Jump to content


Photo

Techniscope


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Kaminski

Mike Kaminski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • toronto

Posted 18 April 2006 - 06:19 PM

I was reading some old George Lucas interviews from the 70's and discovered that his first two features, THX 1138 and American Graffiti, were shot in the Techniscope format. I had heard about the format before but never quite knew what it was and was delighted to learn that it is a two-perf 35mm format which gives an aspect ration comparable to 2:35. So essentially, its like a widescreen 16mm frame. Is anyone shooting with this format anymore? My understanding is that its been dead for a long time now but it seems like a fantastic format.
  • 0

#2 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 18 April 2006 - 07:04 PM

Yeah, the format is actually starting to get some notice. With more afordable 2K DI's come out the format rounds out quite nicely. I know of two features shooting on it now in New York and Aaton will be releasing a 2-perf capable camera soon.

I'm working on an article for the new Abel website (up sometime before NAB) and I'm about to shoot a series of widescreen tests.

I've shot a little bit with the format myself and it looks just as good as Super35.

- nathan
  • 0

#3 Mike Kaminski

Mike Kaminski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • toronto

Posted 18 April 2006 - 08:05 PM

Yeah, the format is actually starting to get some notice. With more afordable 2K DI's come out the format rounds out quite nicely. I know of two features shooting on it now in New York and Aaton will be releasing a 2-perf capable camera soon.

I'm working on an article for the new Abel website (up sometime before NAB) and I'm about to shoot a series of widescreen tests.

I've shot a little bit with the format myself and it looks just as good as Super35.

- nathan


Thats awesome news. I would LOVE to shoot with this format. Let us all know how the test turn out and when your article is done.
  • 0

#4 Matt Petrosky

Matt Petrosky

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 18 April 2006 - 08:06 PM

I believe Sergio Leone used this format a lot on his famous spaghetti westerns.
  • 0

#5 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 18 April 2006 - 08:57 PM

Yeah, the format is actually starting to get some notice. With more afordable 2K DI's come out the format rounds out quite nicely. I know of two features shooting on it now in New York and Aaton will be releasing a 2-perf capable camera soon.

I'm working on an article for the new Abel website (up sometime before NAB) and I'm about to shoot a series of widescreen tests.

I've shot a little bit with the format myself and it looks just as good as Super35.

- nathan



Isn't 2-perf already super 35?
  • 0

#6 Jon-Hebert Barto

Jon-Hebert Barto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 April 2006 - 09:37 PM

The giallo cycle of the early 1970's used this format almost exclusively. Serio Martino, Luciano Ercoli, the list goes on and on. I'm not sure if Argento used it. I'd love nothing more than to own a 2-perf 35mm camera, even MOS. Spherical lenses with 2.66 aspect ratio....Awesome! :wub:
  • 0

#7 Mike Kaminski

Mike Kaminski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • toronto

Posted 18 April 2006 - 09:54 PM

Yes, when you think about how great THX 1138 and Good, The Bad and The Ugly look when they were made in the late 60's, imagine how well an image the latest stocks and lenses could produce. I guess the format must have died out once the big-budget studio films took over in the 80's.
  • 0

#8 Jonathan Benny

Jonathan Benny
  • Sustaining Members
  • 166 posts
  • Other
  • Vancouver, Canada / Paris, France

Posted 18 April 2006 - 09:59 PM

The giallo cycle of the early 1970's used this format almost exclusively. Serio Martino, Luciano Ercoli, the list goes on and on. I'm not sure if Argento used it. I'd love nothing more than to own a 2-perf 35mm camera, even MOS. Spherical lenses with 2.66 aspect ratio....Awesome! :wub:


Guys,

Techniscope was a format meant for 2.35 extraction, not 2.66.

To obtain a 2.66 extraction one would have to re-center the lens and use the "sound track" area of the negative (something that techniscope originally did not do).

Super 35mm 2.35 uses the sound track area, is usually 3 or 4 perf, and has around 20% more negative area for a 2.35 extraction than techniscope.

Having said all that, I agree with you: it would be great to actually own a 2-perf camera! A great format that will hopefully make a comeback.

JB
  • 0

#9 Jon-Hebert Barto

Jon-Hebert Barto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 April 2006 - 12:03 AM

I figured 4-perf 1.33, 2-perf 2.66...I thought they framed for 2.35 to extract, I never thought about recentering the lense...makes sense.



