Thank you for the kind words. The vic 8 shown in this video is a vic 8R but was converted to run 70 as well by one of the other projectionists, Jayson. Cheers
The 35mm scope print would have been struck from the Robrt Harris restoration in the early 2000's. I was lucky to be at a premiere showing at the National Film Theatre in the presence of its Oscar winning DOP Freddie Young
@@ClarkTeddles That's a bit of a surprise Clark. 4K is probably about one-fifth the quality of 70mm so maybe it was an 8K master which would reduce that deficit substantially. John.
@@moviecollector5920 the Oppenheimer 70mm prints will all be photochemically done, so no worries with that! It should look amazing. The imax 70mm prints are going to be from the negative which is extremely exciting. Film from film throughout!
@@ClarkTeddles I don't know for definite how the standard 70mm prints of OPPENHEIMER are going to be struck Clark but logic suggests it will be an optically reduced 65mm negative so might be second generation. However, it's also possible it will be from an internegative using the usual process via an interpositive. It's going to be interesting to see if we can find out. The 15/70 genuine IMAX prints might not all be from the original camera negative but I suppose that depends on how many are required. Every print I've ever seen has been unbelievably good though so it's not like I'll be able to tell the difference. The way the rolling loop of IMAX works means the very best is obtained from every frame because a vacuum sucks each frame to the rear element of the lens. Amazing. If you ever watch my TENET IMAX video again the sound of the vacuum can be heard when Tianna is looking down the lens with the film advancing slowly. The whole thing is a marvel of engineering and it's been around since 1969 and possibly earlier than that because the development started in 1967. John.
@@moviecollector5920 I've heard from the film-tech forum from the people who are in charge of making the prints that the 30 IMAX prints are all struck from the negative. I presume the 5-perf 70mm prints will be does via interpositives, internegatives, etc. I'm sure the IMAX prints will look great. Cheers, Clark
After the restoration years ago, I saw Larry in 70mm at the Ziegfeld in NYC. In my experience it remains the most pristine, razor sharp film I’ve ever seen in any theatre. It was jaw dropping beautiful.
I saw that video just a few minutes after it was uploaded, greatly enjoyed it! although I wish that super 8 reel had the super panavision aspect ratio, and not zoomed in the fill the screen. oh well! still is a great piece to own. Cheers!
The prints all have a time code printed on the left side of the image. This goes to a DTS unit (later Datasat) that uses CD roms. In this case the roms have been uploaded to the unit's hard drive. No matter how many different files are stored on the unit, it will play the correct audio within 6 frames of finding the time code.
Just to see how this is loaded! Takes more than a young, bored, underpaid, uninterested guy that did not find a better job! Those idiots who did not care to pull focus when the titles rolled and gave you a partially out of focus screening "in the good old days". I don't miss those days at all!!! Now we have NO scratches, NO focus problems, NO cut off heads - and so on! Just clean, sharp images from left to right. I can't find anything wrong with digital projection.
It’s enlightening to hear a different opinion about film, and I understand why you would say that. For me, digital is a very consistent experience, and I think for that, it’s great. Film however just has great picture clarity, and I’m all about clarity! Cheers, thanks for watching!
@@ClarkTeddles Hi and thanks for your answer! I saw LAWRENCE in the restored longer version in 70 mm back then in Munich - you had the impression you could count the sand pebbles and stones of the desert! Perfect projection - but alas: not the norm. Clarity is important, of course... but how could a really objective comparison be tested? I find the digital projections very bright and clear. "Back then" there were some dark screenings with old lamps, I remember... and all those other faults that could happen. Just when you thought you knew them all - came a new one!
Clark, you remind me of myself at your age, I did all the things you're pursuing. Don't forget the fun of all this, treasure it as I know you will. Oh, and i'm a fellow Aussie too! Keep it up brother :)
Thanks Tubie for the kind words! It's been a very interesting and fun journey learning about all this. Being able to go up in the projection booth is unreal. bloody freezing here in Sydney at the moment.... Cheers!
@@ClarkTeddles I'm in Sydney as well, freezin'. Yep, I did the project both as well and that got me into film and television, which was my career. It's hella fun so pursue it if it's what you want. Great channel, keep it up!
I salute anyone that can run 70mm. thank you. Love that Vic8
Thank you for the kind words. The vic 8 shown in this video is a vic 8R but was converted to run 70 as well by one of the other projectionists, Jayson. Cheers
Love this film and its superb score by Maurice Jarre - a David Lean classic.
greatly worded, Steve!
