Talk:VistaVision

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the VistaVision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Super VistaVision

June 28th, 2006

There is incomplete information in your "VistaVision" Section. There was also a 70mm Film format of Super VistaVision which was used. I know that "The Ten Commandments" was shot on 70mm Super VistaVision.

-- Sincerely,

Mr. Terry Mester Welland, Ontario CANADA tlmester@niagara.com

Terry, see this link, which refers to "Super VistaVision". Essentially, it just refers to a a VistaVision negative blown up to 70 mm for release print, and was only used for the 1989 re-release of "The Ten Commandments". Girolamo Savonarola 22:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, please

There has been some major changes to this article, and some of the information is incorrect. Clearly they did not read the existing article closely enough as they've repeated information already there.

I'm cutting it out of the article and pasting it here, and asking that this person please cite their sources if they want to put it back, but I would ask that they please respond here first.

Anon says:

There were two print formats, depending upon the target market: 1) maximum height prints, for which projection aspect ratios of 1.33:1/1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 and 2:1 apply; this print format is most often seen in international 35mm prints, TV 35mm prints, 16mm rental prints, and TV 16mm prints, and 2) maximum width prints, for which projection aspect ratios of 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 and 2:1 apply, all of these being 35mm; this print format is most often seen in domestic exhibitor prints. The early Paramount "white papers" ... not to be confused with "White Christmas" ;-) ... talked-up VistaVision as capable of providing a single, compatible 1.33/1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1 and 2:1 release print. However, a careful examination of the negative, and of the release prints, would disclose that this objective was impossible to achieve, hence the existence of the two, entirely separate release print formats.

Not really correct. There were two, maybe three 8-perf machines in the US being used by exhibitors. 99 and 44/100% of the other prints were 4-perf. The point wasn't to make a large format print system. It was to make finer-grained 4-perf prints!

The Fox/Stein converted camera was called "Lazy 8" because: 1) the camera was rotated clockwise 90 degrees, hence, "lazy", and 2) the "mouse ears" raw stock magazines, when viewed from the camera operator's position appeared to be an "8", not like a pair of "mouse ears".

I'd like to know the source for this. Everywhere else I have read states it is because of the eight perforations on the film "lying down."

Perspecta was rarely used by Paramount. Perspecta was a develpment of Fine Labs, an associate of Loew's Incorporated, the corporate owner of M-G-M, which used Perspecta on its "flat wide screen" and its CinemaScope productions alike.

Again, what's the source for this? I've run about a dozen VistaVision films in 35mm, and every one of them has had Perspecta encoding on the track. The stereo effect is seldom utilized within the film, but the Perspecta tones are always there.

Please cite your sources when posting new information. That way, this article can be more encyclopedic! Thanks in advance. -The Photoplayer 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does lazy eight redirect here? Abyaly 14:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 35mm film is exposed horizontally (as with a still camera), hence "lazy," 8 perforations/frame. This is in the text, dunno if it was in December 2007 though. The outcome is a wonderful/awesome, very sharp looking motion picture but it gobbles film (too costly) and projection isn't as easy, either, which is why the format faded away but for fx projects, though VV's not even shot for those anymore either. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spherical lens

What, exactly, is a "spherical lens"? (I know what an aspheric lens is.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For all intents and purposes, a "normal" lens. The Photoplayer 13:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Lens_(optics)#Construction_of_simple_lenses, my understanding is that it's a simple lens with both sides convex, each a "slice" of a sphere. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a lens that does not distort the image as an anamorphic lens would do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.68.9 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special effects usage

"It was also used for the film The Dark Knight when truck filps over."

When truck filps over? What does that mean? I am not a native english speaker, but this doesn't sound right to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.67.24 (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear English, meaning "when the truck rolls over," as in a crash. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comment because I felt (aside from the fact that it was unsourced) it was redundant to the previous sentence talking about how the process is used in special effects. It wasn't a "for example" and it doesn't tell you in context how VistaVision is used. If someone wants to expand upon it, they can reinstate it, but otherwise, it just serves as an excuse to link to the Dark Knight page. The Photoplayer 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about taking it out. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also almost certainly wrong - as I recall, the sequence was shot in IMAX. There may be confusion from an on-set pic, since both formats run horizontally. I think they only used Vistavision in TDK for background plates, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not startled, such are the pitfalls of leaving out a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—

For anyone looking to add documentation to this section much of it is in "The Making of Star Wars" by J. W. Rinzler. I'd do it, but I just don't have time right now. Also in this book is an interview with John Dykstra, who claims the name "Dykstraflex" was an in-house joke at ILM, and not a name to be taken seriously, that he never invented anything that could be considered a whole camera system worthy of its own name, that what they did at ILM was simply fitting motion controls to VistaVision.

