VistaVision and Technirama were the two finest film formats ever devised... I've run a lot of VistaVision effects plates and the sharpness is mind blowing.
Sir, AMEN! I have no fashionable and ideological objection to digital origination but I am almost on my knees as I issue the plea that the achievements of 35mm technology be duly recognised. This video gets my vote.
@@markallen2536 I think VistaVision using modern film stock could probably achieve similar resolution as 15/70 film projection with a similar screen size.
Vertigo was restored to 70mm. No one projects VistaVision in cinemas. Even Paramount only did it for two films. White Christmas, and Strategic Air Command. And only in one east coast theater, and one west coast theater.
@@markallen2536 They used standard 35mm theatres with a vistavision transfer in the vast majority of cinema theatres. But I think there was more than two theatres for the whole of North America. Standard 35mm can handle 12k resolution.
An excellent and very full presentation of Vistavision. VV is a relatively uncelebrated format but the richness of the colour and the fresh-air open quality of the image has never, in my perception, been bettered. Cinemas equipped with VV projectors were rare. I live in the UK where I think only two such installations existed, both in London. Alas, I never got to see a film projected this way but I have seen a 70mm blow up of _Vertigo_ and that was breathtaking. Technirama, a combination of Vistavision and Cinemascope, which could be shown on a much wider screen, had the same qualities. Well done. I will look at your other videos. As for IMAX, point taken, but it's just too big for a 1940's and 50's film lover.
It would be fun to see an original VistaVision horizontal release print, unfortunately Technicolor never adapted a dye transfer (IB printing) technology for 35mm 8-perf horizontal film format. I've seen (and own) a few clips, and [unfortunately] they are horribly faded Eastman color prints.
Running 35 mm film horizontally was not a new idea. Many years before there was a system by alberini, not sure if I’ve got the spelling right, which actually had a wider image than Vistavision, I think it may have been ten perf. It didn’t catch on, as with most formats which have been thought of, but it was used at least experimentally. There’s a frame of it shown on the BKSTS Film Formats wallchart.
Which came from the vertical frame of 35mm film cameras. The APS film format and their cameras were aimed at amateur photographers, were not popular, and were discontinued after only five years. They weren't mimicking a format no one used. The reason Canon chose crop frame for the first DSLR was because they initially needed to keep the expensive sensors small and so choose to match the known field of view familiar to videographers.
@@PullMyFocus Technically, that's not accurate. APS film is narrower (24mm), still goes through the camera sideways, and is cropped for the mask selected. APS-C and APS- H were just an approximation of the APS film so the lenses for that system could still be easily used.
I suspect with special effects it has less to do with information loss due to transferring and had more to do with the fact they could make the images larger without actually zooming in. It meant greater detail with the effects of the models.
They didn't need to zoom in as they just filled the frame with the object they were shooting and through the composite "pasted it" where it was needed in the frame. But yes, I'm sure it helped to have a higher res, high grain image. But the big issue was generation loss to the image due to the composite.
@@PullMyFocus The level of information loss from a few transfers would not justify the use of Vistavision. I suspect it has more to do with the ability to increase the size of the image without causing blurring. So it means the could blow up the size of object and impose it into a standard 35mm frame. I wonder what whey could achieve with a 15/70 set up.
Was Vista Vision the forerunner of IMAX? IMAX Cameras are huge, and load. Vista Vision Cameras can be build smaller. Vista Vision is the best compromise between common 35 mm and 70 mm IMAX. A native projection of Vista footage vision must look awesome. It would be interesting to watch the differences in split screen of Vista Vision and common 35 mm projection.
I’m working on one for somebody special. And it’s been a blast. But I will note that the camera has its problems. If you want great film you gotta make some sacrifices.
Ugh. You don't "record" on film, you "expose" film. It is a light reactive medium. I really enjoyed this video and the information provided.....but those of us who grew up with film just cringe whenever someone says "recorded on film." I personally have a problem with "I filmed it on my phone." No, they actually recorded it on their phone. If they used and actual video camera, they did not "get it on film," they likely got it on memory card or an external solid disc drive. "I memory carded it." Sounds funny, but it's 100% accurate.
I grew up with film as well and I don’t cringe when either term is used as I understand what a person is referring to. And we "shot" film. No one would say we exposed it. A CMOS sensor is also sensitive to light by the way. I believe it’s important to know and respect the tools of the past but not to revere it to the point we place them on some sacred historical alter.
