| |
The MGM PANAVISION Enlarged-film System | Read more at in70mm.com The 70mm Newsletter
| Written by: Douglas
Shearer Date August 25, 1955 | Date:
01.01.2012 |
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER PICTURES
CULVER-CITY
CALIFORNIA
INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION
To Mr. Arthur Loew cc: Mr. E. J. Mannix
Subject MGM PANAVISION LARGE-FILM SYSTEM
From Douglas Shearer Date August 25, 1955
The following series of notes is intended to cover the majority of the
points of discussion which have come up from time to time with respect
to the MGM PANAVISION enlarged-film system.
- 1 -
As a first requirement, our system is designed to produce a 35mm
CinemaScope version which will eliminate the present CinemaScope
problems of focus and definition, unevenness of squeeze from the center
to sides of picture, distortion of the shape of faces in closeups, the
bending of architectural and horizon lines, and to reduce the amount of
grain which is visible when pictures shot on 35mm negative are projected
on large screens. At the same time, the system was designed with
sufficient negative area to produce highest-quality release prints of a
shape and size equal or greater than any of the other known or proposed
large-film "road-show" systems. If desired, it also provides for super
"road-show" prints with an aspect ratio as high as three to one for
exceptional situations which can accommodate very large screens having a
height to the limit of acceptability, under which condition additional
spectacle is achieved by added width. The shape of the picture at a
three to one ratio does not give the impression of being over-elongated
on extremely large screens.
The negative areas of our system which are utilized to produce the
various types of release prints will be listed in a separate table
below.
- 2 -
To make our system universally adaptable as stated above and to utilize
a negative film of greatest economy in width and linear speed through
the camera consistent with accomplishing this purpose, a 65mm negative
has been chosen having standard perforations with the incorporation of a
mild anamorphic squeeze in the taking lens system. The amount of this
squeeze is half the amount produced by our present 35mm CinemaScope
lenses, namely the lateral dimensions of the set are squeezed side-ways
25% when they are imaged on the negative. The usual terminology used in
this respect would be a squeeze of 1.33 to 1. (The standard CinemaScope
lens squeezes the objects laterally 50% and is spoken of as a 2 to 1
squeeze.)
The mild 25% squeeze in our system is the means of avoiding optical
problems with respect to definition and other distortions which are
inherent when the 50% squeeze of standard CinemaScope is incorporated in
the camera lenses. At the same time, our 25% anamorphosis regains some
of the depth of focus lost in large-film systems where straight
spherical lenses are utilized. Both the above features minimize the
amount of set light necessary for acceptable depth of focus when
large-film negative is used.
- 3 -
The standard frame speed of 24 per second is adopted since any other
frame rate would not permit a system to be universally adaptable for the
various release versions. Higher than standard frame speeds increase the
amount of set lighting in proportion to the increase in speed. More
important however, the 24-frame speed eliminates the necessity for
shooting a dual version for the regular release of pictures with the
attendant exorbitant expense.
- 4 -
The flicker or jitter present on large, bright exhibition screens during
certain types of scenes in our standard CinemaScope exhibition can be
eliminated by the use of three-bladed shutters on the projectors instead
of by speeding up the frame-rate of the whole system.
A recent survey we have conducted throughout the principal circuits of
the United States, including our own, indicates that in 90% of all
theaters, sufficient power is available in the booths to produce
adequate screen illumination when using a three-bladed shutter. It is
assumed that adequate modern projection lamp equipment will be supplied
for any situation where a "road-show" type exhibition on large positive
film is warranted.
- 5 -
It should be born in mind that any system utilizing larger than standard
negative requires the making of internegative facilities, or Technicolor
facilities, or the development of a continuous-type optical printer to
produce prints other than the size and shape of the original negative.
