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

[RobertMG]

Apart from 2001 and Ben-Hur Warner has these 65mm 5-perf productions that will justify the money spent on that 65mm scanner:

Around The World in 80 Days
Raintree County
Mutiny on the Bounty
Cheyenne Autumn
Grand Prix
Battle of the Bulge
Ice Station Zebra
Ryan's Daughter
Hamlet

Until now Warner has been working with 35mm reduction elements for most if not all of them.

Was King Of Kings 61 65mm?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Was King Of Kings 61 65mm?

No, it was Super Technirama 70 which was blown up from 35mm film stock to 70mm prints.

 

[uncledougie]

And like so many Technirama and Super Technirama 70 films, it looked spectacularly good. Auntie Mame was a Technirama title and all the better for it.

 

[RobertMG]

No, it was Super Technirama 70 which was blown up from 35mm film stock to 70mm prints.

Thank u amazing technology I would think blowing up an image would make it less clear --- that film has great photography

 

[richardburton84]

Apart from 2001 and Ben-Hur Warner has these 65mm 5-perf productions that will justify the money spent on that 65mm scanner:

Around The World in 80 Days
Raintree County
Mutiny on the Bounty
Cheyenne Autumn
Grand Prix
Battle of the Bulge
Ice Station Zebra
Ryan's Daughter
Hamlet

Until now Warner has been working with 35mm reduction elements for most if not all of them.

One thing I’m curious about as far as Around the World in 80 Days is concerned is how the high frame rate (30fps like Oklahoma!) will be handled when the Archive eventually gets around to doing that one. Also, was the 24fps version also shot in 65mm or was that shot in 35mm like the CinemaScope version of Oklahoma!?

 

[richardburton84]

Thank u amazing technology I would think blowing up an image would make it less clear --- that film has great photography

I think the larger image area on Technirama allowed a 70mm blowup to look more enticing than a regular 35mm blowup, which is probably what attracted Walt Disney to Technirama when he decided to use it on Sleeping Beauty.

 

[OliverK]

And like so many Technirama and Super Technirama 70 films, it looked spectacularly good. Auntie Mame was a Technirama title and all the better for it.

Yep, Warner has a bunch of those, too. The Music Man and Gypsy do also come to mind.

 

[OliverK]

One thing I’m curious about as far as Around the World in 80 Days is concerned is how the high frame rate (30fps like Oklahoma!) will be handled when the Archive eventually gets around to doing that one. Also, was the 24fps version also shot in 65mm or was that shot in 35mm like the CinemaScope version of Oklahoma!?

Scanning is standard procedure, just 25% more frames for the same amount of time. On the release side they could do a 1080i 30fps BD release like Fox did for Oklahoma and if there is a UHD that could be 4k 30.

80 Days was also shot in 65mm 24fps but I am not even sure if that version is complete or if some parts do only exist in 30fps today, at least the current HD version that is available for streaming seems to have some parts that do not play that well as they have been taken from 30fps elements. In any case just sorting through all the elements for 80 Days with be a monumental task.

Good info about 80 Days on the widescreen museum site:

Widescreen Museum - The Todd-AO / 70mm Wing 8

 

[cadavra]

Just for the record, when I got to MGM/UA Classics in 1986, I noticed there was no 70mm print of "The Hallelujah Trail." I called DeLuxe and asked how much a new one would cost. I was told it would be in excess of $30,000...again, in 1986 dollars. I can't even imagine what it would cost today, and needless to say, that's why it was never shown at any of the periodic Cinerama festivals at the Dome.

And that's why most discs are mastered from 35mm elements.

 

[Robert Harris]

Just for the record, when I got to MGM/UA Classics in 1986, I noticed there was no 70mm print of "The Hallelujah Trail." I called DeLuxe and asked how much a new one would cost. I was told it would be in excess of $30,000...again, in 1986 dollars. I can't even imagine what it would cost today, and needless to say, that's why it was never shown at any of the periodic Cinerama festivals at the Dome.

And that's why most discs are mastered from 35mm elements.

Mike,

The problem was the original negative formatting, which was most likely 65mm single-strand auto-select.

There were no printers, which means that the OCN would have had to be re-cut and re-conformed as A & B rolls. That’s a big deal, as they would to have struck a 70mm 1-lite for re-cutting, unless there was an extant 35mm long version print, created the rolls, and then began with testing any extant timing notes.

$30,000 was a very fair number.

Easier today via scanning, but you still need to create a to-the-frame continuity so that conform knows what to do with the pieces.

 

[cadavra]

Mike,

The problem was the original negative formatting, which was most likely 65mm single-strand auto-select.

There were no printers, which means that the OCN would have had to be re-cut and re-conformed as A & B rolls. That’s a big deal, as they would to have struck a 70mm 1-lite for re-cutting, unless there was an extant 35mm long version print, created the rolls, and then began with testing any extant timing notes.