@PullMyFocus No exactly. I would like to know how was the projector designed specially for film running *horizontally.* I'm writting from the far city of Santiago, Chile. 😘
Same as a standard film camera. Main difference is the mechanism to move the film through the film gate was spun 90 degrees so it moved horizontal vs vertically.
Motion picture film is a tangible image. You can hold it in your hand and see the image. Digital storage is not tangible. One can rescan and digitize yesterday's films using future digitizing formats not yet invented. Try that with an older digital video format, you can't do much with it going forward and before everyone gets into a hissy fit. Digital is an excellent medium to store and transmit digital media but analog formats in the creation of a production is the way to go.
But you can. NTSC video from TV production can be redigitized and upsized into HD formats. Tangible is just different with its own pro and cons. It's not necessarily better.
The statement that has been made about the image quality on 4 perf 35mm film being better when it is exposed with an image from 8 perf 35mm film is a false notion. The image detail in the exposed 4 perf 35mm film is determined by a few factors: 1) the detail in the "source scene" to be projected, 2) the resolving power of the lens. 3) the film stock and its development process. A real word image has detail far exceeding the resolving power of the lens. The lens likely has resolving power equal to or likely slightly greater than the resolving power of the film stock. The best detail you can get on 4 perf 35mm film ( or any film when using a lens with resolving power exceeding the film's resolving power ) would be achieved when you start with a live and incredibly over detailed real world image as the "source scene" and then pass that real world image through a lens and project it onto 4 perf 35mm film. If you start with an image on 8 perf 35mm film as the "source scene" ( of detail inferior to a live real world image ) you can not possibly pass that image through a lens and project it onto film to yield an image on the film, with more detail than if you started with a live real world image as the "source scene".
Yes and no. Yes, you can't add more resolution onto 4 perf 35mm, but that's not what they were doing. They shot special effects shots on 8 perf 35mm to minimize the generational loss of quality when they made the composites. Shooting on a higher resolution source material for all those shots (tie fighter flying by, shot hitting it, explosion, debris, etc.) meant they would keep a high-resolution image after they were composited together. Once done, those shots were made into an internegative for making final prints. This was the 35mm version of downsampling to maintain the image quality of the special effect composite shots.
At 6:10 you said, "People are still shooting film today, which is crazy to me". Why is that crazy to you, can you elaborate? People are still using oil and watercolor to paint instead of using Krita, Rebelle or A.I to create art in a computer. Some are using miniature sets in 2023, instead of CGI. You think that's insane?
No I don't. I paint in water color and ink using pen and india ink. I've also made and shot miniatures (we have an episode about it). All of those disciplines can be more work but it doesn't compare to how much more work, man power, and cost it requires too shoot motion picture film vs shooting digitally. Have you shot film?
@@PullMyFocus I have worked with film and no amount of digital at this stage especially at the projection side can get anywhere near film. Is it more work?absolutely. But theatre should be the best possible standard it can be. Vistavision at a minimum probably produces 12k resolution.
@@PullMyFocus I agree. Old ways, whether VV or watercolour do not have to compete. I would simply plea for a celebration of the old and the new. I certainly enjoy both.
Kodak for one is expanding their production of photographic film both for commercial film making and amateur still photographers such as myself. The problem is finding a good pro lab in many cities.
Mr Please do some research before giving out statements... You should know that a film negative was way above 4K... Film resolution is not measured in pixels... but the equivalent resolution for film is something like !6K...
Thanks for the little history lesson. I’m fascinated by old school film innovation.
VistaVision and Technirama were the two finest film formats ever devised... I've run a lot of VistaVision effects plates and the sharpness is mind blowing.
Sir, AMEN! I have no fashionable and ideological objection to digital origination but I am almost on my knees as I issue the plea that the achievements of 35mm technology be duly recognised. This video gets my vote.
@@theophilus749 VistaVision has 2x the number of pixels of equivelent resolution. Sorry, but filmic still king.
Just to add you can put about 80 million pixels on 35mm film which equates to a simple 12k resolution at 2 to 1 aspect ratio.
Double that for VistaVision, and triple for 70mm.
@@markallen2536
I think VistaVision using modern film stock could probably achieve similar resolution as 15/70 film projection with a similar screen size.
Currently on a job using Vistavison cameras. They are hilarious when trying to use them with modern film making tools.
PTAs new film? Hope it’s good mate.
@@richardarnold9411 Depends on which VV cameras you are using.
I wish I could see The Searchers or Vertigo on the original Vistavision projectors.
Find me a print! I have a projector...
Best bet would be a transfer to 70mm.
