Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

70mm scope vs 35mm scope

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 70mm scope vs 35mm scope

    (Not sure where to place this topic as the general yak is for non film items, so I chose here....)

    Just thinking about the lenses used for each format.

    Does 70mm need any special "squeeze" lenses to either film or project the image because it is supposed to be a cinemascope format in the first place ? Whereas 35mm is an academy ratio format requiring a "squeeze" lens in order to display cinemascope.

    Your comments please ?

  • #2
    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Panavision_70

    Comment


    • #3
      To give a simple explanation, 70mm flat is 2:20 projection image, close to 35mm scope, which is 2:40. So there is no special lens for 70mm. A few films, such as Ben Hur and recently Hateful Eight used a quarter squeeze to give a 2:76 projected image but those are special presentations. In addition, 35mm needs full frame for Scope not just the academy area. Academy is 1:33.

      Here is a page that shows the special lens for 70mm filming:

      https://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup2.htm

      Here's a pic of the lens:
      Attached Files
      Last edited by Larry Arpin; April 06, 2024, 11:27 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you, gentlemen.

        My knowledge of 70mm has just increased in leaps and bounds, and I hope others have benefitted on this forum, thanks to you too.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just a pity that Ben Hur was released on Super 8 (as 1 or 3x400ft) in Cineavision 2.35:1 rather than a full frame 2.66:1 which would have been nearer the 2.76 70mm original. However as they would have been working from 35mm prints I suppose that was inevetable!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Brian Fretwell View Post
            Just a pity that Ben Hur was released on Super 8 (as 1 or 3x400ft) in Cineavision 2.35:1 rather than a full frame 2.66:1 which would have been nearer the 2.76 70mm original. However as they would have been working from 35mm prints I suppose that was inevetable!
            I looked at the UHD and Bluray reviews, and they both state:

            Aspect ratio: 2.76:1
            Original aspect ratio: 2.75:1
            No explanation is given. The Bluray review does indicate that the source material was the original 65mm negative:

            Wow. Just stop there and you basically have the gist of everything that can be said about Ben-Hur's astonishing—really breathtaking, and I mean that literally—debut on Blu-ray courtesy of an AVC encoded 1080p transfer in 2.76:1. Is there any other studio that has so lovingly gone back to its iconic catalog (albeit one that officially "belongs" to M-G-M) as Warner has? Once again the studio has returned to the original negative to source new high-res scans, along with a frame by frame restoration, to present this film in high definition, and to say the results are spectacular is something of an understatement.​..

            True aficionados of Ben-Hur on various home theater media know that the film has routinely, if sometimes slightly, been misframed. We finally are offered the full glory of the M-G-M Camera 65 process (Camera 65 was a 70mm format that afforded 65mm for the image and 5mm for the magnetic audio tracks). Wyler worked hand in hand with cinematographer Robert L. Surtees to craft compositions which exploited the widescreen process and those artful displays of vast vistas are impeccably represented on this Blu-ray.​
            Click image for larger version

Name:	ben hur2.jpg
Views:	88
Size:	223.5 KB
ID:	99056

            Comment

            Working...
            X