher frame rates than 24fps...
Ultimately though, the producers were only able to achieve a higher frame rate of 26fps for the
last two Cinerama features: Windjammer and How the West Was Won."
(I thought Windjammer wasn't a Cinerama feature and How the West Was Won was shot at
24fps - whereas all the Cinerama travelogues were shot at 26.)

More "information" from the same article:
"Stanley Kubrick would have preferred to film all of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm, but budget
constraints only allowed for the special effects shots to be photographed using the larger film format."

The article also references Cinerama screens up to 155 feet wide! Where were these?

Any comments? Sad - as I remember early issues of this magazine had fairly informative and reasonably
factual articles about similar topics (e.g. The Roadshow Experience).

 

[haineshisway]

I don't really know where to post this new information I just discovered, but thought some here might find it interesting.

According to an article about higher frame rates in the just-released Widescreen Review
"Early in its development, Cinerama was conceived to offer even higher frame rates than 24fps...
Ultimately though, the producers were only able to achieve a higher frame rate of 26fps for the
last two Cinerama features: Windjammer and How the West Was Won."
(I thought Windjammer wasn't a Cinerama feature and How the West Was Won was shot at
24fps - whereas all the Cinerama travelogues were shot at 26.)

More "information" from the same article:
"Stanley Kubrick would have preferred to film all of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm, but budget
constraints only allowed for the special effects shots to be photographed using the larger film format."

The article also references Cinerama screens up to 155 feet wide! Where were these?

Any comments? Sad - as I remember early issues of this magazine had fairly informative and reasonably
factual articles about similar topics (e.g. The Roadshow Experience).

Well, I hope some wise person goes and writes a letter to the editor about these "facts." It IS sad.

 

[Robert Harris]

Well, I hope some wise person goes and writes a letter to the editor about these "facts." It IS sad.

Agreed. So much for printed reference...

I believe the Kubrick 2001 point is a simple typo. His desire was to shoot in 7mm. Actually 6.5, but prints were to be seven, and played by on very early Apple devices.

RAH

 

[john a hunter]

Well, I hope some wise person goes and writes a letter to the editor about these "facts." It IS sad.

This is just garbage. So much for "widescreen review".

 

[ROclockCK]

The thoroughness of inaccuracy would suggest that maybe the original publication date was April 1st?

 

[RolandL]

The article also references Cinerama screens up to 155 feet wide! Where were these?

The Omaha Indian Hills Cinerama theatre screen was 105ft wide. The Minneapolis France Avenue Drive-In had a 150ft screen and the LA Century Drive-in was 180ft.

 

[Professor Echo]

I still remember when this same publication and its publisher INSISTED that every single Bond movie had nudity in it when shown in Europe. !!! I also remember the publisher writing article after article about his car stereo system. Sorry, but I NEVER took this magazine seriously.

 

[ahollis]

Is this magazine really still published? I haven't read an issue since the days of laserdisc.

 

[john a hunter]

Is this magazine really still published? I haven't read an issue since the days of laserdisc.

Presumably in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Vincent_P]

Widescreen Review also insisted that the aspect ratio for 70mm projection was 2.05:1.

Vincent

 

[Doctorossi]

I miss the Widescreen Review of its early days.

I really miss the The Perfect Vision of its early days.


*sniff*

 

[Dennis Gallagher]

I really miss the The Perfect Vision of its early days.


*sniff*

Actually you've reminded me that it's probably The Perfect Vision that had the good articles.
I have pretty much full collections of both of them - The Perfect Vision till they started to do reviews of things
like cellphones (at least that's how I remember it) and Widescreen Review through the end of the current subscription.

 

[Doug Bull]

I also used to love reading The Perfect Vision, and Widescreen Review back in the old days.

It was actually Widescreen Review that got me into laserdiscs. (there were also a couple of laserdisc magazines)

I'm a lot wiser now, but they were great reading at a time when there was little else on offer.

Ah, wonderful memories.

 

[RolandL]

Widescreen Review also insisted that the aspect ratio for 70mm projection was 2.05:1.

Vincent

That was from Dr. Haze um Hays

 

[ahollis]

Still have all the issues of THE PERFECT VISION and love to go back and read them every once in-a-while. The letters section is very much like the discussions on this forum. Enjoyable.

 

[Charles Smith]

Same here. The Absolute Sound, too.

 

[john a hunter]

Still have all the issues of THE PERFECT VISION and love to go back and read them every once in-a-while. The letters section is very much like the discussions on this forum. Enjoyable.

The Perfect Vision's issue on Cinerama was one if not the best on the process ever written. Unfortunately, the proposed issue on Todd AO disappeared when the magazine went belly up along with all my 70mm clips I sent them for inclusion.

 

[KMR]

I still remember when this same publication and its publisher INSISTED that every single Bond movie had nudity in it when shown in Europe. !!! I also remember the publisher writing article after article about his car stereo system. Sorry, but I NEVER took this magazine seriously.

My serious doubts about the magazine came when I read their review of Alfred Hitchcock's ROPE (which was not a widescreen film, but was being reviewed because it was part of a collection of Hitchcock DVDs). They complained that it appeared to be a damaged print, because of a few cuts appearing, instead of it being one continuous shot. Of course, anybody who knows this film knows that there are a few intentional cuts, which occur every time there is a projector reel change.

 

[ahollis]

The Perfect Vision's issue on Cinerama was one if not the best on the process ever written. Unfortunately, the proposed issue on Todd AO disappeared when the magazine went belly up along with all my 70mm clips I sent them for inclusion.

I remember how disappointed I was the article on TODD-AO was never published.

 

[john a hunter]

I remember how disappointed I was the article on TODD-AO was never published.

Then Films in Review was supposed to publish the ToddAO article but they folded just before as well. Jinx?