Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Why were/are 70mm releases shot on 65mm film? (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Why were/are 70mm releases shot on 65mm film?
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 01-01-2013 10:01 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I know the 70mm size was needed for the magnetic sound (not sure why it is needed for IMAX) but why not just shoot with 70mm film? Is 65mm film actually manufactured that way from the start or do they just cut 5mm off of 70mm?

 |  IP: Logged

Jonathan Wood
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 206
From: Oxfordshire, United kingdom
Registered: Jan 2008


 - posted 01-01-2013 12:32 PM      Profile for Jonathan Wood   Email Jonathan Wood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Camera stock is always 65mm , it's manufactured that way as u don't have a soundtrack to accomodate. As you say a 70mm stock is used for printing to accomodate the mag tracks, although most new 70mm prints (rare as they are ) would prob have DTS , as I believe did the recent 70 mm prints of The Master.

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 01-01-2013 01:35 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Lyle Romer
Is 65mm film actually manufactured that way from the start or do they just cut 5mm off of 70mm?
Film stock is made in rolls that can be up to 20-30 feet wide as it goes through the production stages. Slitting and perforating it into the format needed for sale is the very last step. So, saving that extra 5mm on wide format camera stock gives you an extra strip out of every 13, compared to if you made the camera, intermediate and print stock all 70mm.

Given that mag tracks are now a thing of the past, theoretically you could now print on 65mm too. That would mean redesigning projector gates, though.

Robert Shanebrook's book Making Kodak Film is an excellent behind-the-scenes peek at what goes on in Rochester.

 |  IP: Logged

Jock Blakley
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 218
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 2011


 - posted 01-01-2013 04:25 PM      Profile for Jock Blakley   Email Jock Blakley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It is interesting to note though that Sovscope 70 did use 70 mm film in camera too.

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 01-01-2013 06:17 PM      Profile for Stephen Furley   Email Stephen Furley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Leo Enticknap
Given that mag tracks are now a thing of the past, theoretically you could now print on 65mm too. That would mean redesigning projector gates, though.
The Philips DP-70 was originally designed to handle 65 mm film in addition to 35 mm and 70 mm. I'm pretty sure that the reel of mute Todd-AO test footage screened at Bradford a few years ago was actually on 65 mm stock.

I believe that all of the wide film formats from the 1929-30 era used the same gauge of film for both negatives and prints, and that Todd-AO was unique in using different gauges. Both 65 mm and 70 mm formats, as well as several others, existed during this earlier period.

Is it possible that Todd-AO was originally intended to use separate magnetic sound, as Cinerama did and Cinemascope was originally intended to, and was originally designed as a purely 65 mm format, and the 70 mm composite print format was only introduced after the original Todd-AO cameras had already been built (strictly speaking I believe converted from old wide film cameras) for the new 65 mm format?

Also interesting is the fact that 65 mm negative, and presumably intermediate, stocks do not use the Bell & Howell perforations as are used on such stocks in 35 mm except in Russia. Was this because B&H perforations were thought incapable of withstanding the faster pull-down required for a 5-perf frame at 30 fps?

quote: Lyle Romer
I know the 70mm size was needed for the magnetic sound (not sure why it is needed for IMAX) but why not just shoot with 70mm film? Is 65mm film actually manufactured that way from the start or do they just cut 5mm off of 70mm?
Lyle, Remember when IMAX was introduced, originally for use at Expo-70. At this time 70 mm prints were widely used, and 70 mm print stock would have been readily available as a standard item, and the labs set up to handle it, whereas 65 mm print stock would have had to be specially made, which would not have been worthwhile for the small amounts of print stock being used for IMAX compared to normal 5-perf 70 mm prints at that time. The 65 mm machines would have been set up to produce short-pitch perforations, which would not be suitable for print stock.

