Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Entertainment and Media  ›  SD DVD - Film and Documentary  ›  MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

#31
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 5:52pm
  • Joined: July 2003
  • Location: Lacombe, AB
  • Post Count: 2,565

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

And not all films "presented in Cinerama" like 2001 had rectified prints made.

\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert

Export to Wiki
#32
Rating: 0
2/11/08 at 9:15pm
  • Joined: January 2001
  • Post Count: 675

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

[quote=Robert Harris]Everything is distorted on a highly curved screen.
[quote]

This is so true. Most movies at the Cinerama Dome sound great but look terrible. Every time the camera pans left or right, everything becomes distractingly distorted because of the extremne curvature of the screen. When DREAMGIRLS was shown there, Beyonce frequently looked like the fatter dreamgirl, unintendedly, depending on what side of the screen she was standing. I still don't understand what people find so great about a completely distorted image. Cinerama looks great there, as the triple projection compensates for the distortions to some degree, but all other movies do not. Alan Parker had Pacific Theaters install a flat screen at the Dome for the opening of EVITA in '96 to prevent the distortions, and that was the best show I ever saw in that theater.

There were apparently some rectified prints of Khartoum made, as can be seen in a capture in the Widescreen Museum in the UP wing. The film has been shown recently in HD on MGMHD in 2.76:1 and looks fantastic.

Also, on the Extras of IAMMMMW, there are several deleted/alternate takes that were extracted from a rectified print, so people can see what those looked like.
Gerardo
Export to Wiki
#33
Rating: 0
2/12/08 at 1:30am
  • Joined: December 2007
  • Post Count: 59

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Everything is distorted on a highly curved screen.

As Robert Harris will know, when the restored Lawrence of Arabia was first shown to the press in London it was presented on the enormous curved screen at the Odeon Marble Arch, a venue originally designed for D-150. Such was Lean's loathing of the curved screen and its distortions of Lawrence's horizons that he forced Rank to demolish the screen and replace it with a flat one. I call that cultural vandalism that robbed London of its finest large format showcase.
Export to Wiki
#34
Rating: 0
2/12/08 at 1:44am
  • Joined: February 2004
  • Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • Post Count: 1,658

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Weren't there only like two Dimension 150 films made? Patton and The Bible: In the Beginning? I thought D150 was just Todd-AO with smaller cameras, and wider lenses.

Surely it was a Cinerama screen?
Red Hot Chili Peppers CD Re-Mastering Petition
Export to Wiki
#35
Rating: 0
2/12/08 at 3:03am
  • Joined: December 2007
  • Post Count: 59

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Howson
Weren't there only like two Dimension 150 films made? Patton and The Bible: In the Beginning? I thought D150 was just Todd-AO with smaller cameras, and wider lenses. Surely it was a Cinerama screen?

The Odeon Marble Arch was purpose built in 1966 and publicised as a D-150 theatre, claiming the curve was deeper than the existing Cinerama theatres. I think it had a bigger screen than either the Casino Cinerama or the Coliseum Cinerama. The irony was that Patton opened at the Casino and The Bible went to the Coliseum because the Marble Arch site was thought to be too far from the official "West End" area. I think the opening attraction at Marble Arch was A Funny Thing Happened etc. It was a fabulous cinema, though, with an escalator to take you from the foyer to the balcony.
Export to Wiki
#36
Rating: 0
2/12/08 at 2:00pm
  • Joined: October 2005
  • Post Count: 291

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

The Marble Arch Odeon was indeed a great place to see 70mm. I was told that they intended to open with "The Bible" but construction delays caused the venue switch. The Coliseum originally advertised "the Bible" as "Presented in 70mm" and later as "in D150." I have never been able to discover whether they actually installed the process or not. The first time the full D150 screen was used at the Odeon was for a reissue of "the Professionals" and later "Lion in Winter." Even "Dolly" which premiered there did not use the full screen.

