Thank you for the video. I always loved the bug 70mm roadshow presentations in the day. Unfortunately today it's like going to the supermarket.

Did you know that the first movie to be shot in widescreen was in 1930 The Big Trail starring a young John Wayne. It was released in 35mm because of the depression and the cinemas couldn't afford to update their projectors.

@fredemny3304

Жыл бұрын

Yes.

@robfriedrich2822

9 ай бұрын

I thought, it would be "The bat whispers". But interestingly, the Fox Grandeur equipment was used for Todd AO and the old name for the 70 mm wide-screen movies from 20th Century Fox.

@robfriedrich2822

9 ай бұрын

Cinemas had enough investment for sound, amplifiers and speakers and couldn't see any advantage in bigger, sharper pictures. When television came, it was an argument to make cinema way better.

Full frame anamorphic

Thank you. Your presentations are very well made. Thank you 😊

Great video!!!

A very good film explaining the technicalities of Technirama. It was a system that was a huge improvement over Cinemascope and the mumps effect of close-ups in scope, and it also produced a wonderful 70mm experience as with Spartacus and El Cid. It seemed to me to be a good compromise when transferred to 35mm anamorphic because Todd-AO and Super Panavision needed to be cropped top and bottom for 35mm release prints, and Ultra-Panavision had to be cropped at the sides for 35mm release. I don't think much of the frame, if any, was cropped with Technirama. Ultimately 35mm Panavision anamorphic was good enough to supersede Cinemascope and Technirama.

@matangox

2 жыл бұрын

Would you be so kind to answer a question? For example the new blurays and 4k discs of Spartacus or The Leopard, were they scanned and digitalized from the original negative or from the 35mm copy? I presume it's from the original, but I'm not sure.

Excellent, concise piece!!

Very interesting - thanks!!!

Thank you Geh. :-)

Had to check this process out after watching the 1957 movie, 'Night Passage'. I never seen a movie look so good from that time period!

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

If you had of seen the movies in the cinema at the time they were released they would have blown you away. I had the pleasure of seeing Vertigo on 70mm transfer in a cinema and it was just amazing looking. Imagine seeing that in 1958. Standard 35mm film has a resolution of about 8K equivalent and Vistavision and Technirama were probably pushing 12K resolution. And then when you layer the color processing on top of that it produces an immense picture.

Stephen - Sorry about that. The url seems to be missing the .php at the end (membership.php) thanks for bringing this to our attention.

As Technirama used the old Technicolor camera bodies, did they use the same gigantic blimps for sound? Or were the new internals soundproofed like later cameras? None of the photos show a blimp.

Using the 35 mm film horizontally had already been used by the VistaVision process. The only diffrence was that Technirama used a Delrama 1.5 ratio anamorphic lens which gave an aspect ratio similar to CinemaScope. But like VistaVision, it was almost never used for projection which was made using standard vertical running 4 perfs 35mm films, which involved losing most of the higher definition of the negative film. A few Techinrama films used 70mm copies, in this case the definition wasn't lost, and the result was amost as good as films shot in 65mm. In this case the process was called "Super Technirama". The best example is "Spartacus" by Stanley Kubrick with Kirk Douglas.

@kevshrop

3 жыл бұрын

Just to be clear, in this video it says the Super Technirama films were optically printed to larger negative. I believe that means not using the dye transfer process. Technicolor's imbibition process was really designed for just 35 mm release prints, I believe. But it's my understanding from an article on in70mm.com that Technicolor carefully supervised the making of these 70 mm prints. That makes me feel better when I see that Technicolor credit on a 65mm print.

@rainlori

3 жыл бұрын

Some years ago I saw an old but good-condition print of the 1956 VistaVision "War and Peace" in a large screen cinema that specialised in exhibiting older motion pictures. It was a notably sharper than normal image even though the print was 35mm, no doubt due to the larger negative image it was printed from, so I think VistaVision was worth the effort. (16:9 aspect ratio.) Cheers

@78Dipar

3 жыл бұрын

@@rainlori At the time was used I saw many VistaVision films in the best Paris movie theaters, the increase in sharpness wasn't really noticeable. The 1.85 format was better than the old 1.37 format but not as satisfying than the CinemaScope format. I remeber being much disappointed when I saw Cecil B.DeMille's "The Ten Commadements" in Vistavision. It also lacked sterephonic sound. It couldn't compete with 70mm films...

@DGaryGrady

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed, the video itself mentions VistaVision as an antecedent of Technirama.