Also, having the perforations further in from the edge may have made the film stronger. Were the original IMAX prints on triacetate stock? I assume that they were, but polyester was available, and was used by Fuji Single-8, and Ferrania Super-8 for example, but I don't think was generally used for 35 and 70 mm.

 |  IP: Logged

Jock Blakley
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 218
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 2011


 - posted 01-02-2013 05:03 PM      Profile for Jock Blakley   Email Jock Blakley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Stephen Furley
Also interesting is the fact that 65 mm negative, and presumably intermediate, stocks do not use the Bell & Howell perforations as are used on such stocks in 35 mm except in Russia. Was this because B&H perforations were thought incapable of withstanding the faster pull-down required for a 5-perf frame at 30 fps?
It actually goes back quite a bit further. As early as 1921 the SMPE identified the sharp corners of BH perfs as concentrating stress in the film and causing limited print life in use, and it was around 1922 that the change-over to KS perfs was mandated for prints.

In the following years up until around 1940 serious discussion was devoted to a total changeover to KS perfs for all uses, but obviously nobody wanted to pay for it. However, film formats developed or standardised after that time - like Todd-AO and MGM Camera 65, as well as 35mm in Soviet use - chose KS perfs based on the benefits established by those discussions.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-03-2013 10:20 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A bit off thread, but interesting -- the SMPTE Projection Committee at one time did some pretty extensive testing of 35mm CinemaScope mag sprocket holes -- the smaller, so-called Fox Holes --and found that they caused less wear on release prints than the larger standard holes. I know, it seems counter intuitive, but that was the result of the tests. It was suggested that since almost all cinema projectors had converted to Fox sprockets even if they didn't have stereo sound, all release prints should be made on 35mm mag stock. Obviously that never happened and with the switch to poly, the physical strength of the prints wasn't as big an issue given those stories of projectors being pulled over before polyester film would break.

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 01-03-2013 10:57 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Stephen Furley
I believe that all of the wide film formats from the 1929-30 era used the same gauge of film for both negatives and prints...
The same gauge, yes, but not the same size or positioning of the perforations. Fox Grandeur had a four-perf pulldown, slightly bigger perfs and which were closer to the edge of the film (can't give you the chapter and verse - it'll be in Belton's Widescreen Cinema - but I have seen a strip of Grandeur and Todd-AO 70mm prints side by side), and a variable density optical track in the extra space.

quote: Jock Blakely
In the following years up until around 1940 serious discussion was devoted to a total changeover to KS perfs for all uses, but obviously nobody wanted to pay for it.
It figures: the cost of converting a few hundred cameras and printers is one thing, but at that time there must have been close on a million 35mm theatre projectors in use worldwide, if not more.

As far as Fox holes go, it kinda makes sense if you're dealing with new stock and sprocket teeth in good condition: the tighter corners and smaller surface area make for a tighter fit and more contact between the edges of the perforation and the sprocket tooth.

The problem we now have is one that didn't enter anyone's thinking from the '20s to the '50s - long-term shrinkage of nitrate and acetate film. A certain amount of shrinkage happened during initial processing (especially high speed processing in hot chemical baths), but it wasn't really until the '70s that archivists first started to measure long-term shrinkage systematically. That of course leaves us with a big problem trying to project many Fox hole prints today.

And if polyester film had been around from the very beginning, KS perfs would probably never have needed to be invented.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Marini
Film Handler

Posts: 27
From: issue maryland/ USA
Registered: Dec 2005


 - posted 02-18-2013 12:39 PM      Profile for Michael Marini   Email Michael Marini   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Posted: Sat., Dec. 8, 2012, 4:00am PT
Masterful use of 65mm on 'Master'
Eye on the Oscars: The Cinematographer
By DAVID HEURING
Romanian-born cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr. used digital formats to shoot "Youth Without Youth," "Tetro," and "Twixt Now and Sunrise" for Francis Ford Coppola. But his latest, Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master," used 65 mm film and a completely photochemical post path.
Malaimare says he wanted to evoke the crispness and shallow depth of field characteristic of iconic post-war still photography, which was often captured with large format 4x5 Speed Graphic still cameras and sharp lenses.