$30,000 was a very fair number.

Easier today via scanning, but you still need to create a to-the-frame continuity so that conform knows what to do with the pieces.

Thanks for the info. And while 30K may have been a "fair" number, the operative point is that it would never have earned even a fraction of that back in film rental. Sometimes you gotta make the tough decisions.

 

[RolandL]

Just for the record, when I got to MGM/UA Classics in 1986, I noticed there was no 70mm print of "The Hallelujah Trail." I called DeLuxe and asked how much a new one would cost. I was told it would be in excess of $30,000...again, in 1986 dollars. I can't even imagine what it would cost today, and needless to say, that's why it was never shown at any of the periodic Cinerama festivals at the Dome.

And that's why most discs are mastered from 35mm elements.

I guess someone found a 70mm a Swedish faded rectified print for a Sweden 70mm film festival in 1996.

Report from 70mm Film Festival in Malmø 1996​

"The Hallelujah Trail" filmed Ultra Panavision 70 and presented in 70mm Super Cinerama with Swedish subtitles. This print was rectified. Meaning the edges of the 70mm frame were squeezed and the center of the frame was flat. The print was probably struck for a deep curve cinema. What happens is the edges are automatically un-squeezed when projected on a 146' Cinerama screen. During filming the whole image was photographed with a fixed 1,25 squeeze. In the laboratory each print was optically rectified for a specific curvature of screen (90', 120' or 146'). Some non-rectified Ultra Panavison 70 prints were also screened with a special Ultra Panavision 70 projection-lens attachment to get the full 2,76:1 aspect ratio. The Swedish print was VERY sharp but also very faded. One good laugh in the film was the PLOWBOY wall calendar with pin-up cows in Oracles (Donald Pleasense) office. I wonder how many noticed that? The film carried some good performances but was way too long.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I guess someone found a 70mm a Swedish faded rectified print for a Sweden 70mm film festival in 1996.

Report from 70mm Film Festival in Malmø 1996​

"The Hallelujah Trail" filmed Ultra Panavision 70 and presented in 70mm Super Cinerama with Swedish subtitles. This print was rectified. Meaning the edges of the 70mm frame were squeezed and the center of the frame was flat. The print was probably struck for a deep curve cinema. What happens is the edges are automatically un-squeezed when projected on a 146' Cinerama screen. During filming the whole image was photographed with a fixed 1,25 squeeze. In the laboratory each print was optically rectified for a specific curvature of screen (90', 120' or 146'). Some non-rectified Ultra Panavison 70 prints were also screened with a special Ultra Panavision 70 projection-lens attachment to get the full 2,76:1 aspect ratio. The Swedish print was VERY sharp but also very faded. One good laugh in the film was the PLOWBOY wall calendar with pin-up cows in Oracles (Donald Pleasense) office. I wonder how many noticed that? The film carried some good performances but was way too long.

That's gonna be 50 shades of fuchsia.

 

[OliverK]

Thanks for the info. And while 30K may have been a "fair" number, the operative point is that it would never have earned even a fraction of that back in film rental. Sometimes you gotta make the tough decisions.

It could be argued that the studios could afford themselves the luxury to strike a print even when it will not earn back that money in its entirety and many did just that. Even MGM did it with Khartoum, a film that nobody will accuse of raking in the money these days.

Here is a bunch of new 70mm Prints that have been struck over the years since the late 80s and that to my knowledge can/could be officially booked:

Warner:
2001

MGM:
West Side Story
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Khartoum

Universal:
Vertigo
Spartacus
Airport

Sony:
Lawrence of Arabia
Lord Jim

Fox in pre Disney times:
South Pacific
Cleopatra
The Sound of Music
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines
The Agony and the Ecstasy
Dr. Dolittle
Star!
Hello, Dolly!
Patton

According to Shawn Belston the only Fox 65mm productions that did not get new 70mm prints simply weren't in good enough condition to strike new prints without too much of an effort, namely Oklahoma! and Can-Can.

And then there are movies that are not closely associated with a single studio these days or that were funded independently:

Ben-Hur (cropped to 2.2:1)
Flying Clipper
My Fair Lady
Playtime

Warner is really quite disappointing when it comes to new prints, Fox was excellent, the other studios are somewhere in between.

And somebody who lives in L.A. he may also have been lucky to catch a screening of these or at least these are known to have been screened from new elements that however cannot be booked to my knowledge:

The Greatest Story Ever Told
Grand Prix
Ryan's Daughter

 

[Keith Cobby]

I hope Playtime receives a 4k release, great film.

 

[Robert Harris]

It could be argued that the studios could afford themselves the luxury to strike a print even when it will not earn back that money in its entirety and many did just that. Even MGM did it with Khartoum, a film that nobody will accuse of raking in the money these days.