This is a link I found a long time ago. (This page has been up forever.) It has info on the centerline, etc., etc. Fun read... :)

History of Techniscope
  • 0

#10 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 19 April 2006 - 01:04 AM

Since you more or less have to go through a DI with 2-perf today, there really is no point in NOT having it
super-35 centered and recording a 2.66:1 frame. That way you have some leeway to reframe slightly in telecine for your 2.40:1 extraction.
  • 0

#11 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 19 April 2006 - 03:11 AM

Since you more or less have to go through a DI with 2-perf today, there really is no point in NOT having it
super-35 centered and recording a 2.66:1 frame. That way you have some leeway to reframe slightly in telecine for your 2.40:1 extraction.


Adam,

2 perf is usually shot acadamy centered, as most of the existing 2 perf converted camreas are quite old and may have issues with recentering the lens mount. The only leeway you would have for framing is left and right, in any case. I don't know if any 2 perf (Techniscope) optical printers are set up to handle a S35 original neg.

When cameras such as Penelope are available things may change. AFAIK no manafacture will supply a new camera 2 perf today.

Stephen
  • 0

#12 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 19 April 2006 - 01:12 PM

The giallo cycle of the early 1970's used this format almost exclusively. Serio Martino, Luciano Ercoli, the list goes on and on. I'm not sure if Argento used it.


---The first Techniscope feature was 'La Donna dei Faraoni' (1960) with John Drew Barrymore.

Cromoscope was Techniscope done at Technostampa, Euroscope was doe at S.P.E.S. lab.
French non-Technicolor Teechniscope was still called Techniscope.

---LV

Edited by Leo A Vale, 19 April 2006 - 01:12 PM.

  • 0

#13 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 19 April 2006 - 05:31 PM

I'm not sure if Argento used it.

Argento did most (or all) of his 70's work in Techniscope/Cromoscope. The format was really big in Italy at the time.
  • 0

#14 bridgett roh

bridgett roh

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 April 2006 - 06:57 AM

This system has been used for some time now, where have you all been. The latest kodak in camera magazine has a story on a vampire movie shot on 2 perf from Sweden, Poor Superman a few years back in Canada, The Saughter Rule was also done this way filmed in Montana also some few years back. A company called Multivision 235 from Australia are renting cameras, look them up on the net. I made some inquiries and they have converted arri 4s and moviecam super america's and others. A fair amount of 2 perf movies have been done down there, and it seems to be big with rock clip producers, perfect format.
  • 0

#15 Charles Haine

Charles Haine
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Colorist
  • New York

Posted 20 April 2006 - 12:00 PM

Ah, the 2-perf conversation comes up again.

Anybody know if anyone other than Multivision is renting out this gear? Someone mentioned two movies going in NY right now in the format, are they with privately owned gear, rented out of Australia, or is there finally a rental house in America circulating this stuff?

Basically, would love to shoot the format, but can't convinced myself it's worth shipping from a rental house in another continent when there are houses right down the street that can rent me 3-perf that I can go back to if something stops working.

Maybe I'm paranoid.

chuck
  • 0

#16 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 20 April 2006 - 12:26 PM

I'd like to get some 2-perf gear into our rental department before Penelope comes out, but if you private message me I can give you the contact information of two US owners.
  • 0

#17 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 20 April 2006 - 01:06 PM

Argento did most (or all) of his 70's work in Techniscope/Cromoscope. The format was really big in Italy at the time.


Techniscope was invented at Technicolor Rome in 1960.

The US patent also decribes a three frame horizontal 16mm process. That version would have entailed building cameras from scratch rather than converting existing cameras.

Many 60s peplums used the process, and the westerns which replaced the peplums.

It was discotinued in the mid70s. You'll have to modify the above to early 70s.

---El Pedante
  • 0

#18 fstop

fstop
  • Guests

Posted 20 April 2006 - 01:11 PM

I remember Harry Oakes asking me about Techniscope in which he shot those Thunderbirds movies. His response to the format seemed to be "what was all that about?". LOL I got the impression that it was never really accepted seriously at least in the UK and USA.

This thread got me thinking about Techniscope and it's plagarised variations (including Hammerscope) and I did a google and found this:


"This is a grey area here because Technicolor started printing non-IB
prints (Eastmancolor) in the mid-60's to help make up the loss of
business from studios wanting "quick and cheap" prints. (They also
got into the 8mm Home Movie processing biz for awhile around this
time.)

The Technicolor name on a film in the mid-60's didn't guarantee an IB
print. I think the wording was a clue. "In Technicolor" or "Color by
Technicolor" meant an IB print; "Technicolor" or "Print by
Technicolor" meant an Eastman print made by them.

It is fair to say that even though these aren't IB prints, they still
looked fantastic and held their color better due to Technicolor's very
high standards and stringent Quality Control. (But, these too will
have turned quite pink by now.)

As for Techniscope, it is important to note that this was an invention
of the Italian branch of Technicolor to have a low cost alternative
for 2.35:1 widescreen photography, and wasn't condoned or approved by
the "main office" in the US because of these quality sacrifices.
That's why it's mostly European films that bear a "Techniscope"
credit.

There might be IB tech seps from the UK versions of the Hammer
Techniscope productions, but they are probably incomplete due to
censorship requirements. They are also a generation away from the
camera neg (an optical, no less) so you wouldn't have the resolution
you would want for archiving. And with Techniscope, you need all the
resolution you can get."

(from http://movies.groups...1?viscount=100)

"There is no actual process called "HammerScope", and it certainly
wasn't developed by Hammer. It's just a marketing gimmick U.S.
Columbia (I think it was Columbia) applied to certain Hammer films
they distributed that were shot in CinemaScope using anamorphic lenses
manufactured by neither Panavision or Bausch & Lombe. Warners did the
same thing with their "WarnerScope" and "WarnerColor" tags (which was
plain old Eastmancolor developed by Warner's labs.) It was a way to
get around paying 20th Century-Fox a royalty to use the Bausch & Lombe
lenses and "CinemaScope" name. (Panavision never asked for $$$ to use
their lenses, just credit, but they had not really come to the fore at
this point) Kind of like the way H.G. Lewis used to hype his films as
being in "Blood Color" and the like when *they* were just
Eastmancolor, too.

In fact, I'm not sure if the "HammerScope" films are actually 2.35:1
at all. They may be plain vanilla 1.85:1. Kinda like the way Roger
Corman used to say his 1.85:1 films were in "Widescope" or
"WideVision". Which is kinda absurd since by the mid-60's ALL non
CinemaScope (or flat) films were projected in the US at 1.85:1.

I'm sure others will be able to clarify things. (Tony? Joe?...)

(from http://movies.groups...3?viscount=100)

Wes Walker talks about it in
an article he has done for LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS called "The Corporate House
of Horror: The Hammer Group of Companies."
"HammerScope, 113 Wardour Street, was a clever label coined and instituted by
James Carreras in 1955 as a trademark following
on from Fox's 1953 arrival, CinemaScope. Certainly none of the British majors
had their own wide-screen processes. Rank preferring
to share VistaVision with Disney following its disastrous Independent Frame
work. 'A Hammer Scope Production" was the
Cinepanoramic banner heralding Exclusive shorts and features from 1955, and
major Hammer pictures from 1957. Developed for James
Carreras by George Humphries Laboratories, the process and equipment itself were
never perfected, though it wa a property and
additional facet to Exclusive/Hammer that could offer as a service to the trade.
In 1961, HammerScope was used on MRS. GIBBON'S
BOYS at ABPC Elstree, though as an old pals gesture to Henry Halstead, allowed
"ByronScope" to be superimposed on the titles.
After 1966 when PanaVision became the norm throughout the Western hemisphere,
Hammer allowed it to revert back to Humphries
Film Laboratories. Humphries at that time had become a Rank Organisation
associate group which later included the CTS Recording
Studios at Wembly, just about finishing off Rank's total hold on world filming."

(from http://movies.groups...2?viscount=100)

"While storage is important, the deterioration of these negatives is
inevitable. While Many Hammer Films were released in Technicolor,
*all* were filmed on woefully unstable Eastmancolor neagative stock.
ALL Eastmancolor fades to red after awhile, it's the nature of the
beast. However, "Horror of Dracula" and the other early Hammer's
actually stand a chance of being in good shape due to the fact that in
order to make Technicolor IB prints, you hade to "convert" the Eastman
negative to the three seperate B/W color records Technicolor needed to
make their prints. So in a vault somewhere probably exists the three
color seps - the most stable and archival form of color motion picture
photography known to exist.

However, Hammer's involvement with 20th Century-Fox by the time of
"Dracula, Prince of Darkness", and "Rasputin" assured that DeLuxe Labs
handled the lab work thus sealing those films fate (DeLuxe is agreed
to have been the WORST processing lab on the face of the earth.) No
Technicolor IB prints were made of Hammer's Fox titles. (At least in
the US) Another strike against "DPoD" is it was shot in Techniscope; a
widescreen system that took the normal 35mm frame and "halved" it in
the camera to get it's 2.35:1 ratio. Meaning you just lost 50% of the
real estate you ordinarily would have. So even under ideal conditions
you get a picture that's grainier and softer to begin with.

"Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires" was handled by Run Run Shaw's
favorite Hong Kong lab. I remember an interview with Roy Ward Baker
and his DP talking about that. They couldn't understand their methods
or reasons for doing things the way they did. In fact, they were
convinced what the Hong Kong labs were doing was so totally screwed
up, they tried in vain to have UK labs do the work. Ergo, the debacle
of that film's negative.

Chip


>"

(from http://movies.groups...4?viscount=100)

">In fact, I'm not sure if the "HammerScope" films are actually 2.35:1
>at all. They may be plain vanilla 1.85:1. Kinda like the way Roger
>Corman used to say his 1.85:1 films were in "Widescope" or
>"WideVision". Which is kinda absurd since by the mid-60's ALL non
>CinemaScope (or flat) films were projected in the US at 1.85:1.
>
>I'm sure others will be able to clarify things. (Tony? Joe?...)

Well, I can assure you that Hammerscope was a real anamorphic system.
I have a 16mm anamorphic print of THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN in my closet
here and it's full scope width. As for whose lenses they used, the
rather unreliable book WIDESCREEN MOVIES by Carr and Hayes is
unhelpful.
--

- Joe Kaufman"
  • 0

#19 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 20 April 2006 - 01:49 PM

This thread got me thinking about Techniscope and it's plagarised variations (including Hammerscope) and I did a google and found this:

"There is no actual process called "HammerScope", and it certainly
wasn't developed by Hammer. It's just a marketing gimmick U.S.
Columbia (I think it was Columbia) applied to certain Hammer films
they distributed that were shot in CinemaScope using anamorphic lenses
manufactured by neither Panavision or Bausch & Lombe.

In fact, I'm not sure if the "HammerScope" films are actually 2.35:1
at all. They may be plain vanilla 1.85:1. Kinda like the way Roger
Corman used to say his 1.85:1 films were in "Widescope" or
"WideVision". Which is kinda absurd since by the mid-60's ALL non
CinemaScope (or flat) films were projected in the US at 1.85:1.

Wes Walker talks about it in
an article he has done for LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORRORS called "The Corporate House
of Horror: The Hammer Group of Companies."
"HammerScope, 113 Wardour Street, was a clever label coined and instituted by
James Carreras in 1955 as a trademark following
on from Fox's 1953 arrival, CinemaScope. Certainly none of the British majors
had their own wide-screen processes. Rank preferring
to share VistaVision with Disney following its disastrous Independent Frame
work. 'A Hammer Scope Production" was the
Cinepanoramic banner heralding Exclusive shorts and features from 1955, and
major Hammer pictures from 1957.

"Well, I can assure you that Hammerscope was a real anamorphic system.
I have a 16mm anamorphic print of THE ABOMINABLE SNOWMAN in my closet
here and it's full scope width. As for whose lenses they used, the
rather unreliable book WIDESCREEN MOVIES by Carr and Hayes is
unhelpful.


---Carr and Hayes' book is a very good source of misinformation.

I worked at a lab that kept part of the Columbia/Sony library in its vault.

I handled and did repair work on the OCN of the HammerScope "The Scarlet Blade/The Crimson Blade".
It was definately anamorphic.

I also had to compare three dupe negative s of the Columbia film "Jeanne Eagels". These were all anamorphic blowups with Megascope logos in the credits and Megascope stamped on the original printing log cards in the cans.

The Hammer Megasope movies are all Columbia pictures. So Megascope is a Columbia trade name.

I believe there are only two Hammer Techniscope movies; 'Curse of the Mummy's Tomb' and 'Draacula Prince of Darkness'.

Time is expiring.. More later

---LV
  • 0

#20 Vivian Zetetick

Vivian Zetetick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Director

Posted 20 April 2006 - 02:32 PM

There's a fun comedy-horror movie from Montreal called Graveyard Alive: a Zombie Nurse in Love that was shot on two-perf 35mm. It screened at a horror fest here in RI a few years ago. The B&W cinematography is top notch. The whole thing was shot MOS and post-dubbed, which adds to it's tongue-in-cheek "drive in movie" feel.

http://www.graveyardalive.com/
  • 0


Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Opal

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

CineTape

CineLab

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Glidecam

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Opal