SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"John G. Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 8 Jun 1994 18:30:30 -0700
text/plain (39 lines)
On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Jeremy Butler <[log in to unmask]> @6969 wrote:
        Weellllll.....OOOKKKK. Techniscope, like S16mm and other clever
ideas unfortunately get stung with the false economy issue, the all
important prime directive of "production value."
        In the real old days, (up to the 1930's I guess) when the
director turned around to the cameraman and said, "print it", what he was
really saying was, "This time don't open up that cover over the take up
side of the film magazine and throw away the exposed film we just shot.
Keep this take and send it to the lab to be processed."
        Techniscope would be fine if it were not for television.  TV's
got the big bucks and TV doesn't want anything other than 1.33:1.  The
"compromise", of course, is that you have to compose your shots for both
mediums.  As far as "scope" is concerned, I'm a pretty hard-working
filmmaker and I don't know of ANYONE who's shooting in any kind of
compressed format.  I'm not even sure if your can get the camera lenses
anymore. Even the films advertised as being in 70mm, never were.   First
of all the widest camera stock available from the yellow box folks is
65mm. (The other 5mm is only used for the sound track after the film is
completed.)  Even then, MOST of the footage contained in a film
supposedly shot in 65mm, was probably 35mm to start with.  65mm is used
mainly for process shots and special effects work where the granularity
helps "hide" the tricks.  The bottom line is that with incredible quality
of the current camera stocks in 35mm, and the fact that very few theaters
are properly equipped for 70mm anyhow, why bother?  In most theaters,
even IF the audience cared, I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference.
        I know of a few exceptions, like the OmniMax and its clones.  A
friend of mine at a local lab showed me a print of a new OmniMax film he
was working on.  I think they pull down something like 10-15 perfs at a
time and use special anamorphic equipment.  Incredible technology.  One
print was created for about $35,000.00.
-------->from John G. Thomas([log in to unmask])in Hollywierd,Calif.<---------