Here is a bunch of new 70mm Prints that have been struck over the years since the late 80s and that to my knowledge can/could be officially booked:

Warner:
2001

MGM:
West Side Story
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Khartoum

Universal:
Vertigo
Spartacus
Airport

Sony:
Lawrence of Arabia
Lord Jim

Fox in pre Disney times:
South Pacific
Cleopatra
The Sound of Music
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines
The Agony and the Ecstasy
Dr. Dolittle
Star!
Hello, Dolly!
Patton

According to Shawn Belston the only Fox 65mm productions that did not get new 70mm prints simply weren't in good enough condition to strike new prints without too much of an effort, namely Oklahoma! and Can-Can.

And then there are movies that are not closely associated with a single studio these days or that were funded independently:

Ben-Hur (cropped to 2.2:1)
Flying Clipper
My Fair Lady
Playtime

Warner is really quite disappointing when it comes to new prints, Fox was excellent, the other studios are somewhere in between.

And somebody who lives in L.A. he may also have been lucky to catch a screening of these or at least these are known to have been screened from new elements that however cannot be booked to my knowledge:

The Greatest Story Ever Told
Grand Prix
Ryan's Daughter

Ben-Hur is WB
MFL is CBS/Viacom/Paramount

And as far as the words “make a print” are concerned, one doesn‘t simply put in an order. It’s an extremely delicate, expensive and time-consuming process.

And as far as theatrical distribution, unless projection is huge, ie 75 feet or more, which most screens today are not, 4k is the way to go.

 

[OliverK]

Ben-Hur is WB
MFL is CBS/Viacom/Paramount

And as far as the words “make a print” are concerned, one doesn‘t simply put in an order. It’s an extremely delicate, expensive and time-consuming process.

And as far as theatrical distribution, unless projection is huge, ie 75 feet or more, which most screens today are not, 4k is the way to go.

I put Ben-Hur in another place as it is not a print that was made for WB but for a private cinema owner in Australia.

It was shown both in Europe in the US on several occasions like for example 2000 when Charlton Heston introduced it and stayed for the complete film:

The American Cinematheque's Second 70mm Festival

I always found it disappointing that Warner has so many titles shot on 65mm that would look spectacular and they were only available through more or less faded 70mm prints of 35mm reductions. This has now changed for Ben-Hur but not for any of the other titles.

Producing 70mm prints is now such a special process that only Fotokem offers it in the US after Deluxe closed some years ago.

4K is of course an alternative but it does not feel quite as unique to watch a 4K DCP, something is missing.

 

[Robert Harris]

I put Ben-Hur in another place as it is not a print that was made for WB but for a private cinema owner in Australia.

It was shown both in Europe in the US on several occasions like for example 2000 when Charlton Heston introduced it and stayed for the complete film:

The American Cinematheque's Second 70mm Festival

I always found it disappointing that Warner has so many titles shot on 65mm that would look spectacular and they were only available through more or less faded 70mm prints of 35mm reductions. This has now changed for Ben-Hur but not for any of the other titles.

Producing 70mm prints is now such a special process that only Fotokem offers it in the US after Deluxe closed some years ago.

4K is of course an alternative but it does not feel quite as unique to watch a 4K DCP, something is missing.

Beyond bob & weave, scratches, splices and cue marks, what are you missing. The "organic" feel?

 

[uncledougie]

I agree seeing a 70mm print is the closer to ideal traditional way, but if 4K DCP is the only financially viable alternative to achieve the best possible results, I for one would accept that compromise gratefully for the many large format films in dire need of saving for posterity and future generations.

 

[OliverK]

Beyond bob & weave, scratches, splices and cue marks, what are you missing. The "organic" feel?

Don't forget magenta, I really missed that magenta tint of the vintage 70mm prints when watching the 4k DCPs of Lawrence, Ben-Hur and The Sound of Music.

There are two issues at play I guess:
A print is unique and subjected to wear and tear while a 4k DCP could basically be ordered at an time.
So being able to watch a print of a movie that is not available in any other form is something that has more of an event feeling to it as I know that getting to see that print again may be very difficult.

The other things that I have found that those DCPs can look edgy and at a closer seating distance they have a less natural look, this is especially true for film grain and also the reason while the more modern movie Samsara looked the least digital to me among the 4k DCPs I have seen. I expect that moving to 8k in the future will make this less of an issue and also a less aggressive use of sharpening will probably help.

So I would think that the second issue can be mitigated but the first one regarding the uniqueness of watching a print will always be an argument.

On a technical level and over time 4k DCP will always win out - in 10 years that DCP will look like it does today while many prints may be so worn that they cannot even be exhibited anymore. And what I said only applies to prints that have been analog all the way and those are on their way out. I do not think that filmouts make much sense - if you go digital better stay digital.