This applies equally to our system, Todd AO, VistaVision, or the
Fox
large-film system.
| More in 70mm reading:
The Importance
of Panavision
Ultra
Panavision 70 - almost like a real story
MGM Camera
65 & Ultra Panavision 70
Panavision and the Resurrecting
of Dinosaur Technology
Internet link:
|
The manner of making release prints from our 65mm negative system are as
follows:
| |
PRINT TYPE REQUIRED |
PRINTING METHOD |
|
|
A. MGM PANAVISION, 3:1 ratio,
65 or 70 mm Super Roadshow |
Contact 65 or 70mm prints |
B. MGM PANAVISION, 2.5:1 ratio,
65 or 70 mm Roadshow |
Contact 65 or 70 mm prints |
C. MGM CINEMASCOPE, 2.5:1 regular
release magnetic track, and
2.3:1 optical track |
35mm optical reduction internegative
and contact prints, or Technicolor reduction matrix and IB Prints |
D. TODD AO, 2.3:1 ratio,
65 or 70mm Roadshow |
65 or 70mm optical step prints (24 frame rate only) |
E. TODD AO, 2.5:1 ratio,
35 mm CinemaScope extraction |
Has not been demonstrated and no
information as to availability of a printing
lens for this purpose. |
F. FOX, 2.5:1 ratio,
55mm Roadshow |
Optical step prints (this is
similar to method Fox must use.) |
G. VISTAVISION, 1.85:1 ratio,
Widescreen 35mm regular re-release |
Optical reduction internegative and
contact prints or Technicolor re-duction matrix and IB prints.
(This
is similar to methods available to
Paramount.) |
H. VISTAVISION, 2:1 ratio,
Lazy 8-hole 35mm Roadshow |
Optical 8-hole step prints |
I. VISTAVISION (Proposed), 2:1
ratio, Full-frame 1.7 squeeze 35mm |
Optical internegative and contact
prints or Technicolor IB prints
(similar to methods Paramount must
use). |
J. CINERAMA, 2.7:1 ratio,
Three-print projection
(at 24 frames only) |
Optical step prints |
|
|
| |
| |
There are two very important points in the above. First, we do not need
to use the Fox, Todd AO or VistaVision taking system in order to release
product through any theaters which they equip for their particular
systems since we can make an equally good or better print from our
negative onto their positive method if we wish to book into their
road-show theaters. Second, the reverse of this situation is not true
since the Todd AO, VistaVision, and Fox negative sizes and shapes and
lens designs do not make prints universally as good for all the print
systems.
- 6 -
In order to make standard CinemaScope release product from spherical or
unsqueezed original negative (such as Todd AO) it is necessary to
introduce a 2 to 1 squeeze in a printer in the form of an internegative
or a Technicolor matrix from which is then made standard CinemaScope
contact or IB prints.
There is at present only one make of printing lens which has shown
itself capable of doing this with adequate definition. This is a Panatar
lens.
Since Todd AO claims to have a proprietary system, I seriously question
whether Panavision will supply lenses for the purpose of producing
CinemaScope versions from Todd AO negative. As a consequence, until Todd
AO demonstrates that they have developed a high-quality printing lens
for this purpose without infringing the Panavision patents, we could not
afford to start a production with Todd AO equipment without a
simultaneous CinemaScope version, even though the Todd AO film was shot
at 24 frames.
- 7 -
With respect to the Fox taking system wherein they introduce a 2 to 1
anamorphotic squeeze in the taking camera lenses, it appears from the
test film shown that many of the deficiencies of this high degree of
squeeze in the form of focus problems and astigmatism have not been
eliminated. The results so far achieved by our more moderate squeeze
have eliminated these objections.
The Fox camera will be running film at 180 feet per minute. Our cameras
will run film at 112˝ feet per minute. Due to the greater forces
developed in running the Fox film at this high rate of speed, their
cameras will, in all probability, need to be more bulky and heavy with
larger magazines than our cameras and would undoubtedly be more subject
to breakdown.
- 8 -
The Bausch and Lomb lenses used in the Fox system are more bulky and
heavier than the MGM PANAVISION lenses by several fold. The size and
weight of production camera equipment should be kept to a minimum which
is equally true with respect to the size of the magazines and the amount
of film which must be carried on the location shooting.
The Fox taking system on 55mm negative with each frame eight sprocket
holes high increases the negative area of the frame to four times the
frame area of the standard CinemaScope 35mm negative. This is an
exorbitantly large increase in negative area beyond that which is
required to produce maximum definition and reduction of grain. Apart
from 37% more negative film as compared to our 65mm, the Fox film runs
at double the speed of 35mm film as compared to 25% more speed for our
65mm film.
It will thus be seen that the Fox system increases both the film cost
and the camera problems far beyond that which is necessary for best
results.