Vertigo was restored to 70mm. No one projects VistaVision in cinemas. Even Paramount only did it for two films. White Christmas, and Strategic Air Command. And only in one east coast theater, and one west coast theater.
@@markallen2536
They used standard 35mm theatres with a vistavision transfer in the vast majority of cinema theatres. But I think there was more than two theatres for the whole of North America. Standard 35mm can handle 12k resolution.
@@markallen2536 Gosh! Where did you get that from?
Great little video so well explained with interesting narration with very nice clips.
so underrated channel. Keep it up guys.
Thanks, will do!
At 5:25, having watched “Light & Magic” on Disney+ it’s infectious how nerdy people like John Edlund and John Dykstra are about camera technology.
An excellent and very full presentation of Vistavision. VV is a relatively uncelebrated format but the richness of the colour and the fresh-air open quality of the image has never, in my perception, been bettered. Cinemas equipped with VV projectors were rare. I live in the UK where I think only two such installations existed, both in London. Alas, I never got to see a film projected this way but I have seen a 70mm blow up of _Vertigo_ and that was breathtaking. Technirama, a combination of Vistavision and Cinemascope, which could be shown on a much wider screen, had the same qualities. Well done. I will look at your other videos. As for IMAX, point taken, but it's just too big for a 1940's and 50's film lover.
It would be fun to see an original VistaVision horizontal release print, unfortunately Technicolor never adapted a dye transfer (IB printing) technology for 35mm 8-perf horizontal film format. I've seen (and own) a few clips, and [unfortunately] they are horribly faded Eastman color prints.
Great source material and details.
Great video, thanks, more like this please.
You got it!
good video very interesting, thanks!!
Running 35 mm film horizontally was not a new idea. Many years before there was a system by alberini, not sure if I’ve got the spelling right, which actually had a wider image than Vistavision, I think it may have been ten perf. It didn’t catch on, as with most formats which have been thought of, but it was used at least experimentally. There’s a frame of it shown on the BKSTS Film Formats wallchart.
Cinerama was working on a 12 perf horizontal camera to replace the three strip cameras. I have pictures here of the camera movement.
The original Crop frame was actually from the APS film format.
Which came from the vertical frame of 35mm film cameras. The APS film format and their cameras were aimed at amateur photographers, were not popular, and were discontinued after only five years. They weren't mimicking a format no one used. The reason Canon chose crop frame for the first DSLR was because they initially needed to keep the expensive sensors small and so choose to match the known field of view familiar to videographers.
@@PullMyFocus Technically, that's not accurate. APS film is narrower (24mm), still goes through the camera sideways, and is cropped for the mask selected. APS-C and APS- H were just an approximation of the APS film so the lenses for that system could still be easily used.
I suspect with special effects it has less to do with information loss due to transferring and had more to do with the fact they could make the images larger without actually zooming in. It meant greater detail with the effects of the models.
They didn't need to zoom in as they just filled the frame with the object they were shooting and through the composite "pasted it" where it was needed in the frame. But yes, I'm sure it helped to have a higher res, high grain image. But the big issue was generation loss to the image due to the composite.
@@PullMyFocus
The level of information loss from a few transfers would not justify the use of Vistavision. I suspect it has more to do with the ability to increase the size of the image without causing blurring. So it means the could blow up the size of object and impose it into a standard 35mm frame. I wonder what whey could achieve with a 15/70 set up.
I feel like I was just attacked by a small army of soft pillows.
Was Vista Vision the forerunner of IMAX? IMAX Cameras are huge, and load. Vista Vision Cameras can be build smaller. Vista Vision is the best compromise between common 35 mm and 70 mm IMAX. A native projection of Vista footage vision must look awesome. It would be interesting to watch the differences in split screen of Vista Vision and common 35 mm projection.
I’m working on one for somebody special. And it’s been a blast. But I will note that the camera has its problems. If you want great film you gotta make some sacrifices.
Ugh. You don't "record" on film, you "expose" film. It is a light reactive medium. I really enjoyed this video and the information provided.....but those of us who grew up with film just cringe whenever someone says "recorded on film." I personally have a problem with "I filmed it on my phone." No, they actually recorded it on their phone. If they used and actual video camera, they did not "get it on film," they likely got it on memory card or an external solid disc drive. "I memory carded it." Sounds funny, but it's 100% accurate.
I grew up with film as well and I don’t cringe when either term is used as I understand what a person is referring to. And we "shot" film. No one would say we exposed it.
A CMOS sensor is also sensitive to light by the way. I believe it’s important to know and respect the tools of the past but not to revere it to the point we place them on some sacred historical alter.
