Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Seagull bet

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Seagull bet

Author

Topic: Seagull bet

Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 09-25-2000 04:03 PM

Having a bet in the air, i need the help from someone remembering:
Jonathan Livingston Seagull - any kind of stereo sound (cinema prints) ? -maybe even 70mm ?

Per

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 09-25-2000 07:56 PM

Now there's one I haven't seen on film in *long* while... Has it really been 26 years?

The print we had in Las Vegas was mono-optical--don't know if there were any mag prints in the larger first-run cities in the US.

I was 18 when that film came out and was just starting my first paid camera position (TK-41C in the studio, TK-60 in the truck, Arri 16BL in the field). The photography in that film, especially the day-for-night stuff, was an inspiration!

Sorry, doesn't answer your bet does it?

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 09-25-2000 08:25 PM

I'm not 100% sure, but seems like I remember that being in 4-track mag.

I'm maybe 80% sure.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-26-2000 07:59 AM

Probably was released with mag copies. I remember running it as a double with Jesus Christ Superstar (good double, eh?) which was a four track print.

The IMDB doesn't stipulate its sound format but this was interesting...

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Panavision (anamorphic)

Printed film format
35 mm

Aspect ratio
2.35 : 1

I could have sworn I remember it being flat. Am I going insane, Tim? Do you remember?

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 09-26-2000 11:03 AM

It was scope, John. That much I am sure of.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 09-26-2000 07:29 PM

I'll second that--it was 'scope. Looked really good on the Parkway's deep curve (D-150?) screen.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-29-2000 02:03 AM

Okay...it was a long time ago...

You do not live as we live...
You do not fly as we fly...
You are therefore, henceforth and forever...
...outcast!

(Poor Jonathan )

| IP: Logged

Martin Frandsen
Master Film Handler

Posts: 270
From: Denmark, Europe
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-29-2000 02:14 AM

Well if it's not in 70mm, then it's not good enough, right?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.