Now that HTWWW is out in Smilebox on Blu-ray.... (1 Viewer)

[Dick]

I am hoping this set sells extremely well for a catalog title. If it does, perhaps Warner will consider investing in the restoration of THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM.

Also, although not true 3-panel Cinerama, I would love to see the Smilebox technique employed with GRAND PRIX, 2001, ICE STATION ZEBRA, and, even if only the 154-min version, IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD.

Fingers crossed!

 

[Bill Huelbig]

I second Dick's motion, 100%. The Smileboxed "How the West Was Won" is truly awesome. Warner, I'd buy Smilebox copies of all those other films, which I already own in flat versions (except, sadly, "Brothers Grimm", which never came to DVD), just to see them look the same way.

 

[Bob_L]

Nothing is to be gained by using Smilebox with any of the so-called Cinerama films that were shot with single-strip Panavision cameras. (IMO they are Cinerama in branding only.) To the extent that Smilebox works, it does so because the three-strip Cinerama camera used three cameras arranged in an arc. That arrangement caused a certain amount of "distortion" (the result of having three vanishing points in a single image) that was compensated somewhat by the deeply-curved Cinerama screen. When the three-strips are transferred to a flat-screen format, that "distortion" becomes more visible. Smilebox tries to correct that.

The Panavision cameras used for some of the single-strip "Cinerama" films--such as some of those named above--use just another widescreen, anamorphic format that doesn't require the geometric compensation of the three-strip system. (In fact, the single-strip prints that played Cinerama theaters required distortion of the image during printing in order to compensate curvature of the Cinerama screen.)

Of the films mentioned above, only "Brothers Grimm" was shot in real, three-strip Cinerama.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Wasn't there one other feature that used the three-strip? I can't remember what it was, though.

 

[Robert George]

Wasn't there one other feature that used the three-strip? I can't remember what it was, though.

As far as I can recall, the only "feature" films shot in three-strip process were HTWWW and Brothers Grimm. The other three-strip productions were documentary and travelogue shows. Three-strip photography was discontinued completely after 1962.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Nothing is to be gained by using Smilebox with any of the so-called Cinerama films that were shot with single-strip Panavision cameras. (IMO they are Cinerama in branding only.) To the extent that Smilebox works, it does so because the three-strip Cinerama camera used three cameras arranged in an arc. That arrangement caused a certain amount of "distortion" that was compensated by the deeply-curved Cinerama screen. When the three-strips are transferred to a flat-screen format, that "distortion" becomes more visible. Smilebox tries to correct that.
The UltraPanavision cameras used for some of the single-strip "Cinerama" films--such as some of those named above--is just another widescreen, anamorphic format that doesn't require the geometric compensation of the three-strip system. (In fact, the single-strip prints that played Cinerama theaters required distortion of the image during printing in order to compensate curvature of the Cinerama screen.)
Of the films mentioned above, only "Brothers Grimm" was shot in real, three-strip Cinerama.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Most 3-strip films were travelogues; HTWWW and TWWOTBG were the only narrative features produced and released in 3-strip.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The whole point of Smilebox is to correct the perspective and geometry of Cinerama.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Exactly. Not to sound callous or anything, but if you want to approximate the Cinerama experience with single strip "Cinerama" films, there's nothing to stop you from constructing your own Cinerama 146 degree screen at home and watching them that way. Except maybe cost.

 

[Dick]

The whole point of Smilebox is to correct the perspective and geometry of Cinerama.

True, Patrick. However, 2001 and GRAND PRIX were damned awesome on the curved screen.
Anyway, it would be fun, if not for purists.

 

[aprets]

If you watch the restored version of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" you will notice in the restored scenes the same effect on the left and right hand sides of the screen that you notice in the scope version of "How the West Was Won" - that is, when something is on the left side of the screen coming straight towards the camera, it appears to move off to the left, and when something is on the right side of the screen coming straight towards the camera, it appears to move off to the right. This does not occur with the non-restored scenes. This "moving off" to the left or right is corrected by the smilebox format. When I read the 9/12/2008 comment by Felix Martinez that no other films would benefit from the use of the Smilebox format, this is the first thing I thought of. I think there was a lot more to Ultra-Panavision and the original Todd-AO than that. I have a "film formats" poster that I bought at the Cinema Museum in London years ago that shows frames from a Todd-AO 70mm version of "Oklahoma!" in which the image had been "corrected" in order to be projected on a deeply curved screen. The images in the frames appear in a format opposite to Smilebox. Instead of a "smile" on the top you have a frown.

 

[Vincent_P]

The reason for the effect you mention in the "restored" footage of IAMMMMW is because a "rectified" 70mm print created specifically for use in Cinerama theaters was used. That is, the original 65mm negative- with an even 1.25X anamorphic squeeze across the image- was otically printed so that the middle of the frame was "unsqueezed" but the edges retained the anamorphic squeeze. This was done to compensate for the deep curve of the Cinerama screen, and is not how the film actually looked on the negative. It was done optically in the lab. Any retoration of IAMMMMW would presuably not have this fake optical effect applied, so Smilebox would not be needed.
Vincent

If you watch the restored version of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" you will notice in the restored scenes the same effect on the left and right hand sides of the screen that you notice in the scope version of "How the West Was Won" - that is, when something is on the left side of the screen coming straight towards the camera, it appears to move off to the left, and when something is on the right side of the screen coming straight towards the camera, it appears to move off to the right. This does not occur with the non-restored scenes. This "moving off" to the left or right is corrected by the smilebox format. When I read the 9/12/2008 comment by Felix Martinez that no other films would benefit from the use of the Smilebox format, this is the first thing I thought of. I think there was a lot more to Ultra-Panavision and the original Todd-AO than that. I have a "film formats" poster that I bought at the Cinema Museum in London years ago that shows frames from a Todd-AO 70mm version of "Oklahoma!" in which the image had been "corrected" in order to be projected on a deeply curved screen. The images in the frames appear in a format opposite to Smilebox. Instead of a "smile" on the top you have a frown.

 

[Robert Harris]

is because a "rectified" 70mm print created specifically for use in Cinerama theaters was used. That is, the original 65mm negative- with an even 1.25X anamorphic squeeze across the image- was optically printed so that the middle of the frame was "unsqueezed" but the edges retained the anamorphic squeeze. This was done to compensate for the deep curve of the Cinerama screen, and is not how the film actually looked on the negative. It was done optically in the lab.
Vincent

It's actually a bit more complex. Rectified prints, produced for highly curved screen surfaces were unsqueezed from the center out covering about 2/3 of the image. Additional anamorphosis was then added to the areas left and right -- more squeeze.
This was done for a couple of purposes. First, the negative was meant to be projected with a 1.25 anamorphic adapter attached to the prime projection lens. This would have created a natural looking image -- for flat screens.
For highly curved screens, the extreme curvature at the sides naturally does precisely what the lens was accomplishing for flat surfaces.
Projection was a problem the last time MW was run at the Dome, as an uncorrected print was run on the curved surface, with an anamorphic lens being used on top of this, exacerbating a myriad of problems, inclusive of proper focus.
RAH

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I imagine the results were quite hideous.

 

[Charles Smith]

A little while ago something reminded me of How the West Was Won, and I've been meaning to ask:

Have there been any releases in Smilebox format other than HTWWW and the Cinerama documentary? Any current plans for future ones? Consider this a strong yea vote, and most likely a blind buy. I totally "get" the illusion, and can't wait for more, whether of original Cinerama material or anything else appropriate.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Originally Posted by aprets
...When I read the 9/12/2008 comment by Felix Martinez that no other films would benefit from the use of the Smilebox format, this is the first thing I thought of. I think there was a lot more to Ultra-Panavision and the original Todd-AO than that. I have a "film formats" poster that I bought at the Cinema Museum in London years ago that shows frames from a Todd-AO 70mm version of "Oklahoma!" in which the image had been "corrected" in order to be projected on a deeply curved screen. The images in the frames appear in a format opposite to Smilebox. Instead of a "smile" on the top you have a frown.

I was agreeing with Bob_L in that post.

Just saw this again. What a great presentation on Blu-ray. This is such a treasure - it would have flown under my radar had it not been for this forum, it's members, and RAH's comments in particular.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Chas in CT
A little while ago something reminded me of How the West Was Won, and I've been meaning to ask:

Have there been any releases in Smilebox format other than HTWWW and the Cinerama documentary? Any current plans for future ones? Consider this a strong yea vote, and most likely a blind buy. I totally "get" the illusion, and can't wait for more, whether of original Cinerama material or anything else appropriate.

Dave Strohmaier has been working on the restoration of WINDJAMMER along with Cinerama, Inc and it played digital at the Arclight in Los Angles this past September. The end product is to be a Blu-ray with a smilebox transfer. The reviews have been very positive on the restoration from 35mm print that was produced from all three panels. This was not originally presented in Cinerama but in CineMiracle, which was to be a rival process. In the end Cinerama bought the film and process.

 

[Matt Hough]

I saw Windjammer in a Cinerama theater, and it was a very entertaining travelogue.

I'd love to read that some kind of restoration was underway for The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. No, not a great film, but it's an entertaining one, and I'd love to see images that don't reek of murky brown like we have now on laserdisc/cable broadcasts.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattH.
I saw Windjammer in a Cinerama theater, and it was a very entertaining travelogue.

I'd love to read that some kind of restoration was underway for The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. No, not a great film, but it's an entertaining one, and I'd love to see images that don't reek of murky brown like we have now on laserdisc/cable broadcasts.

WWotBG should not be in need of any restorative efforts.

RAH

 

[Stephen_J_H]

RAH, I thought the ONeg had been water damaged in a warehouse fire. Are you telling us that either (a) a restoration has already been performed; or (b) elements exist that make a restoration unnecessary?