The 65 mm format is generally used for sweeping landscape dramas (see Ron Fricke's "Samsara") but here the power of the larger negative is often focused on the contours of the human face, especially that of Joaquin Phoenix, who plays a neurotic vet who forms an unlikely, intimate bond with a charismatic cult leader (Philip Seymour Hoffman).

About 15% of the picture was done in standard 35 mm, including scenes done in tight quarters or with multiple cameras. Malaimare chose a range of exotic lenses, in part to smooth over the differences in the two formats. Initially, the filmmakers planned to use the bigger negative for only 20% of the film.

"As we were looking at dailies, we saw that every 65 mm shot was so amazing," Malaimare says. "After a week or two of shooting, we switched, and ended up shooting something like 85% of the movie on five-perf 65 mm."

He chose to shoot extensively on slower, fine grain film stock. There was no digital intermediate.

"Paul really believes in the photochemical process," Malaimare says. "It delivers better quality. By using the large, low-speed negative, not using any filters and using these very sharp lenses, you get extremely high-image quality -- and you don't want to ruin that with a scanner. In certain scenes, we recreated a colorful, Kodachrome look, and for ideas on how to shoot on board boats, we looked at 'The Black Stallion' (1979, directed by Carroll Ballard and shot by Caleb Deschanel). We copied some shots directly from that film."

 |  IP: Logged

F. Hudson Miller
Film Handler

Posts: 48
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2009


 - posted 03-18-2013 04:57 PM      Profile for F. Hudson Miller   Email F. Hudson Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Todd AO was based on the 25 year old existing Mitchell NC/BNC 65mm cameras with new lens by America Optical. After initial development with the old cameras Mike Todd eventually built a new Mitchell camera called the BFC. A good Todd AO primer and 65/70:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto1.htm

The American Widescreen Museum is an excellent virtual museum of wide screen history. I have suggested an article on the Phillips/Norelco DP70 35/70 Universal Projector. Being a post-production guy I am not really qualified to write the piece, so if anybody is interested in paying tribute to what must have been just about the ultimate film projector drop me a note! It would be nice to fill this hole in widescreen history before its too late, if you know what I mean!

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 03-18-2013 05:33 PM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There is a whole section of articles and resources related to the DP70 on the In70mm website.

 |  IP: Logged

F. Hudson Miller
Film Handler

Posts: 48
From: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2009


 - posted 03-18-2013 05:58 PM      Profile for F. Hudson Miller   Email F. Hudson Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Yup. I was hoping to find a film handler who could write about it from a showman's point of view. If worse comes to worse I will digest a whole bunch of stuff and regurgitate an article, but it would be better from a passionate user. Any takers?

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 03-25-2013 12:28 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Agreed - it would be lovely to read a detailed, reminiscence type piece from someone who worked with the DP-70 in a frontline, theatrical environment for a significant length of time.

I only did so for three months, and so am not at all qualified to do so. My (now fading - this was in the summer of 1992) memory is that it gave a wonderful 70mm picture - the image was so stable that it looked like it was nailed to the screen - but that it had a lot of operational foibles (e.g. you had to advance the mechanism to a neutral position before you could pull open the gate) and that as a 35mm machine, it didn't work as well as an FP-20 or a Vic 5. For a house showing mainly 70mm = no contest. For a house showing mainly 35mm = as iconic as they are, given a choice and all other relevant factors equal, I'd be reluctant to put a pair of them in the booth.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 03-25-2013 02:38 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting to note: is when 70mm IMAX film is produced, one can see the edges of the 65mm negative camera film, being 2.5mm inside the each outboard edge of the 70mm positive.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 03-25-2013 10:32 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps F. I definitely ran a lot of 70mm on Norelco DP70s (as well as Century JJs and even some Simplex 35/70s). What is it you are looking for?

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.