35mm 4-mag-track BEN HUR screening at the CINEPLEX in FRANKFURT

[Herbert Born]

There will be a screening of ...

BEN HUR (1959)

... in all of its beauty on ...

October 3rd & 4th ...

at the CINEPLEX, Frankfurt, Germany.

Facts:
35mm Technicolor print (mint condition) with all the elements (overtüre,
intermission, end music)
4-track-magnetic sound (new sound heads)
72 feet screen width (new Harkness)
new Schneider ES Cinelux Anamorphic 2x MC (ultrasharp)
BAUER U2 with 5000kw Xenon

In an almost new cinema, 450 comfortable seats, stadium seating.

You will forget all about digital cinema.

Herbert Born

[Martin Hart]

I certainly hope the print is in good shape. Audiences will be seeing
what could easily be the very best dye transfer print ever made and the
quality of the 65mm negative transfers down to 35mm, thanks to IB
printing. I've seen the film in IB Tech a number of times since 1961, and
it never fails to amaze me just how terrific the technology was, nearly
3 dimensional in appearance. Technicolor went to great pains with these
prints and it certainly shows. The later Metrocolor prints were quite
lackluster by comparison.

Marty

Post by Herbert Born
There will be a screening of ...
BEN HUR (1959)
... in all of its beauty on ...
October 3rd & 4th ...
at the CINEPLEX, Frankfurt, Germany.
35mm Technicolor print (mint condition) with all the elements (overtüre,
intermission, end music)
4-track-magnetic sound (new sound heads)
72 feet screen width (new Harkness)
new Schneider ES Cinelux Anamorphic 2x MC (ultrasharp)
BAUER U2 with 5000kw Xenon
In an almost new cinema, 450 comfortable seats, stadium seating.
You will forget all about digital cinema.
Herbert Born

[Steve Kraus]

Were these prints 2.55 : 1 or 2.76 : 1 via height reduction?

[Martin Hart]

Post by Steve Kraus
Were these prints 2.55 : 1 or 2.76 : 1 via height reduction?

They were 2.50:1 by bringing in the top and bottom of what would normally
be a 2.35:1 frame. I have a picture of the print in the Hi-Res
section of the Museum site. They were four-track magoptical but MGM
flatly refused to let the films be run in optical until they hit the
drive-in circuit. I saw it once in a suburban St. Paul theatre that had a
screen that couldn't be more than about 20 feet wide at most. The house
was so small that one of my buddies, who'd already seen the film with me
a couple of times in the wonderful RKO Orpheum asked me if they'd be able
to show the whole picture. But small as the screen was, the stereo sound
was superb. And those mag tracks were really quite good, with a ground
shaking bass during the storm sequence. The digital tracks on the DVD do
an excellent job of reproducing the above average sound quality of "Ben-
Hur".

I've included MGM's instructions for the presentation of the 35mm mag
prints of "Ben-Hur" on the WideScreen Museum web site. Despite the fact
that the 70mm roadshow run was over, the film was still treated as a
special event, with higher than normal prices and still just two shows a
day for the first and second tier releases of the film. And it did make
for a very special experience if you were fortunate enough to see it
between 1959 and 1962.

The presentation instructions for the film can be found at:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/roadshow_ben-hur.htm

During the Dome's closing engagement with LOA, Ben-Hur, and The
Terminator running, John Sittig told me that he'd printed out the
instructions and had them posted in the booth. "No one will be seated
during the Nativity," he assured me.:-) The Dome's presentation couldn't
be flawed other than no air conditioning and a poorly timed print with
some severe Dolby Matrix sound problems. The print was a rush job for
that particular show and several reels were reprinted following the
engagement, according to Dick May.

It was MGM's insistence on the film being run in mag stereo that makes it
possible for the survival of several extremely good IB prints, since
several hundred were struck. And there is no Perspecta in this baby.

Marty

[Herbert Born]

Post by Steve Kraus
Were these prints 2.55 : 1 or 2.76 : 1 via height reduction?

The print has a thicker frame line than a usual Cinemascope print,
which will result in more width than the 2.2 : 1. This will also give
us some additional headache how to proper mask the screen. A lot of
work for only two shows. (But it's worth!!!)

Herbert

[Martin Hart]

Post by Herbert Born

Post by Steve Kraus
Were these prints 2.55 : 1 or 2.76 : 1 via height reduction?

The print has a thicker frame line than a usual Cinemascope print,
which will result in more width than the 2.2 : 1. This will also give
us some additional headache how to proper mask the screen. A lot of
work for only two shows. (But it's worth!!!)
Herbert

You may not find the print all that hard to accommodate. The film is
hard matted for 2.5:1 and if you're running anamorphic at the current
standard of 2.4:1 you may not need to adjust anything. Certainly negative
splices won't show and as long as you project a steady picture the small
black area at the top or bottom won't be a problem. If masking adjustment
is needed then I'd just bring down the top a touch and frame the film for
that adjustment. I wish I could be there to see that IB print.

Marty

[Herbert Born]

Post by Martin Hart

Post by Herbert Born

Post by Steve Kraus
Were these prints 2.55 : 1 or 2.76 : 1 via height reduction?

The print has a thicker frame line than a usual Cinemascope print,
which will result in more width than the 2.2 : 1. This will also give
us some additional headache how to proper mask the screen. A lot of
work for only two shows. (But it's worth!!!)
Herbert

You may not find the print all that hard to accommodate. The film is
hard matted for 2.5:1 and if you're running anamorphic at the current
standard of 2.4:1 you may not need to adjust anything. Certainly negative
splices won't show and as long as you project a steady picture the small
black area at the top or bottom won't be a problem. If masking adjustment
is needed then I'd just bring down the top a touch and frame the film for
that adjustment. I wish I could be there to see that IB print.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
Online Archive
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com

Marty,

you may be true. We had no time yet to do a test.

just recently i saw an Technicolor print of HOLLYWOOD OR BUST, a Jerry
Lewis, Dean Martin movie, shoot in Vistavision. Incredible sharp focus ...
Beautiful!!

Herbert

[Martin Hart]

In article <bh11hb$vu2$01$***@news.t-online.com>, ***@indusma.com says...

<SNIP>

Post by Herbert Born
Marty,
you may be true. We had no time yet to do a test.
just recently i saw an Technicolor print of HOLLYWOOD OR BUST, a Jerry
Lewis, Dean Martin movie, shoot in Vistavision. Incredible sharp focus ...
Beautiful!!
Herbert

It's really odd that CinemaScope, VistaVision, Todd-AO, and Ultra
Panavision were touted as having sharp focus and great depth of field.
Actually this really applied only to Cinerama because of the short lenses
involved, but the other systems relied on a monumental increase in
required illumination to allow for smaller iris settings to be used. And
while they were telling the public that their new systems had this great
depth of focus, Paramount stressed it more than the others, they were
telling the crafts that the systems had very shallow depth of field and
that they'd have to light their sets to compensate for it. But that's
Hollywood for you. Bless 'em.

Marty

[Herbert Born]

Post by Martin Hart
<SNIP>

Post by Herbert Born
Marty,
you may be true. We had no time yet to do a test.
just recently i saw an Technicolor print of HOLLYWOOD OR BUST, a Jerry
Lewis, Dean Martin movie, shoot in Vistavision. Incredible sharp focus ...
Beautiful!!
Herbert

It's really odd that CinemaScope, VistaVision, Todd-AO, and Ultra
Panavision were touted as having sharp focus and great depth of field.
Actually this really applied only to Cinerama because of the short lenses
involved, but the other systems relied on a monumental increase in
required illumination to allow for smaller iris settings to be used. And
while they were telling the public that their new systems had this great
depth of focus, Paramount stressed it more than the others, they were
telling the crafts that the systems had very shallow depth of field and
that they'd have to light their sets to compensate for it. But that's
Hollywood for you. Bless 'em.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
Online Archive
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com

I'm not talking about depth of field, that's something different.

I'm talking about sharp focus and almost no visible grain, which comes close
to what we see with our eyes. When I'm talking to you, face to face, I do
not have a great depth of field, I even don't want it, because I'm just
seeing you and your eyes, but in sharp focus and without any grain.

For example, in AIRPORT (1970 - TODD AO) there is a scene with Burt
Lancaster and Jean Seberg, sitting in a car, discussing their
"relationship", its a long shot, only their faces are in focus, but in the
70mm print it doesn't look like film, it looks like reality. Crazy ... but
if someone would ask me for a reference scene for comparison to a new
digital projection system, i would choose this scene. A 35 year old print to
be shown with a 44 year old projection system. It's not possible to beat
yet.

Herbert

[Peter H.]

A 35 year old print to be shown with a 44 year old projection system. It's not
possible to beat yet.
There are more than a few anacronisms out there.

Here's one ...

A cinema stereo sound system which is recorded on a 56 year-old recorder, using
a 65 year-old light valve.

It's called "Dolby Stereo" (AKA "Stereo Variable Area").

[Lincoln Spector]

Post by Herbert Born
I'm not talking about depth of field, that's something different.
I'm talking about sharp focus and almost no visible grain, which comes close
to what we see with our eyes. When I'm talking to you, face to face, I do
not have a great depth of field, I even don't want it, because I'm just
seeing you and your eyes, but in sharp focus and without any grain.

But the big difference is that in real life, if my eyes move from your face
to something in the background, that something goes into focus and your face
goes out of focus--without my even realizing it. If I'm watching a
widescreen movie (and to a lesser-degree a non-wide-screen movie) and I
decide to look at something in the background, that something may be out of
focus.

Lincoln

[Herbert Born]

That's true, but if you do not know in a movie where to look now and you get
bored and you decide to inspect all the corners and background in a scene
... in this case the screenplay, the director and the DP did not do a good
job. You should pay attention to the story, whats happening now and not
start look around.

Post by Lincoln Spector

Post by Herbert Born
I'm not talking about depth of field, that's something different.
I'm talking about sharp focus and almost no visible grain, which comes

close

Post by Herbert Born
to what we see with our eyes. When I'm talking to you, face to face, I do
not have a great depth of field, I even don't want it, because I'm just
seeing you and your eyes, but in sharp focus and without any grain.

But the big difference is that in real life, if my eyes move from your face
to something in the background, that something goes into focus and your face
goes out of focus--without my even realizing it. If I'm watching a
widescreen movie (and to a lesser-degree a non-wide-screen movie) and I
decide to look at something in the background, that something may be out of
focus.
Lincoln

[Lincoln Spector]

Post by Herbert Born
That's true, but if you do not know in a movie where to look now and you get
bored and you decide to inspect all the corners and background in a scene
... in this case the screenplay, the director and the DP did not do a good
job. You should pay attention to the story, whats happening now and not
start look around.

This isn't always the case. Orson Welles and Gregg Toland intentionally shot
much of Citizen Kane in a way to encouraged the eye to wander. They wanted
to give the audience the opportunity to look around a bit.

This is also very true with specticals. When you look at a film like Ben Hur
(to bring this thread back on topic), your eyes are expected to wander a
bit, and the filmmakers used a huge amount of like to make this possible.
When they didn't want your eyes to wander, they kept the depth of field
small.

Lincoln

[s***@pgcc.org]

Post by Herbert Born
There will be a screening of ...
BEN HUR (1959)
... in all of its beauty on ...
October 3rd & 4th ...
at the CINEPLEX, Frankfurt, Germany.
35mm Technicolor print (mint condition) with all the elements (overtüre,
intermission, end music)
4-track-magnetic sound (new sound heads)
72 feet screen width (new Harkness)
new Schneider ES Cinelux Anamorphic 2x MC (ultrasharp)
BAUER U2 with 5000kw Xenon
In an almost new cinema, 450 comfortable seats, stadium seating.
You will forget all about digital cinema.
Herbert Born

Hello! We are looking for a print of Ben Hur to screen here in Vancouver, Canada in April at an old theatre with all the original equipment. Would you be able to share your contact for who you got the print through?

Cheers,
Sarah Kift
The Hollywood Theatre, Vancouver, BC

[Stephen Furley]

Post by Herbert Born
BAUER U2 with 5000kw Xenon

5000 kW!

[cinemad]

BAUER U2 with 5000kw Xenon 5000 kW!

They are using a 72Ft screen. The Astor in Melbourne has a 62ft screen and they use a 4500KW Xenon and the image is still slightly dark in my opinion.
Regards,
Peter Mason

[Jeffry L. Johnson]

Post by cinemad

BAUER U2 with 5000kw Xenon 5000 kW!

They are using a 72Ft screen. The Astor in Melbourne has a 62ft screen and they use a 4500KW Xenon and the image is still slightly dark in my opinion.

You are perpetuating the problem commented on in your quote above.

4500KW is 4.5 megawatts, or 4,500 kilowatts. No need for a takeup reel.

4500 Watts or 4.5 kW is correct.