I can understand Lean not wanting the desert to curve upwards. I wonder what lenses they tried.Did they still have the D150 Super Curvulon projection lenses.The last time I saw those in use was at the Egyptian in Hollywood for "The Empire Strkes Back "and very impressive the picture looked.
Export to Wiki
#37
Rating: 0
2/14/08 at 4:56am
  • Joined: December 2001
  • Location: Connecticut
  • Post Count: 632

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

[quote=GerardoHP][quote=Robert Harris]
There were apparently some rectified prints of Khartoum made, as can be seen in a capture in the Widescreen Museum in the UP wing. The film has been shown recently in HD on MGMHD in 2.76:1 and looks fantastic.
QUOTE]

The current DVD is 2.35:1 so I assume its from a 35mm print. Maybe it will be re-released in HD on DVD in 2.76:1?

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com

Export to Wiki
#38
Rating: 0
2/14/08 at 5:12am
  • Joined: February 2004
  • Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  • Post Count: 1,658

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

I don't understand why they show things on HD net from new transfers, but then don't reissue the film on new discs from the new transfers.

If you've spent all that money on a new transfer you may as well release it.
Red Hot Chili Peppers CD Re-Mastering Petition
Export to Wiki
#39
Rating: 0
2/14/08 at 7:05am
  • Joined: July 2003
  • Location: Lacombe, AB
  • Post Count: 2,565

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Simple. The Khartoum disc dates to May of 2002 and knowing how MGM is more prone to reissue an existing transfer than prepare a new disc, there's your explanation. It may not make sense, but there you have it.

\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert

Export to Wiki
#40
Rating: 0
2/15/08 at 8:25am
  • Joined: February 2000
  • Post Count: 640

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

@Jon Lidolt:

I would rather see money spent elsewhere when it comes to the movies shot in Camera 65/UP70.

And I do not think that the ultra wide aspect ratio is a turn-off for most people. This is something that sets these movies apart from others and as they are catering to lovers of classic movies anyway I doubt that they would sell better in let's say Scope.

I will tell you however what I have advocated for very long: Why not equip every DVD and HD playback device with a high quality zoom function - that way you could just zoom into the movie without needing a second version of it.

Oliver
Export to Wiki
#41
Rating: 0
2/15/08 at 8:35am
  • Joined: February 2000
  • Post Count: 640

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
In the case of Mr Storaro it's his film, he painted it with light and if he wants to chop of a portion of it, fine.

I do not feel that way. I am trying to recreate the theatrical experience at home and cannot do this because Mr. Storaro caters to people with 4:3 TV's, not fine with me. So we have to suffer because there are so many 4:3 or maybe even 16:9 screens in the world ? I don't think this is a good thing even though he is the cinematographer. But there is probably not much we can do about it except not buy these movies which I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Anthony
So to sum up, it's generally a bad idea!

My opinion exactly, and that also goes for Mr. Storaro
Export to Wiki
#42
Rating: 0
2/15/08 at 12:33pm
  • Joined: January 1999
  • Post Count: 76

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

I beg to differ but the Colosieum Cinerama haa a much bigger screen than the Odeon marble Arch!
Export to Wiki
#43
Rating: 0
2/15/08 at 12:48pm
  • Joined: January 1999
  • Post Count: 76

Re: MGM Camera 65 & Ultra-Panavision

To Adrian Turner. Continuing my last reply: without question those lucky enough to witness single lens Cinerama at the Colisieum between 1963 and 1968 were in for a treat. The screen by all accounts was 30% larger than the Casino and the few Cinerama movies released there derived the best benefit from the huge screen which was not so deeply curved as was the Casino. By the same token I adored The Odeon Marble Arch and was fortunate enough to see Lawrence of Arabia on the D150 Screen after David Lean made a presentation on stage. I personally preferred the D150 curviture to the flat screen that was to become the eventual replacent. Footnote I assume you are the same Adrian Turner who wrote the excellent Lawrence of Arabia making of book which exchanges hands on ebay now for obcene sums of money!
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread