Jump to content


Photo

Anamorphic lenses on Imax film


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Ocean Zen

Ocean Zen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 August 2008 - 01:21 PM

I'm planning my dream setup for a Sci-Fi script I'm writing and will direct in the future.

It takes place on a massive space station.

I love the look of anamorphic lenses and wondered if it would be possible in theory to design and build anamorphic lenses to shoot onto 15 perf 65mm film.

Can you imagine 15 /65mm film with anamorphic lenses? Of course the Aspect ratio would be 2.4:1, so I suppose when shown in imax cinemas not all the screen (about 1.44:1) will be used. But it would still look amazing right?

I realise anamorphic lenses were designed to use all of the 35mm frame for widescreen, but since they also have interesting and unique visual properties, I think it is still worth considering.

Has anyone done it or thought about it?

I've also read about 8 or 10perf 65mm- Maybe they would be better suited?



I can imagine people replying saying "Have you considered 2 perf 35mm?" - but I'm asking about anamorphic and 65mm film - and I'm dreaming :)

Thanks
Here's the 15 perf 65mm
Posted Image

And here's 8 perf 65mm
Posted Image

and here's a guide to show a comparison between 35mm, 5 perf 65mm and Imax 15 perf
Posted Image
  • 0

#2 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 20 August 2008 - 01:30 PM

I can imagine people replying saying "Have you considered 2 perf 35mm?" - but I'm asking about anamorphic and 65mm film - and I'm dreaming :)


Have you considered 25-perf 70mm?

http://www.cinematog...mp;hl=Maxoscope
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 20 August 2008 - 04:34 PM

But we live in a world without 65/70mm 24-perf. movement projectors, cameras, and printers, so that sort of nixes that approach right there.

I can actually see a widescreen IMAX format being at least feasible (not likely, but feasible) if the success of The Dark Knight and the wave of films shot in IMAX I am assuming will follow significantly boosts revenue of IMAX theatres and leads to more of them being built.

After all, it wouldn't be *that* hard to rig up maybe a couple of diopters and an anamorphic unstretcher together into some sort of adapter for a couple of hundred dollars.

Hell, if they can splurge on digital projection, they can at least consider a lens, right?
  • 0

#4 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 August 2008 - 09:36 PM

Anamorphic 65mm has been done in the past.

Ultra Panavision 70 at WidescreenMuseum.com

In short, it's 5-perf 65mm with a 1.25x anamorphic squeeze for a maximum aspect ratio of 2.76:1.
  • 0

#5 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 21 August 2008 - 04:04 PM

8-perf 65mm would be similar to CinemaScope 55. The same image height with the AR being 2.76:1 instead of 2.55:1. So you'd be able to make 70mm Ultra Panavision reduction prints. :lol:

Posted Image


http://widescreenmus...een/wingcs6.htm
  • 0

#6 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 21 August 2008 - 05:17 PM

Anamorphic 15/65 IMAX would be worthless, because you would not have anywhere to project it! :lol:
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 22 August 2008 - 03:57 PM

Anamorphic 65mm has been done in the past.

Ultra Panavision 70 at WidescreenMuseum.com

In short, it's 5-perf 65mm with a 1.25x anamorphic squeeze for a maximum aspect ratio of 2.76:1.


You're right Chris, I forgot all about that. They shot "Patton" in this format.

@Tom: I don't see why they couldn't use the same dual-system approach to IMAX anamorphic as they do with 35mm. It wouldn't be optimal, but you could project it at a smaller size on the same screen.

Actually a smaller screen size might *help* IMAX ;-) It's hard to keep the whole screen in your field of view!
  • 0

#8 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 22 August 2008 - 04:27 PM

"Patton" was shot D-150 which was Todd-AO really so just 5 perf 65mm, no anamorphics .
  • 0

#9 Christian Appelt

Christian Appelt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts

Posted 23 August 2008 - 02:27 PM

"Patton" was shot D-150 which was Todd-AO really so just 5 perf 65mm, no anamorphics .


That's right, maybe Karl remembered BATTLE OF THE BULGE which was shot in Ultra Panavision and had even more tanks! - Has anybody seen the HD-DVD of this UP film?
  • 0

#10 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 25 August 2008 - 04:47 PM

That's right, maybe Karl remembered BATTLE OF THE BULGE which was shot in Ultra Panavision and had even more tanks! - Has anybody seen the HD-DVD of this UP film?


I loved the climactic tank battle in the Belgian desert.
  • 0

#11 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 August 2008 - 05:15 PM

I love the look of anamorphic lenses and wondered if it would be possible in theory to design and build anamorphic lenses to shoot onto 15 perf 65mm film.

Of course it's possible in theory to design and grind such glass. Just scale up all the dimensions. The big problem with those lenses would be lifting them. Weight varies with the cube of the linear dimension, so they'd each weigh as much as a couple dozen of the equivalent field of view lenses for 35mm anamorphic.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#12 Ocean Zen

Ocean Zen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 August 2008 - 06:49 PM

Of course it's possible in theory to design and grind such glass. Just scale up all the dimensions. The big problem with those lenses would be lifting them. Weight varies with the cube of the linear dimension, so they'd each weigh as much as a couple dozen of the equivalent field of view lenses for 35mm anamorphic.




-- J.S.



OK - Now I see why this would be 'practically' impossible

Thanks for all your suggestions on here - I've been researching the different formats and think taht Technirama would be cool

- 8 perf 35mm with a 1.5 squeeze anamorphic lens. That would look excellent - I wonder if any of these cameras or lenses are still in use or still good by today's standards.

I realise a lot of you know this stuff, but I thought I'd post some pics as examples.

Posted Image

Old technirama camera
Posted Image

Here's an 8 perf 1.5 squeeze Technirama negative
Posted Image

These give you an idea of the size of the cam
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
  • 0

#13 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 25 August 2008 - 07:38 PM

Those cameras just aren't big enough.
  • 0

#14 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 25 August 2008 - 09:49 PM

Posted Image

"ok guys time for the hand-held shot"
  • 0

#15 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 August 2008 - 12:58 AM

That is wild! It's like hauling a 35mm theatrical projector around. Yikes. And the 3 strip Technicolor camera design turned VistaVision turned Technirama is crazy too, because Technirama runs horizontal at the gate like IMAX. But unlike IMAX, most Technirama magazines are vertically positioned behind the camera,except for the "butterfly" models. So the film made a 90 degree turn before and after the gate, which by experience running platter based theatrical projectors can be tricky, and scratch the film. WOW!
  • 0

#16 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 August 2008 - 01:13 PM

Actually, it was an early two color single strip over/under color separation camera that was the origin of VistaVision. It already had an 8 perf movement, it just needed the bar between the red/orange and blue/green frames removed. That prototype proved the concept, and later Mitchell made the "elephant ear" horizontal pull cameras that were used for most Vista shows. The other thing that made Vista a natural was the availability of good Leica glass for the 8 perf frame.

The three strip camera used two 4-perf movements, one for a bipack, the other for the green record. They were fed by a prism, sort of like a three chip video camera, only simpler, because it only sent the light two ways instead of three.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#17 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 26 August 2008 - 01:51 PM

I actually saw an elephant ear VV at the MP Museum in LA when I was visiting there a few years back. It had an off-blue crackle finish like the one posted above.
  • 0

#18 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 27 August 2008 - 03:55 PM

Actually, it was an early two color single strip over/under color separation camera that was the origin of VistaVision.


That was the Stein camera, it might have been only used on 'White Christmas'.

Technicolor did gut a number of three-strip cameras an put in VistaVision movements.
They must have been a pain to thread.


hitch_firstvvcamera_r.jpeg

Alfred Hitchcock is seen in a VistaVision publicity photo. The shapeless mass behind him is the Paramount homebuilt camera used only to shoot White Christmas. Hitchcock's films all used the later Technicolor conversions or the Mitchell Elephant Ear cameras developed for the process.

Posted Image

Hitchcock directs Edmund Gwen and Mildred Natwick in his second VistaVision film, The Trouble With Harry. The camera is one of the Technicolor conversions in its refrigerator size sound blimp. You will note the similarity to the camera shown filming The Big Country illustrated in the Technirama wing of the museum. The slanted top front of the blimp indicates that the camera inside is using the 2,000 foot coaxial film magazine necessary for running the camera at a speed of 180 feet per minute. The original cameras, as set up for Technicolor photography, used three 1,000 foot reels of film in a more conventional looking Mickey Mouse ear magazine.
  • 0

#19 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 27 August 2008 - 05:06 PM

Of course it's possible in theory to design and grind such glass. Just scale up all the dimensions. The big problem with those lenses would be lifting them. Weight varies with the cube of the linear dimension, so they'd each weigh as much as a couple dozen of the equivalent field of view lenses for 35mm anamorphic.




-- J.S.


But again, with the 70mm projection of, not Patton, maybe Christian's right that it is Battle of the Bulge, isn't or at least wasn't this equipment already available??

Or did they just do a squeeze on the camera negative and unsqueeze during the printing process and matte it?
  • 0

#20 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 28 August 2008 - 05:09 PM

But again, with the 70mm projection of, not Patton, maybe Christian's right that it is Battle of the Bulge, isn't or at least wasn't this equipment already available??

Or did they just do a squeeze on the camera negative and unsqueeze during the printing process and matte it?


'the battle of the Bulge's ultra panavision had a 1.25x squeeze in camera.
The cinerama prints were optically printed with the ceter unsqueezed and the edges remaining squeezed.

D-150 was shot on Todd-AO equipment with spherical lens. The prints were made with the edges squeezed while the center was left unsqueezed. It's unclear whether there was masking involved.

http://in70mm.com/ne...irama/index.htm

"I was pleased to her that The Technirama Story was well received. However, I understand that some readers have questioned the statement that some Technirama 70mm prints were "rectified" for showing in Single-lens Cinerama.

This was based on knowledge gained during a visit I made to Technicolor's London plant in the mid-1980s. The highlight of the trip was the optical printing department. here I was shown a cabinet full of "classic" printer and special processes lenses. Among them was a complete set of Technirama lenses for printing all the various formats available from the versatile negative, from 70mm down to 16mm. Even more fascinating was that they still had the Cinerama lenses used to make rectified 70mm prints from both Ultra Panavision and Technirama negatives. The Ultra Panavision lens partially unsqueezed the centre of the frame to about x1.18 and progressively increased the compression out from the centre, reaching x1.33 at the sides of the frame. The Technirama version only left the sides of the image squeezed. I was curious where the extra picture information came from, but was reminded that the large-area Technirama negative was designed and photographed as a multi-format system with extraction areas ranging from 1.85:1 to provide 35mm unsqueezed prints, to 2.66:1 for 16mm 'Scope' copies.

Needles to say, I asked if they had any frames for use on my notorious wall chart, but twenty years on, they couldn't find any. However later, a reel of "rectified" "The Magnificent Showman" was produced. It was not possible to see it projected, but, with time running out, it was wound down on the rewind bench to look for a scene which showed the effect of the special printer lens. I remember that the best we could find was a shot of an animal cage with it's bars closed together at the sides of the frame. I must admit the unless you knew what you were looking for, at first sight, it would look like any other Super Technirama 70mm print. It would need to be projected, preferably on a flat screen, to spot the difference."

"Back to the subject of the D-150 printer lens. This only made minor changes to the picture's geometry and was intended to supplement those made by the special projection lens. Again, the image was slightly squeezed at the sides, but D-150's lens also added a small degree of pincushion distortion. Using the full available width of the negative's image, the aspect ratio was about 2.3:1. After passing through the printer lens, the new modified image was reduced to a nominal 1,9:1. The printer's reproduction ratio was adjusted until the sides of the image fell just inside the perforations, with any gap being covered later by the inner magnetic stripes. The image was still cropped somewhat, but the effect of the picture bowing in a little at the top and bottom helped to push some of the lost picture information back into the frame. In practice, the picture's composition wasn't spoilt too much, as all 65mm/70mm films are photographed with sufficient headroom to allow for the extraction of 35mm anamorphic 2,35.1 reduction prints. Like the Cinerama rectified 70mm prints, most the cropping needed to fit the screen occurred later during projection."
  • 0


CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Abel Cine