The quotation below is an excerpt from a paper presented to the Society
of Motion Picture and Television Engineers at Chicago April 21, 1955 by
G. C. Higgins, R. L. Lamberts, and R. A. Purdy of the Physics Division
of the Research Laboratory of the Eastman Kodak Company:
| |
"The increased magnification required to fill the larger screens now
used in theaters has resulted in a noticeable decrease in definition.
Since the positive materials have significantly lower graininess, higher
resolution, and better sharpness than negative materials, one way to
improve definition is to increase the size of the negative and make the
prints by a reduction printing process. The question then arises as to
what is the optimum size of negative relative to the positive, and at
what stage of the process should the reduction take place.
"To investigate the first part of this question we prepared a series of
negatives of a scene on Eastman Color Negative Film, Type 5248. The
negatives had relative sizes of 1, 1.5, 2, and 3. The larger negatives
were reduction printed on Eastman Color Positive, Type 5382, with a
standard Acme printer. The reductions were such that all prints were of
the same size as the contact print from the smallest negative. These
prints were then judged for both definition and graininess. The print
made at a reduction of 1.5:1 was judged by every observer to have better
definition than the contact print. The prints made at reductions of 2:1
and 3:1 were not judged to be any better from the standpoint of
definition than the print made at a reduction of 1.5:1. From the
standpoint of definition, then, the optimum relative size of negative to
positive is 1.5:1. When the same prints were judged for graininess,
every observer chose the print made at a reduction of 2:1 over the print
made at a reduction of 1.5:1. However, only 68 percent of the observers
chose the print made at a reduction of 3:1 over the print made at a
reduction of 2:1."
| |
I believe the above study can be taken as authoritative, and our own
observations have already indicated that any increase in negative area
much above 2 to 1 with respect to the standard 35mm area is wasteful and
inconvenient unless special shapes of negative are required for other
reasons than definition and grain reduction.
| |
The comparison table below shows the relative negative area which is
utilized by the various systems in making various types of prints:
| |
SYSTEM WIDTH |
NEGATIVE AREA |
TYPE OF PRINT |
NUMBER OF TIMES LARGER NEGATIVE AREA THAN
35mm |
FOX |
55 mm |
55 mm Roadshow, 2.5:1 |
4 |
FOX |
55 mm |
35 mm CinemaScope, 2.5:1 |
4 |
MGM |
65 mm |
65mm Super Roadshow, 3:1 |
2.73 |
MGM |
65 mm |
65mm Roadshow, 2.5:1
|
2.24 |
MGM |
65 mm |
35mm CinemaScope 2.5:1 |
2.24 |
TODD AO |
65 mm |
65mm Roadshow, 2.3:1 |
2.73 |
TODD AO |
65 mm |
35mm CinemaScope, 2.5:1 |
2.48 |
VISTAVISION |
35 mm, 8 hole |
35mm 8-hole Roadshow, 2:1 |
1.64 |
VISTAVISION |
35 mm, 8 hole |
35mm Widescreen, regular release,1.85:1 |
1.78 |
VISTAVISION |
35 mm, 8 hole |
CinemaScope extraction |
0.87 |
| |
| |
From the above you will note confirmation that the Fox negative is
almost double the size that the Eastman Research group considers
necessary, whereas the VistaVision negative falls below their
requirements and in the event that Paramount were required to make a
CinemaScope print from their negative they actually utilize less
negative than if a straight 35mm camera were used.
It will also be seen that MGM PANAVISION and Todd AO both have a safe
margin of negative area above the optimum requirements in the Eastman
paper.
- 9 -
If at any time for special purposes such as back-ground plates or for
any other reason it were desired not to use our system with the mild
anamorphosis in the taking lens, there would be no requirement for any
change in equipment other than removing the anamorphotic element from
the camera lenses, in which case a picture similar to the Todd AO
picture at a ratio of 2.3 to 1 shape would be obtained with the high
definition demonstrated by the use of the Panatar lenses.
- 10 -
The standard Mitchell pin-registering cameras we are using have a
steadier and more reliable movement than the link-type cameras being
used by Todd AO although ours are somewhat more noisy. The research
already done on blimping our cameras indicates that the additional noise
of our cameras can be successfully overcome.
- 11 -
MGM PANAVISION can be run on deep curved screens if it is so desired
with no more detrimental effect than any of the other systems.
DOUGLAS SHEARER
DGS:vv
| |
| |
Go: back - top - back issues - news index Updated
28-07-24 | |
|