Why Panavision?

[glen]

In Panvision, as I understand it, the camera lens streches a wide image into a square shape on the film, then the projector uses a similar lens to strech it back for viewing.

The reason is to supposed ly over come the width of the 35mm film

Why not simply rotate the film 90 degrees?
You could make the hight of the immage the width of 35mm film, and the width could be anythign you want.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Take your average 35mm camera still camera. How would you rotate the film 90 degrees? Your lenses and equipment are all designed around a certain orientation. And if you would somehow manage to rotate it I suspect it would screw the projection equipment all up.

 

[glen]

Take your average 35mm camera still camera. How would you rotate the film 90 degrees? Your lenses and equipment are all designed around a certain orientation. And if you would somehow manage to rotate it I suspect it would screw the projection equipment all up.

That seems to me as infinately less work that the changes in a Panavision camera.

 

[Accord99]

The reason is to supposed ly over come the width of the 35mm film

It's probably more to take advantage of the available space of the 35mm frame, giving better quality as you have greater vertical resolution than otherwise possible.

 

[wrosecrans]

There are cameras that work with large images on "rotated" 35mm film. They naturally use quite a lot more film to shoot something than using normal 35mm full ap does. Using an anamorphic lens is generally a lot cheaper than shooting in a weird format like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_formats

 

[glen]

It's probably more to take advantage of the available space of the 35mm frame, giving better quality as you have greater vertical resolution than otherwise possible.

Which is what rotating the film would do an even better job of doing.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Which is what rotating the film would do an even better job of doing.

How do you modify the projectors to deal with the difference?

 

[glen]

How do you modify the projectors to deal with the difference?

They have to be modified to de-stretch the picture filmed in Panavision, so they have a completely different lens apparatus. Again, it seems to me that rotating the film would increase resolution both horizontally and vertically. Panavision only has better resolution vertically. Rotating a camera and projector 90 degrees seems simpler than coming up with complementary lens stretching and de-stretching lenses.

 

[Fear No Evil]

They have to be modified to de-stretch the picture filmed in Panavision, so they have a completely different lens apparatus. Again, it seems to me that rotating the film would increase resolution both horizontally and vertically. Panavision only has better resolution vertically. Rotating a camera and projector 90 degrees seems simpler than coming up with complementary lens stretching and de-stretching lenses.

Wouldn't using a larger film format if needed be infinitely easier than what you are suggesting? Theaters would have had to adjust the projectors on each movie, assuming its even PHYSICALLY possible, it would be annoying as hell.

I guess I am TOTALLY missing your point here. You'd have to redesign the cameras, the lenses, the projectors, possibly the way the sound is encoded and replayed, etc. Lenses are designed for a specific orientation of the film. Same on the projector side. Would take tons of time and money. Again, larger film formats are (were) available and could be used if necessary.

I'm assuming panavision was used because it was compatible with legacy equipment and relatively cost effective.

 

[ElFenix]

it's actually anamorphic, not panavision.


FNE is most likely right. while it would have been cheaper to just switch entirely to movie a format where the short axis was between the sprockets than go piecemeal, from a cash flow perspective it's often better to make changes piecemeal. so we've still got the long axis between the sprockets for movies. the original panavision system allowed easy interchangeability between standard film and anamorphic, so that probably had a lot to do with it (as the projector could run either system)

imax is 65 mm and passes horizontally. you need a lot more film to make that work, which means more movie film (not cheap), new motors for the cameras, bigger cameras, tons of other accessories which no longer work. with anamorphic you just change the lens. yes, expensive, but not as expensive as changing everything.

 

[finbarqs]

I love anamorphic flares!

 

[JohnnyRebel]

In Panvision, as I understand it, the camera lens streches a wide image into a square shape on the film, then the projector uses a similar lens to strech it back for viewing.

The reason is to supposed ly over come the width of the 35mm film

Why not simply rotate the film 90 degrees?
You could make the hight of the immage the width of 35mm film, and the width could be anythign you want.

Panavision is an evolved system. Each step in it's history was driven by particular needs. Early on, the Panavision feature was played on the same equipment that played non panavision features, newsreels, cartoons, previews, etc. The need for backward compatibility made a system that attached to current equipment attractive, especially when they got it where it could be adjusted to play different aspect ratios without being removed.

As with any evolved system, a new system can be envisioned that would be "better" in some way, but how is the visionary to get industry to adopt his new standard? Often the "better mouse trap" does not succeed because of market forces outside of its technical superiority.

Since with panavision, we're just bending light, I don't really see how an uncompressed (vertically) filmed cell is really that superior to the compressed (horizontally) cell. To use standard equipment, you would also have to have some sort of adaptor lens to rotate the image 90 degrees, else require all of your customers to purchase new projectors that are compatible with your system. You also have to get movie makers to adopt your format. I don't see that the benefits would be enough. Panavision met a need that industry had at the time. What is the unmet need that your system meets? While theoretically better, how are you going to sell it?

JR

 

[finbarqs]

i'm trying to find some anamorphic lenses for my camera!