 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The news here is that they're showing "Porgy and Bess" on Sept. 2 and 3.
(Sorry for the earlier mis-spelling.)
Too much day dreaming about 70mm epics and not enough study at school in 1966.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If only it were PORKY AND BESS. Unfortunately, it is the deplorable, PORGY AND BESS. 70 MM frames filled with static close-ups. Film making at its worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The one that surprises me the most is KHARTOUM. I didn't know there was a 70mm print extant.
I saw the print three years or so ago at the American Cinematheque - even on their sorry, small screen it looked really good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The one that surprises me the most is KHARTOUM. I didn't know there was a 70mm print extant.
I saw the print three years or so ago at the American Cinematheque - even on their sorry, small screen it looked really good.
The screen at the Silver Theater is impressive, as is its auditorium. Beautiful! I have seen West Side Story, The Sound of Music and Hello, Dolly! here and all were in 70mm except The Sound of Music.
I've seen HELLO, DOLLY! at the Silver Theater in 70mm, as well as IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD MAD WORLD, PLAYTIME, and DAYS OF THUNDER. (The last two were 70mm blowups.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 7, 2012 - 2:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
.....I've seen HELLO, DOLLY! at the Silver Theater in 70mm, as well as IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD MAD WORLD, PLAYTIME, and DAYS OF THUNDER. (The last two were 70mm blowups.)
I saw a 70mm print of Tati's PLAYTIME in December 2010 here in Toronto. Are you certain it was a blowup?.....
As Saul Pincus seems to surmise, PLAYTIME was photographed directly on 65mm negative stock, and was not a blow-up.
The tale of its restoration/preservation work, from the late 1990s to the early 2000's, for presentation at Cannes in May, 2002, is covered here in great detail.....
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2004/playtime/index.htm
I was on a short trip to Paris in the mid-1960s when it opened there. I could kick myself that I didn't go to see it projected in 70mm then, when it was fresh and new! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen HELLO, DOLLY! at the Silver Theater in 70mm, as well as IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD MAD WORLD, PLAYTIME, and DAYS OF THUNDER. (The last two were 70mm blowups.)
I saw a 70mm print of Tati's PLAYTIME in December 2010 here in Toronto. Are you certain it was a blowup?
No, you are correct. It was filmed on 65mm stock. I get confused on that title because Tati insisted on hard matting the negative at a ratio of 1.76:1, from which the current 70mm and 1.85:1 35mm prints are made. Also that the film was first shown in the U.S. in 35mm (in 1973). It wasn't until the 2002 restoration that we got to see a 70mm print.
In this photo, you can see that only the center portion of the 65mm negative is exposed.
Here's a faded frame from an original 70mm print. You can see the masking bars on the sides that preserve the intended ratio.
Here's a 70mm frame from the restored film, with the same masking bars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he never exposed the entire 65mm frame, then what's the appeal of a 70MM showing? What's the point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he never exposed the entire 65mm frame, then what's the appeal of a 70MM showing? What's the point?
Even at 1.76:1, the exposed area on the 65mm stock is greater than a fully exposed 35mm frame would be. The image on the negative was measured at 40.56mm x 23mm. That's 1.597 in. x .906 in., nearly all of which is projected. The exposed area on a 35mm frame is 0.868 in. x 0.631 in. And when that 35mm frame is masked down to a 1.76:1 ratio, the projected image would 0.868 in. x 0.493 in. So that's a projectable area of 1.447 sq. in on the 70mm prints vs. 0.428 sq. in. on 35mm prints. The 70mm is 3.38 times the size of the 35mm. That is a big difference in the size and clarity of the projected image.
In addition, 70mm prints were the only way to get 6-track stereo sound back in 1967 (although Tati only used the 5 on-screen channels, with no surround track).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he never exposed the entire 65mm frame, then what's the appeal of a 70MM showing? What's the point?
Even at 1.76:1, the exposed area on the 65mm stock is greater than a fully exposed 35mm frame would be. The image on the negative was measured at 40.56mm x 23mm. That's 1.597 in. x .906 in., nearly all of which is projected. The exposed area on a 35mm frame is 0.868 in. x 0.631 in. And when that 35mm frame is masked down to a 1.76:1 ratio, the projected image would 0.868 in. x 0.493 in. So that's a projectable area of 1.447 sq. in on the 70mm prints vs. 0.428 sq. in. on 35mm prints. The 70mm is 3.38 times the size of the 35mm. That is a big difference in the size and clarity of the projected image.
In addition, 70mm prints were the only way to get 6-track stereo sound back in 1967 (although Tati only used the 5 on-screen channels, with no surround track).
Oh, I know all about 70mm films. There isn't a single one that I haven't seen in its original release, since Disney's SLEEPING BEAUTY. Not one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2012 - 4:28 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
This afternoon I attended the AFI's 70mm showing of CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG. Unfortunately, the print was faded, not to a pinkish hue, but, as stated in a notice at the boxoffice, to "RED." The print was crisp and clear, and the 6-track stereo was excellent, but it was RED. The projectionist ran the film through a blue filter, which had the effect of muting the red somewhat and emphasizing certain gold colors. After a while, one just imagined that one was watching the only Super Panavision film shot in black and white. Reportedly, this is the only 70mm print of the film in existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2012 - 9:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ClipperJon
(Member)
|
This afternoon I attended the AFI's 70mm showing of CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG. Unfortunately, the print was faded, not to a pinkish hue, but, as stated in a notice at the boxoffice, to "RED." The print was crisp and clear, and the 6-track stereo was excellent, but it was RED. The projectionist ran the film through a blue filter, which had the effect of muting the red somewhat and emphasizing certain gold colors. After a while, one just imagined that one was watching the only Super Panavision film shot in black and white. Reportedly, this is the only 70mm print of the film in existence.
Bob:
Thanks so much for the report. I appreciate it. I came close to taking Metro out to Silver Spring but after Metro's snafus in addition to the weekend track work, I did not go. I think the only two movies I am going to take advantage of in this 70mm series are "Porgy and Bess" and "South Pacific." Yes, I realize "Porgy and Bess" is imperfect, but I have not had the chance to have seen it before. SP is not perfect, either, but the movie is pleasant enough.
I just wish this series was screening "Star!" and "The Sound of Music."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2012 - 9:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
.....I think the only two movies I am going to take advantage of in this 70mm series are "Porgy and Bess" and "South Pacific." .....
I think I'd want to call the theatre and get a report on the print quality of PORGY AND BESS before I'd go. I can't recall that it's ever been reprinted in 70mm from the 1960 Roadshow days, so it probably looks worse than CHITTY CHITTY..... The extant 35mm Scope prints of PORGY, on the other hand, were non-fading IB Tech, so they should look much better, but, unfortunately the ones that exist have other problems of their own.
As for SOUTH PACIFIC, has Fox ever reprinted that in 70mm? (And, in fact, does Fox actually control theatrical [not video] 70mm rights for the film today or do those remain with the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization?)
Since all original 70mm prints were Eastman Color, virtually all of them have faded to one degree or another---unless a few titles were reprinted far more recently. A 70mm Festival is always a chancey thing regarding print quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Among other things I find disgraceful about the AFI, showing a faded print of CCBB, through a blue filter, is one of them! So glad I didn't go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
