Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Oct 16, 2013.
I'm wondering, if I saw IAMMMMW in June '65 and the Cinema's new 70mm Projectors were fitted with Cinerama custom built lenses.
That would surely mean that the 70mm print exhibited had Anamorphic compression on the edges.
Were there ever 35mm or 70mm prints of IAMMMMW struck without the side Anamorphic Compression?
I apologise if this has already been mentioned.
I can't go on Sunday (guests in town), but I saw it 10 years ago at the Dome and it was hilarious. It plays really well with a crowd-- and the one that will be at the Dome will be as ideal and as respectful of an audience as you could ever get.
The screening of this at the Cinerama Dome on Sunday says Digital Not 70mm,is this a 2K or 4K of the new scan orthe old BD ?.
I just looked out my souvenir brochure from the European Charity Premiere at the London Coliseum.
and on the inside front cover are all my ticket stubs from Cinerama screenings. How geeky is that!
That's great Adrian. I saw the film at the Royalty but I'm not sure exactly when. Was it showing at both cinemas simultaneously?
Prints were either rectified or 1.25 anamorphic linear. Flat or mildly curved screens would project a standard UP70 anamorphic print. Those with highly curved screens would run a rectified print, and project without any scope adapter, be it lens or prism box.All 35 prints were standard Panavision 2:1 anamorphic. Have in idea what a custom Cinerama lens might have been, although it's possible that a venue might have had a set of optics specially produced for their specific screen.RAH
If the screening is digital, be hopeful that they added rectification to the image, and will not it without distortion.RAH
View attachment Mad World - Misc 2 (dragged) 1.pdf
I'm already so unpopular here I have little to lose.
1.) Do you think we all understand your technical language?
2.) Do you ever look at what you write before you click on Post? I usually have to read your comments as a kind of puzzle. "Now, let's see ... what did he mean to type?" ... " ... will not it without distortion ..."?
I must say between the technical language and the typos, your comments are a challenge.
But you're still on my list of heroes if you're the main one responsible for this restored Mad World we're looking forward to. I'm just thinking clicking on Post without a little proofreading ahead of time is somewhat egotistical, as if the idea is that one is incapable of making a mistake, so there's no need to proofread.
Or maybe you're really busy.
I will now proofread this message before clicking on Post ...
Well, Joe, I have nothing personal against you as you apparently feel others have, but this particular post of yours was pretty ambivalent. One the one hand it criticizes a fellow (and very knowledgeable) member's not-perfectly-typed posts, and on the other hand praises the man for his contributions to film preservation. I often type posts and replies very quickly and later have to edit them because I screwed up. Sometimes it's too late to do that. Why should Mr. Harris be different? Or you, for that matter? Yes, proofreading is wonderful for those with the wherewithal and time to perform it, as is spell check. But usually, I can make out the intent of a person's post by considering it in context and by knowing at least a little about the subject matter. And the content of his post seems far more valuable than any minor typos could negate. I do not think the message you refer to is difficult to decipher, so why make a issue of it? Your opening line here seems a bit like self-pity, and the closing line like plain sarcasm. You could easily have chosen alternate phrasing and come off sounding like someone trying to be helpful rather than critical. Even a private message to Mr. Harris might have been appropriate. Might I suggest that simply ratcheting-down the intensity of your comments and realizing that each person here wants to contribute in a positive way to the forum (including you, I would bet), even if they falter occasionally, will help to dispel any resentment you may have incurred.
Thanks for this!
Yes, thanks for sharing this with us. As a collector of roadshow souvenir books, I really enjoy items like this.
Let's move on.
Someone far back in this thread mentioned that part of his delight in Mad World came from the audience's reaction around him.
I've been thinking about that and wonder if that transcends the experience to create something ... more. For example, I love the Spielberg film, 1941. In a way, I think that parallels the Mad World experience as it is an hommage to Mad World and The Russians are coming ... Additionally, 1941 is like Mad World in that a healthy segment of film lovers don't share the same appreciation for the film as some. I saw 1941 in the theatre with an audience that really enjoyed the film. I also watched it with my two sons when they were young and they never laughed harder at a film (we still watch it together from time to time).
So, I wonder how much of my appreciation of 1941 comes from those shared experiences and how much that transcends the film itself?
With apologies, apparently my iPad, on which I was attempting to communicate, was self-correcting -- multiple times.
I don't understand what it says either.
What I was attempting to say, was that to properly project Mad World at the Dome, one needs a rectified print. Without said print, one has a distorted image, whether projected with or without the proper optic.
If you're going to take that attitude, take this!
The file attached above was apparently created several weeks before the opening.
For those who wish to double-check running time from footage the magic number is 112.5
Mr. Harris, what in the world did they shoot in Camarillo? Some of the car chase stuff with Sylvester? I ask cuz I live there... never realized they'd shot here.