@DGaryGrady

3 жыл бұрын

@@kevshrop The optical printing was necessary for two reasons, first because contact printing could not be used with a horizontal camera negative and a vertical interpositive/internegative for making release prints, but also because Technirama's 1.5x anamorphic squeeze was not compatible with a standard projection format. The negative aspect ratio was 1.5:1 with a 1.5x anamorphic squeeze for a 2.25:1 image. This could be optically printed to a non-anamorphic 2.20:1 70 mm print (essentially the same as Todd-AO and Super Panavision 70) or with a 2x squeeze and slight cropping for 35mm scope (2.35:1 prior to 1970).

The Eastman colour system was a renamed system what Germany had developed. The problem is it fades a lot faster, which wasn’t noticed until later. Even though Technicolour, was more expensive they held up over long periods. However, Technicolour, began to use Eastman colour down the road.

@martinhughes2549

3 жыл бұрын

Yes; sort of!. AGFA developed the first negative positive chromigenic film with built in colour dye couplers in 1939, but perfected in 1941. ( kodachrome introduced in 1935 added the dye couplers during processing) 15 feature films where made in this process between 1941 and 1945. However it was grainy, they had to print from the master negative, there was a problem with incorrect colour frequencies being printed due to compromises over the dye couplers that they used in the negative film. Kodak in Eastmancolor, minimised grain& developed color masking, making inter positive and inter negative film possible. A major step forward.

@reviewgodusa9613

3 жыл бұрын

@@martinhughes2549 which 15 feature films were these? Anything notable?

@martinhughes2549

3 жыл бұрын

@@reviewgodusa9613" Baron Munchausen" 1943. I saw it many years ago on TV. One issue why many of these films dont get shown is that they where made by the Nazi regime of course, and so are very problematic watches.

So…The cameras still appear to have vertically mounted reels of film. Was the film twisted to run horizontally behind the lens and shutter, or was there a mirror or prism involved?

Whom composed the music for this series? It’s beautiful.

@karlkarlos3545

5 жыл бұрын

Whom?

APPLAUSE, TO ALL WHO CREATED COLOUR IN MOVIES . SO WE WHO ARE NOT TECHNIC ENJOY ALL THE MOVIES . THANKS !! FROM U.K.(2021).

Re your web membership web address as shown at the end of this, and the other videos in this series . . . Error 403 - Forbidden You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges. ! ? Steve Bell.

A great Technirama film is “Auntie Mame” starring Rosalind Russel.

Vistavision and Technirama is the same?

@Tlducken

2 жыл бұрын

Sounds like they both have the negative pass through the camera horizontally but with Technirama they use an anamorphic lens to squeeze a wider image onto the negative. So Vertigo (Vistavision) has a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, whereas Spartacus (Technirama) has a 2.20:1 ratio without having to crop.

Was this camera for shooting Eastmancolor films in wide screen?

@notsorandumusername

Жыл бұрын

Have you actually watched the video?

At 1.5:1x, looks like a milder squeeze than Cinemascope.

If you ask someone working at Technicolor, Technirama was totally different from VistaVision, and obviously much better. Not sure how that is the case, as with VistaVision the film is also running horizontally front of the gate and the frame is 8.perforations wide. Of coruse, they had like over two dozen trade names for basically the same widescreen that we had first with CinemaScope in 1953.

@reviewgodusa9613

3 жыл бұрын

Technirama is just vistavision with an anamorphic lens.

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

@Frank Farago In my opinion all the processes looked amazing and when used artistically by directors they produced some very unique looking films. I seen a remastered transfer of Vertigo and it look absolutely amazing and I could not imagine what it looked like in late 1950s in the cinema.

@78Dipar

3 жыл бұрын

Technirama wasn't much different from VistaVision, they both used 35mm film horizontallty on a 8 perfs frame. The only diffrence is that Technirama used an 1.5 Delrama anamorphic lens, giving a final aspect ration similar to CinemaScope. Both process weren't used for projection, they were reduced to standard 35mm 4 perfs, so most of the negative higher definition was lost. A few Technirama films (such as "Spartacus") were projected with 70mm copies, in this case the definition wasn't lost, but not quite as good as with a 65mm negative, it was then called "Super Technirama".

@78Dipar

3 жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 This is because the restored version of Vertigo was printed on 70mm film, wich kept the original VistaVision negative definition. It wasn't the case in the fifties when VistaVision projection used reduced definition prints on standard 35mm 4 perfs films...

@bighands69

3 жыл бұрын

@@78Dipar Most distribution would have 35mm at 4 perfs and still would have looked amazing but there was still 70mm distribution and other methods used as well and it depended on where the theatre was and if it was a large theatre. In a small town they would have only got to see it in 35mm distribution better than any digital theatre today.

Technirama = Amamorphic

Stephen - Sorry about that. The url seems to be missing the .php at the end (membership.php) thanks for bringing this to our attention.