But how is a VV projector?
What do you mean? What is the quality of the image?
@PullMyFocus
No exactly. I would like to know how was the projector designed specially for film running *horizontally.*
I'm writting from the far city of Santiago, Chile. 😘
Same as a standard film camera. Main difference is the mechanism to move the film through the film gate was spun 90 degrees so it moved horizontal vs vertically.
Nice video but not 4 times the area. 2 times.
4 times, fits in 2x2.
Motion picture film is a tangible image. You can hold it in your hand and see the image. Digital storage is not tangible. One can rescan and digitize yesterday's films using future digitizing formats not yet invented. Try that with an older digital video format, you can't do much with it going forward and before everyone gets into a hissy fit. Digital is an excellent medium to store and transmit digital media but analog formats in the creation of a production is the way to go.
But you can. NTSC video from TV production can be redigitized and upsized into HD formats. Tangible is just different with its own pro and cons. It's not necessarily better.
@@PullMyFocus With analog NTSC, you can only recover what was originally there. You can't add information that was never recorded.
@@kennixox262 Not adding information but upsampling. We've done a video on upsampling using Topas Video. Their algorithms are amazing.
hi you fogot to mention Cinerama
They were a few different wide formats, wasn't planning to mention them all.
Cinerama is insane and probably was 90k resolution.
The statement that has been made about the image quality on 4 perf 35mm film being better when it is exposed with an image from 8 perf 35mm film is a false notion.
The image detail in the exposed 4 perf 35mm film is determined by a few factors: 1) the detail in the "source scene" to be projected, 2) the resolving power of the lens. 3) the film stock and its development process.
A real word image has detail far exceeding the resolving power of the lens. The lens likely has resolving power equal to or likely slightly greater than the resolving power of the film stock.
The best detail you can get on 4 perf 35mm film ( or any film when using a lens with resolving power exceeding the film's resolving power ) would be achieved when you start with a live and incredibly over detailed real world image as the "source scene" and then pass that real world image through a lens and project it onto 4 perf 35mm film.
If you start with an image on 8 perf 35mm film as the "source scene" ( of detail inferior to a live real world image ) you can not possibly pass that image through a lens and project it onto film to yield an image on the film, with more detail than if you started with a live real world image as the "source scene".
Yes and no. Yes, you can't add more resolution onto 4 perf 35mm, but that's not what they were doing.
They shot special effects shots on 8 perf 35mm to minimize the generational loss of quality when they made the composites. Shooting on a higher resolution source material for all those shots (tie fighter flying by, shot hitting it, explosion, debris, etc.) meant they would keep a high-resolution image after they were composited together. Once done, those shots were made into an internegative for making final prints.
This was the 35mm version of downsampling to maintain the image quality of the special effect composite shots.
not every crop sensor is the same size
That don’t need to be. They’re all close enough because they're based on the vertical 35mm film format area.
@@PullMyFocus mft is also a crop sensor. 1"' sensor is also a crop sensor, so are sensors in a phone
No an mft is smaller hence its name micro four thirds. Crop sensor refers to APS-C sensors.
@@PullMyFocus no. crop sensor is sensor smaller than full frame. aps-c sensor is a aps-c sensor
At 6:10 you said, "People are still shooting film today, which is crazy to me". Why is that crazy to you, can you elaborate? People are still using oil and watercolor to paint instead of using Krita, Rebelle or A.I to create art in a computer. Some are using miniature sets in 2023, instead of CGI. You think that's insane?
No I don't. I paint in water color and ink using pen and india ink. I've also made and shot miniatures (we have an episode about it). All of those disciplines can be more work but it doesn't compare to how much more work, man power, and cost it requires too shoot motion picture film vs shooting digitally. Have you shot film?
@@PullMyFocus
I have worked with film and no amount of digital at this stage especially at the projection side can get anywhere near film. Is it more work?absolutely.
But theatre should be the best possible standard it can be. Vistavision at a minimum probably produces 12k resolution.
@@PullMyFocus I agree. Old ways, whether VV or watercolour do not have to compete. I would simply plea for a celebration of the old and the new. I certainly enjoy both.
Kodak for one is expanding their production of photographic film both for commercial film making and amateur still photographers such as myself. The problem is finding a good pro lab in many cities.
Mr Please do some research before giving out statements... You should know that a film negative was way above 4K... Film resolution is not measured in pixels... but the equivalent resolution for film is something like !6K...
4 perf 35mm is considered approximately close to being 4k. You're thinking 8 perf 35mm which was estimated to be close to 6k.
You rock and are based.