Doctor Zhivago 70MM Blow-up Picture Quality. Good or Bad?

[c***@hotmail.com]

I've recently received an email from a gentleman from Germany. He saw
a vintage 70mm Blow-up recently at the Oslo 70mm Film Festival at
Oslo, Norway. He saw Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago back to
back and felt that the quality of Zhivago paled when compared to
Lawrence. He also said it looked grainy and not very sharp.

I only ever saw Zhivago at its initial 35mm release in 1966 at the St.
james Theatre(now demolished) and it looked fine. There was a 70mm
blow-up that played in Sydney in 1967-68 but I was away at the time.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18703754

The posts by Oliver Klohs are self explanatory.

Regards,
Peter Mason

[Jim Nason]

Post by c***@hotmail.com
I've recently received an email from a gentleman from Germany. He saw
a vintage 70mm Blow-up recently at the Oslo 70mm Film Festival at
Oslo, Norway. He saw Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago back to
back and felt that the quality of Zhivago paled when compared to
Lawrence. He also said it looked grainy and not very sharp.
I only ever saw Zhivago at its initial 35mm release in 1966 at the St.
james Theatre(now demolished) and it looked fine. There was a 70mm
blow-up that played in Sydney in 1967-68 but I was away at the time.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18703754
The posts by Oliver Klohs are self explanatory.
Regards,
Peter Mason

I saw "Dr. Zhivago" in a 70mm blow-up in Boston in 1967. It looked okay, but
nothing like "Lawrence of Arabia." David Lean was right to have wanted to
film "Dr. Zhivago" in 65mm Panavision.

Jim Nason

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by c***@hotmail.com
I've recently received an email from a gentleman from Germany. He saw
a vintage 70mm Blow-up recently at the Oslo 70mm Film Festival at
Oslo, Norway. He saw Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago back to
back and felt that the quality of Zhivago paled when compared to
Lawrence. He also said it looked grainy and not very sharp.

This would make sense... the 65mm original does have a whole lot more
resolution than the 35mm.

Post by c***@hotmail.com
I only ever saw Zhivago at its initial 35mm release in 1966 at the St.
james Theatre(now demolished) and it looked fine. There was a 70mm
blow-up that played in Sydney in 1967-68 but I was away at the time.

The thing is, next to LoA, just about anything ever made is going to look
grainy and unsharp. It is a very hard act to follow.
--scott

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by Scott Dorsey

I've recently received an email  from a gentleman from Germany. He saw
a vintage 70mm Blow-up recently at the Oslo 70mm Film Festival at
Oslo, Norway. He saw Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago back to
back and felt that the quality of Zhivago paled when compared to
Lawrence. He also said it looked grainy and not very sharp.

This would make sense... the 65mm original does have a whole lot more
resolution than the 35mm.

I only ever saw Zhivago at its initial 35mm release in 1966 at the St.
james Theatre(now demolished) and it looked fine. There was a 70mm
blow-up that played in Sydney in 1967-68 but I was away at the time.

The thing is, next to LoA, just about anything ever made is going to look
grainy and unsharp.  It is a very hard act to follow.

Thats true but I saw many 70mm blow-ups in the sixties such as
Camelot(1967)
Far From The Madding Crowd(1967) BECKET(1964) and LOST HORIZON(1973)
and
they all looked excellent with great sharpness and no visible grain.
All were shot in
Panavision Anamorphic and all were shot on Eastman Color Negative 5251
except
LOST HORIZON which was shot on the Eastman 100ASA 5254 emulsion.

Lawrence was shot on the earlier 5250 emulsion which was introduced in
1959 and
discontinued ater 5251 was introduced about September 1962.
The 5251 was definitely a noticeable improvement in grain and the
report in the 1962 SMPTE(about July or August IIRC)
Journal states that 5251 through the two intermediate films(5253
Interpos and Interneg) and
printed on Eastman Color Print film 5385 looks very close to a direct
print from the 5250 negative.
How much we can reduce the size of the negative because of this
improved negative(5251) is
anybody's guess.

I saw Doctor Zhivago in 1966 at Sydney's St. James Theatre (one of
two theatres in Sydney
where MGM releases were shown) and although it was only in 35mm the
quality was excellent.
I saw the 1999 35mm restoration in 2001 at the Orpheum Theatre,
Cremorne located on Sydney's
North shore and the quality was no where as good as my original 1966
viewing. Parts of it looked very
"dupey" and grain was evident in many sections. I asume that because
of the fact that all the 35mm and
70MM prints were made from the original negative it suffered lots of
damage and much of the ON had to be
replaced with dupe neg.

Does anybody know when this replacement occurred?
Is it possible that the 70MM Blow-up that Oliver Klohs saw at the Oslo
70MM Film Festival recently was
blown up fom the original negative which incorporated the replacement
dupe sections?

Regards,
Peter Mason

Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jim Nason]

Post by Scott Dorsey

I've recently received an email from a gentleman from Germany. He saw
a vintage 70mm Blow-up recently at the Oslo 70mm Film Festival at
Oslo, Norway. He saw Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago back to
back and felt that the quality of Zhivago paled when compared to
Lawrence. He also said it looked grainy and not very sharp.

This would make sense... the 65mm original does have a whole lot more
resolution than the 35mm.

I only ever saw Zhivago at its initial 35mm release in 1966 at the St.
james Theatre(now demolished) and it looked fine. There was a 70mm
blow-up that played in Sydney in 1967-68 but I was away at the time.

The thing is, next to LoA, just about anything ever made is going to look
grainy and unsharp. It is a very hard act to follow.

Thats true but I saw many 70mm blow-ups in the sixties such as
Camelot(1967)
Far From The Madding Crowd(1967) BECKET(1964) and LOST HORIZON(1973)
and
they all looked excellent with great sharpness and no visible grain.
All were shot in
Panavision Anamorphic and all were shot on Eastman Color Negative 5251
except
LOST HORIZON which was shot on the Eastman 100ASA 5254 emulsion.

Lawrence was shot on the earlier 5250 emulsion which was introduced in
1959 and
discontinued ater 5251 was introduced about September 1962.
The 5251 was definitely a noticeable improvement in grain and the
report in the 1962 SMPTE(about July or August IIRC)
Journal states that 5251 through the two intermediate films(5253
Interpos and Interneg) and
printed on Eastman Color Print film 5385 looks very close to a direct
print from the 5250 negative.
How much we can reduce the size of the negative because of this
improved negative(5251) is
anybody's guess.

I saw Doctor Zhivago in 1966 at Sydney's St. James Theatre (one of
two theatres in Sydney
where MGM releases were shown) and although it was only in 35mm the
quality was excellent.
I saw the 1999 35mm restoration in 2001 at the Orpheum Theatre,
Cremorne located on Sydney's
North shore and the quality was no where as good as my original 1966
viewing. Parts of it looked very
"dupey" and grain was evident in many sections. I asume that because
of the fact that all the 35mm and
70MM prints were made from the original negative it suffered lots of
damage and much of the ON had to be
replaced with dupe neg.

Does anybody know when this replacement occurred?
Is it possible that the 70MM Blow-up that Oliver Klohs saw at the Oslo
70MM Film Festival recently was
blown up fom the original negative which incorporated the replacement
dupe sections?

Regards,
Peter Mason



One correction: "Far From The Madding Crowd" was filmed in 65mm (Super
Panavision 70). I saw it a couple of times at the Boston Cinerama Theater at
the time, although it was not advertised as being in Cinerama.

Jim Nason

Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve Kraus]

Post by Jim Nason
One correction: "Far From The Madding Crowd" was filmed in 65mm (Super
Panavision 70).

Um...no.

[Hauerslev]

Subjectively, DZ looked stunning in 70mm, the sound was great too. I
ran a new 70mm print from 1978 in the mid-1980s, and it was absolutely
great to look at and a joy to run in a cinema with 1521 seats and a
curved screen. The audience loved it, ouverure, intermission music,
ent'racte, the whole she-bang.

It's not "just" a question of sharpnes. Depending on the care gone
into making the prints, a 70mm print from a 35mm (substandard format)
also offer better image stability on the big screen, less
magnification of dust and scratches, better sound (even only in mono),
around 4 times more light, smaller subtitles (like here in Denmark),
better color and contrast etc. etc. All factors that makes a 70mm
version of any film look considerably better than the same film in
35mm. The audience will experience the presentation more intensly -
being less aware of the technique to run the show. It's on the
subconsious level.

It's a high-impact experience - simple as that

Of course if you use 65mm, it's even better. If you use 65mm with 60
frames pr. second, that's EVEN BETTER!!! The Restorations of
"Lawrence", "Spartacus" and "My Fair Lady", due to the new prints are
several generations away from the original EK 65mm negatives, the new
prints look good, but not at all as the original prints looked like -
if we are talking sharpness. You could cut you fingers on the images
from original prints. Original prints were "Sharp as Hell"! Even 65mm
can look like substandard format if not done properly - flat 70mm "Ben
Hur" prints from 1968 onwards is a good example.

DZ is also a good story - and that's what really counts. A terrible
film will not be a better film in 70mm. A good film will SHINE in
70mm.

Cheers Thomas
in70mm.com

[scoville]

A terrible film will not be a better film in 70mm.

I've seen some fairly ropey films made at least tolerable by being
viewed in 70mm. The Bible and Song of Norway spring to mind.

Scoville.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Hauerslev
Subjectively, DZ looked stunning in 70mm, the sound was great too. I
ran a new 70mm print from 1978 in the mid-1980s, and it was absolutely
great to look at and a joy to run in a cinema with 1521 seats and a
curved screen. The audience loved it, ouverure, intermission music,
ent'racte, the whole she-bang.

The thing is.... LOA just looks so amazing, that if you watch something
else after watching LOA, it won't seem as good. Even if it is pretty
damn good, your mind is still going to compare it to the thing you just
saw, which was better than just pretty damn good.

Watch one and then wait a week and watch the other and they will both
look great, because they both are.
--scott

[Oliver Klohs]

Hello,

Peter sent me an e-mail directing me to this discussion and I would
like to clarify that I have picked Zhivago of all Blow-Ups as I
conveniently was able to watch it back to back on the same day, in the
same cinema with the same projectionists, lenses etc etc. with a print
from the restored LOA. The Zhivago/LOA comparison has the added
advantage of the same director and camera man and improved film stock
(5251 vs 5250) in Zhivago.

I could also have compared Zhivago to most other western productions
shot large format as indeed just about all of them looked better than
Zhivago and not by such a small margin I might add.

Does Zhivago look bad by itself? No it doesn't, it looks quite good,
but not great. Other Blow-Ups I have seen looked better and still they
still did not look as good as the oldest large format productions I
have seen (South Pacific and Solomon and Sheeba).

So my point was that large format photography is needed for truly
spectacular pictures and saying that Blow-Ups are good enough or every
bit as good as movies that were actually shot large format is
misleading and not without bitter irony as exactly this mindset was in
large part responsible for the demise of movies shot large format with
again Zhivago being one of the most prominent examples of the success
of the "let's shoot it cheap and blow it up later" philosophy that all
the studios quickly embraced.

Thomas is course right that a 70mm Blow-Up from 35mm has many
advantages and I would like to emphasize the ability to drive larger
screens as it makes all the difference when you have a 50+ ft screen
and can project in 70 instead of 35mm. Still the sad truth is also
that the 70mm Blow-Up helped to kill large format photography and one
might even argue that it has been the main reason for large format
photography being pretty much dead only 10 years after the first Blow-
Ups were released.

Yes, Zhivago is a movie that is liked by many and it looks good as a
Blow-Up but still it could have looked substantially better if MGM
would not have insisted on shooting in 35 instead of 70mm.

Regards

Oliver

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Oliver Klohs
Yes, Zhivago is a movie that is liked by many and it looks good as a
Blow-Up but still it could have looked substantially better if MGM
would not have insisted on shooting in 35 instead of 70mm.

Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate again, and point out that even though the
image quality may have been better, the added expense and the fact that
the 65mm origination slows down shooting may have wound up affecting the
performances adversely.
--scott

[Oliver Klohs]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Well, I'll play Devil's Advocate again, and point out that even though the
image quality may have been better, the added expense and the fact that
the 65mm origination slows down shooting may have wound up affecting the
performances adversely.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You are right that shooting 65mm slows down and complicates the
production a bit but it is an effort that David Lean was willing to
make and I cannot see how we would not all have benefitted from it.

And to drive the argument even further in the direction of savings in
both time and money: Why not just shoot 16mm as it is cheaper and
faster than 35mm. Of course one could say that 16mm is not good enough
so 35mm has to be used, but one also could argue in the same way for
65mm origination as the format that is suitable for big epic movies.

Generally I also do not like the philosophy behind it: "It requires
more of an effort so let's do it the easy way" is not the mindset that
allows great things to be accomplished.

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by Hauerslev
Subjectively, DZ looked stunning in 70mm, the sound was great too. I
ran a new 70mm print from 1978 in the mid-1980s, and it was absolutely
great to look at and a joy to run in a cinema with 1521 seats and a
curved screen. The audience loved it, ouverure, intermission music,
ent'racte, the whole she-bang.
It's not "just" a question of sharpnes. Depending on the care gone
into making the prints, a 70mm print from a 35mm (substandard format)
also offer better image stability on the big screen, less
magnification of dust and scratches, better sound (even only in mono),
around 4 times more light, smaller subtitles (like here in Denmark),
better color and contrast etc. etc. All factors that makes a 70mm
version of any film look considerably better than the same film in
35mm. The audience will experience the presentation more intensly -
being less aware of the technique to run the show. It's on the
subconsious level.
It's a high-impact experience - simple as that
Of course if you use 65mm, it's even better. If you use 65mm with 60
frames pr. second, that's EVEN BETTER!!! The Restorations of
"Lawrence", "Spartacus" and "My Fair Lady", due to the new prints are
several generations away from the original EK 65mm negatives, the new
prints look good, but not at all as the original prints looked like  -
if we are talking sharpness. You could cut you fingers on the images
from original prints. Original prints were "Sharp as Hell"! Even 65mm
can look like substandard format if not done properly - flat 70mm "Ben
Hur" prints from 1968 onwards is a good example.

With Lawrence most of the original 65MM negative was in good condition
and the
re-edited cut negative (David Lean wanted to make some minor cuts)
including a few
scenes made from the 65mm b/w separations were printed onto Eastman
Color Intermediate
Film 5243(this film was greatly improved in 1986 when T-Grains were
incorporated in the Blue
layers) and 65MM and 35MM Internegs were made from this Interpositive.
I saw Lawrence in 70MM at least 6 times in its original release and I
found the 1989 restoration
to be very similar in quality to the original sixties 70MM print
despite having gone through two
further printing steps whereas the original 1962-63 70MM prints were
from the original negative.
This affirms the extraordinary quality of Eastman,s 5243 Intermediate
film which was infinitely
better than the 5253 stock which was introduced in 1956.

Spartacus(1960) and MY FAIR LADY(1964) were a different story.
Apparently the whole
original negative of Spartacus(1960) had faded badly and the entire
film had to be reconstituted from
TECHNIRAMA double-frame b/w Separations. This added grain and so the
restoration could not match the quality
of the original 1960 Super Techriirama 70 prints in sharpness and
grain.

With MY FAIR LADY(1964) much of the original 65MM negative was torn or
otherwise damaged and many
scenes had to be reconstituted from the b/w seps and those scenes show
noticeably more grain than the
70MM prints from 1964 which were produced from the original camera
negative. In my opinion
the original 1964 prints had greater colour saturation as well.

Of course if really high quality duplicating films had been available
in the sixties and the negatives had been stored in cold storage
there would probably have been no
need to restore any of these films.
Regards,
Peter Mason

Post by Hauerslev
DZ is also a good story - and that's what really counts. A terrible
film will not be a better film in 70mm. A good film will SHINE in
70mm.
Cheers Thomas
in70mm.com

[g***@HOTMAIL.COM]

Post by c***@hotmail.com

Post by Hauerslev
Subjectively, DZ looked stunning in 70mm, the sound was great too. I
ran a new 70mm print from 1978 in the mid-1980s, and it was absolutely
great to look at and a joy to run in a cinema with 1521 seats and a
curved screen. The audience loved it, ouverure, intermission music,
ent'racte, the whole she-bang.
It's not "just" a question of sharpnes. Depending on the care gone
into making the prints, a 70mm print from a 35mm (substandard format)
also offer better image stability on the big screen, less
magnification of dust and scratches, better sound (even only in mono),
around 4 times more light, smaller subtitles (like here in Denmark),
better color and contrast etc. etc. All factors that makes a 70mm
version of any film look considerably better than the same film in
35mm. The audience will experience the presentation more intensly -
being less aware of the technique to run the show. It's on the
subconsious level.
It's a high-impact experience - simple as that
Of course if you use 65mm, it's even better. If you use 65mm with 60
frames pr. second, that's EVEN BETTER!!! The Restorations of
"Lawrence", "Spartacus" and "My Fair Lady", due to the new prints are
several generations away from the original EK 65mm negatives, the new
prints look good, but not at all as the original prints looked like  -
if we are talking sharpness. You could cut you fingers on the images
from original prints. Original prints were "Sharp as Hell"! Even 65mm
can look like substandard format if not done properly - flat 70mm "Ben
Hur" prints from 1968 onwards is a good example.

With Lawrence most of the original 65MM negative was in good condition
and the
re-edited cut negative (David Lean wanted to make some minor cuts)
including a few
scenes made from the 65mm b/w separations were printed onto Eastman
Color Intermediate
Film 5243(this film was greatly improved in 1986 when T-Grains were
incorporated in the Blue
layers) and 65MM and 35MM Internegs were made from this Interpositive.
I saw Lawrence in 70MM at least 6 times in its original release and I
found the 1989 restoration
to be very similar in quality to the original sixties 70MM print
despite having gone through two
further printing steps whereas the original 1962-63 70MM prints were
from the original negative.
This affirms the extraordinary quality of Eastman,s 5243 Intermediate
film which was infinitely
better than the 5253 stock which was introduced in 1956.
Spartacus(1960) and MY FAIR LADY(1964) were a different story.
Apparently the whole
original negative of Spartacus(1960) had faded badly and the entire
film had to be reconstituted from
TECHNIRAMA  double-frame b/w Separations. This added grain and so the
restoration could not match the quality
of the original 1960  Super Techriirama 70 prints in sharpness and
grain.
With MY FAIR LADY(1964) much of the original 65MM negative was torn or
otherwise damaged and many
scenes had to be reconstituted from the b/w seps and those scenes show
noticeably more grain than the
70MM prints from 1964 which were produced from the original camera
negative. In my opinion
the original 1964 prints had greater colour saturation as well.
Of course if really high quality duplicating films had been available
in the sixties  and the negatives had been stored in cold storage
there would probably have been no
need to restore any of these films.
Regards,
Peter Mason

Post by Hauerslev
DZ is also a good story - and that's what really counts. A terrible
film will not be a better film in 70mm. A good film will SHINE in
70mm.
Cheers Thomas
in70mm.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I was working at a 70mm cinema (60ft screen) in april 1967 in New
Zealand when Zhivago was screened . I was not aware at the time that
it was a blow-up. Myself and several others working at the cinema
all agreed that it was the most stunningly photographed film that we
had even seen. I still recall this even though it was over 40 years
ago.

[g***@HOTMAIL.COM]

Post by c***@hotmail.com

Post by Hauerslev
Subjectively, DZ looked stunning in 70mm, the sound was great too. I
ran a new 70mm print from 1978 in the mid-1980s, and it was absolutely
great to look at and a joy to run in a cinema with 1521 seats and a
curved screen. The audience loved it, ouverure, intermission music,
ent'racte, the whole she-bang.
It's not "just" a question of sharpnes. Depending on the care gone
into making the prints, a 70mm print from a 35mm (substandard format)
also offer better image stability on the big screen, less
magnification of dust and scratches, better sound (even only in mono),
around 4 times more light, smaller subtitles (like here in Denmark),
better color and contrast etc. etc. All factors that makes a 70mm
version of any film look considerably better than the same film in
35mm. The audience will experience the presentation more intensly -
being less aware of the technique to run the show. It's on the
subconsious level.
It's a high-impact experience - simple as that
Of course if you use 65mm, it's even better. If you use 65mm with 60
frames pr. second, that's EVEN BETTER!!! The Restorations of
"Lawrence", "Spartacus" and "My Fair Lady", due to the new prints are
several generations away from the original EK 65mm negatives, the new
prints look good, but not at all as the original prints looked like  -
if we are talking sharpness. You could cut you fingers on the images
from original prints. Original prints were "Sharp as Hell"! Even 65mm
can look like substandard format if not done properly - flat 70mm "Ben
Hur" prints from 1968 onwards is a good example.

With Lawrence most of the original 65MM negative was in good condition
and the
re-edited cut negative (David Lean wanted to make some minor cuts)
including a few
scenes made from the 65mm b/w separations were printed onto Eastman
Color Intermediate
Film 5243(this film was greatly improved in 1986 when T-Grains were
incorporated in the Blue
layers) and 65MM and 35MM Internegs were made from this Interpositive.
I saw Lawrence in 70MM at least 6 times in its original release and I
found the 1989 restoration
to be very similar in quality to the original sixties 70MM print
despite having gone through two
further printing steps whereas the original 1962-63 70MM prints were
from the original negative.
This affirms the extraordinary quality of Eastman,s 5243 Intermediate
film which was infinitely
better than the 5253 stock which was introduced in 1956.
Spartacus(1960) and MY FAIR LADY(1964) were a different story.
Apparently the whole
original negative of Spartacus(1960) had faded badly and the entire
film had to be reconstituted from
TECHNIRAMA  double-frame b/w Separations. This added grain and so the
restoration could not match the quality
of the original 1960  Super Techriirama 70 prints in sharpness and
grain.
With MY FAIR LADY(1964) much of the original 65MM negative was torn or
otherwise damaged and many
scenes had to be reconstituted from the b/w seps and those scenes show
noticeably more grain than the
70MM prints from 1964 which were produced from the original camera
negative. In my opinion
the original 1964 prints had greater colour saturation as well.
Of course if really high quality duplicating films had been available
in the sixties  and the negatives had been stored in cold storage
there would probably have been no
need to restore any of these films.
Regards,
Peter Mason

Post by Hauerslev
DZ is also a good story - and that's what really counts. A terrible
film will not be a better film in 70mm. A good film will SHINE in
70mm.
Cheers Thomas
in70mm.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I was working at a 70mm cinema  (60ft screen) in april 1967 in  New
Zealand when Zhivago was screened . I was not aware  at the time that
it was a blow-up. Myself and several others working  at the cinema
all agreed that it was the most stunningly  photographed  film that we
had even seen. I still recall this  even though it was  over 40 years
ago.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

forgot to mention that I did not like the film - first half was okay
but the second was tedious

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by c***@hotmail.com

Post by Scott Dorsey

I've recently received an email from a gentleman from Germany. He saw
a vintage 70mm Blow-up recently at the Oslo 70mm Film Festival at
Oslo, Norway. He saw Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago back to
back and felt that the quality of Zhivago paled when compared to
Lawrence. He also said it looked grainy and not very sharp.

This would make sense... the 65mm original does have a whole lot more
resolution than the 35mm.

I only ever saw Zhivago at its initial 35mm release in 1966 at the St.
james Theatre(now demolished) and it looked fine. There was a 70mm
blow-up that played in Sydney in 1967-68 but I was away at the time.

The thing is, next to LoA, just about anything ever made is going to look
grainy and unsharp. It is a very hard act to follow.

Thats true but I saw many 70mm blow-ups in the sixties such as
Camelot(1967)
Far From The Madding Crowd(1967)  BECKET(1964) and LOST HORIZON(1973)
and
they all looked excellent with great sharpness and no visible grain.
All were shot in
Panavision Anamorphic and all were shot on Eastman Color Negative 5251
except
LOST HORIZON which was shot on the Eastman 100ASA 5254 emulsion.
Lawrence was shot on the earlier 5250 emulsion which was introduced in
1959 and
discontinued ater 5251 was introduced about September 1962.
The 5251 was definitely a noticeable improvement  in grain and the
report in the 1962 SMPTE(about July or August IIRC)
Journal states that 5251 through the two intermediate films(5253
Interpos and Interneg) and
printed on Eastman Color Print film 5385 looks very close to a direct
print from the 5250 negative.
How much we can reduce the size of the negative because of this
improved negative(5251) is
anybody's guess.
I saw Doctor Zhivago in 1966 at Sydney's  St. James Theatre (one of
two theatres in Sydney
where  MGM releases were shown) and although it was only in 35mm the
quality was excellent.
I saw the 1999 35mm restoration in 2001 at the Orpheum Theatre,
Cremorne located on Sydney's
North shore and the quality was no where as good as my original 1966
viewing. Parts of it looked very
"dupey" and grain was evident in many sections. I asume that because
of the fact that all the 35mm and
70MM prints were made from the original negative it suffered lots of
damage and much of the ON had to be
replaced with dupe neg.
Does anybody know when this replacement occurred?
Is it possible that the 70MM Blow-up that Oliver Klohs saw at the Oslo
70MM Film Festival recently was
blown up fom the original negative which incorporated the replacement
dupe sections?
Regards,
Peter Mason
One correction: "Far From The Madding Crowd" was filmed in 65mm (Super
Panavision 70). I saw it a couple of times at the Boston Cinerama Theater at
the time, although it was not advertised as being in Cinerama.
Jim Nason

Jim,
In your opinion did it look as good as an original 65MM
origination?

Regards,
Peter Mason

[Hauerslev]

The Bible and Song of Norway

both documentaries - but sharp as hell ;-)

thomas
in70mm.com

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by c***@hotmail.com

Post by Scott Dorsey

I've recently received an email  from a gentleman from Germany. He saw
a vintage 70mm Blow-up recently at the Oslo 70mm Film Festival at
Oslo, Norway. He saw Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago back to
back and felt that the quality of Zhivago paled when compared to
Lawrence. He also said it looked grainy and not very sharp.

This would make sense... the 65mm original does have a whole lot more
resolution than the 35mm.

I only ever saw Zhivago at its initial 35mm release in 1966 at the St.
james Theatre(now demolished) and it looked fine. There was a 70mm
blow-up that played in Sydney in 1967-68 but I was away at the time.

The thing is, next to LoA, just about anything ever made is going to look
grainy and unsharp.  It is a very hard act to follow.

Thats true but I saw many 70mm blow-ups in the sixties such as
Camelot(1967)
Far From The Madding Crowd(1967)  BECKET(1964) and LOST HORIZON(1973)
and
they all looked excellent with great sharpness and no visible grain.
All were shot in
Panavision Anamorphic and all were shot on Eastman Color Negative 5251
except
Lawrence was shot on the earlier 5250 emulsion which was introduced in
1959 and

discontinued ater 5251 was introduced about September 1962.

Post by c***@hotmail.com
The 5251 was definitely a noticeable improvement  in grain and the
report in the 1962 SMPTE(about July or August IIRC)

Actually the paper on the new 5251 Color negative is in the October
SMPTE Journal
on page 776.

Its introduction is reported in the June 1962 SMPTE Journal on page
472.
It states:

"Two new films,Eastman Color Negtive Film, Type 5251 (35mm) and
Eastman Color Print
Film Type 5385 (35mm) and Type 7385 (16mm) have been announced by
Eastman Kodak Co.
Type 5251 has the same speed as type 5250, which it supercedes, but
provides greatly reduced
graininess.This Film will be available in July for general commercial
distribution. Type 5385 and 7385
will be available in September. Between July and September prints will
be made on the current
color print film, Type 5383 and Type 7383. The new film has
approximately the same granularity
and definition as the current with an effective printing speed
increase of four times with improved
color reproduction. Both films were introduced at the Society's 1962
Spring Convention in Los Angeles
and described in a paper by Walter I Kisner."

Regards,
Peter Mason

Post by c***@hotmail.com
Journal states that 5251 through the two intermediate films(5253
Interpos and Interneg) and
printed on Eastman Color Print film 5385 looks very close to a direct
print from the 5250 negative.
How much we can reduce the size of the negative because of this
improved negative(5251) is
anybody's guess.

[c***@hotmail.com]

I've recently received an email  from a gentleman from Germany. He saw
a vintage 70mm Blow-up recently at the Oslo 70mm Film Festival at
Oslo, Norway. He saw Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago back to
back and felt that the quality of Zhivago paled when compared to

Lawrence.



He also said it looked grainy and not very sharp.

Oliver Klohs did not say this. Somebody else on the AVSFORUM
said this and I attributed it incorrectly to Oliver Klohs.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18703754


Peter Mason

I only ever saw Zhivago at its initial 35mm release in 1966 at the St.
James Theatre(now demolished) and it looked fine. There was a 70mm
blow-up that played in Sydney in 1967-68 but I was away at the time.
 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18703754
The posts by Oliver Klohs are self explanatory.
Regards,
Peter Mason