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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@markallen2536 I think VistaVision using modern film stock could probably achieve similar resolution as 15/70 film projection with a similar screen size.
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.
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.
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.
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.