2602:306:39BC:1DB9:219D:D88E:66BB:CDD2 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

35-mm SLR for animation footage filming

Did anybody heard about SlideMagic System for Nikon F3 still picture camera? It seems, it was designed for animation footage filming by 35-mm SLR, especially with 250 frames cassette. Runner1616 (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it used a pin register system, that was operated manually by a lever, if I recall correctly. The camera transport was modified slightly, I think to improve accuracy, and to allow rewinding for multiple exposures. It also had a reticle grid mounted in the viewfinder. There are some photos of a Slide Magic body and accessories, and an explanation of its usage, at this link. [[1]] M Stone (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the relation to VistaVision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.96.250 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related in a general way – pin registration, 8 perforations/frame, large frame size, horizontal movement of film through gate as opposed to vertical, etc. M Stone (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errors!

Panavision is a company, not a process. Processes that were developed by Panavision and/or carry the company's name in them are not anamorphic and as expensive as 70 mm. Furthermore it is highly doubtful, that VistaVision would have been used widespread in Italy during the 1960s. Technicolor Italia developed Techniscope which, first of all, needs only a fourth of the film stock required by VistaVision, and second, was not subjected to the charge of royalties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.96.250 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panavision is indeed a company. However in its early years, it also pursued a system which used anamorphic principles. To quote from the Panavision page: "...Since 1954, Panavision had been working on a new widescreen process commissioned by MGM.[16] The resulting system used a 65 mm film camera in conjunction with the APO Panatar lens, which was an integrated anamorphic lens (as opposed to a standard prime lens with an anamorphoser mounted on it)..."M Stone (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just annoying to read articles written by lazybones that refer to Panavision as a process. Ultra Panavision also known as MGM Camera 65 is an anamorphic process, whereas Super Panavision is a spherical process. So whenever you read just Panavision it's not specified, what process actually is meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.89.14 (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned IP user, I have attempted to improve the page by linking at that point through to the Ultra Panavision page, instead of the Panavision company. However, rather than complaining about other editors' 'laziness' on the Talk Page, perhaps you should actually engage with the editing process itself, and make improvements to this article? M Stone (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First VistaVision film camera-use discrepancy?

Apparent discrepancy noted: White Christmas (1954) is said to be the first film released in VistaVision, but, according to the September 2015 Profiles in History auction details for the first VistaVision camera ever built, VV#1, acquired by Debbie Reynolds, it (VV#1) was first used to film The Ten Commandments, released in 1956. Either the auction people made a mistake in their research or it is possible that White Christmas was shot using VV#2 or something and VV#1 was being kept in reserve by Cecil B. DeMille for his massive project, which was in preproduction way back in 1954 and earlier when White Christmas came out. The auction house seems firm that VV#1 was first used on The Ten Commandments. I don't think we know the camera number used on White Christmas. I just wanted to note this. I am not a regular editor here. I added a "Legacy" section to the article mentioning the auction, which also offered the VV High Speed #1 effects camera. 5Q5 (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

error!!!

inception used VistaVision only for aerial shots. key sequences where shot with Panavision Super 70. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.68.9 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo

The article says "SOM Berthiot made a special zoom just for VistaVision applications, but it saw very little use." It would be nice to know whether it was used in Vertigo for the dolly zoom effect as that would be a noteworthy use. The zoom lens that was actually used shows considerable barrel distortion at the short end. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the image

The image illustrating the article has inconsistent height characteristics.
The caption reads: "A VistaVision 35 mm horizontal camera film frame (The dotted area shows the area actually used.)"
OK. But the vertical height of the dotted area (and of corresponding vertical arrow) is around 23 mm high, NOT 18.3 mm as indicated on the right hand side legend.
Either the dotted grey area should be flattened to 18.3mm high, or the number of mm high in the legend should be increased to 23.

As it is today, the area used of the film frame has a 1.57 Aspect Ratio (36mm/23mm);
the numbers in the legend would yield to a 1.97 AR (36mm/18.3mm).

(The image filename is VistaVision_8_perf_35_mm_film.png)
86.196.221.175 (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Points: The original VIstaVision logo included "Motion Picture High Fidelity". I've also wondered whether there was a VistaVision camera that ran two strips of film to create "real" Technicolor separations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9980:4157:1104:5717:426C:AC43 (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]