Man, I love going to these screenings and seeing your videos of it after. The projectionist put on a great show
Thanks man! John did an excellent show, truly seamless! Cheers
That's very kind of you to say Rhett.
Amazing! Never would have thought projecting a film would be so complicated.
The 35mm scope print would have been struck from the Robrt Harris restoration in the early 2000's. I was lucky to be at a premiere showing at the National Film Theatre in the presence of its Oscar winning DOP Freddie Young
Excelente
Wow, the engineering! Much respect.
Thank you for your kind words! Yes, much respect for the projectionists here in this video, indeed! Cheers
Great work again Clark. They keep getting better and better. And that print looks beautiful through the porthole up there on the big screen.
John.
Thanks John! Glad you enjoyed the video! The print was struck in around 2013 if I'm not mistaken, it uses the 4K restoration.
Cheers!
@@ClarkTeddles That's a bit of a surprise Clark. 4K is probably about one-fifth the quality of 70mm so maybe it was an 8K master which would reduce that deficit substantially.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 the Oppenheimer 70mm prints will all be photochemically done, so no worries with that! It should look amazing. The imax 70mm prints are going to be from the negative which is extremely exciting. Film from film throughout!
@@ClarkTeddles I don't know for definite how the standard 70mm prints of OPPENHEIMER are going to be struck Clark but logic suggests it will be an optically reduced 65mm negative so might be second generation. However, it's also possible it will be from an internegative using the usual process via an interpositive. It's going to be interesting to see if we can find out. The 15/70 genuine IMAX prints might not all be from the original camera negative but I suppose that depends on how many are required. Every print I've ever seen has been unbelievably good though so it's not like I'll be able to tell the difference. The way the rolling loop of IMAX works means the very best is obtained from every frame because a vacuum sucks each frame to the rear element of the lens. Amazing. If you ever watch my TENET IMAX video again the sound of the vacuum can be heard when Tianna is looking down the lens with the film advancing slowly. The whole thing is a marvel of engineering and it's been around since 1969 and possibly earlier than that because the development started in 1967.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 I've heard from the film-tech forum from the people who are in charge of making the prints that the 30 IMAX prints are all struck from the negative. I presume the 5-perf 70mm prints will be does via interpositives, internegatives, etc. I'm sure the IMAX prints will look great.
Cheers,
Clark
After the restoration years ago, I saw Larry in 70mm at the Ziegfeld in NYC. In my experience it remains the most pristine, razor sharp film I’ve ever seen in any theatre. It was jaw dropping beautiful.
That’s amazing, where for some to go for an experience like this? I’m not likely to ever.
I just did a little video of this film on 8mm. Such a huge difference seeing this 😂 love this!
I saw that video just a few minutes after it was uploaded, greatly enjoyed it! although I wish that super 8 reel had the super panavision aspect ratio, and not zoomed in the fill the screen. oh well! still is a great piece to own. Cheers!
If you guys ever got your hands on an original 70mm print, would you screen it?
It’s a possibility. Problem is, the print would be so beaten up that we would have huge trouble playing it.
@@ClarkTeddles That makes sense. Does that projector have magnetic sound heads? How about a changeover system?
@@losangeleskingsfan15 yes it does have a magnetic sound head. This is a platter system.
Curious about how the audio tracks are handled. Optical??
The film is synced to a cd.
Thanks for watching
The prints all have a time code printed on the left side of the image. This goes to a DTS unit (later Datasat) that uses CD roms. In this case the roms have been uploaded to the unit's hard drive. No matter how many different files are stored on the unit, it will play the correct audio within 6 frames of finding the time code.
Forget me if i m wrong but for me it seems a 2.35 not 2.20 aspect ratio as i aspecting
This is in 2:20. Super panavision. 👍
Just to see how this is loaded! Takes more than a young, bored, underpaid, uninterested guy that did not find a better job! Those idiots who did not care to pull focus when the titles rolled and gave you a partially out of focus screening "in the good old days". I don't miss those days at all!!!
Now we have NO scratches, NO focus problems, NO cut off heads - and so on! Just clean, sharp images from left to right. I can't find anything wrong with digital projection.
It’s enlightening to hear a different opinion about film, and I understand why you would say that. For me, digital is a very consistent experience, and I think for that, it’s great. Film however just has great picture clarity, and I’m all about clarity!
Cheers, thanks for watching!
@@ClarkTeddles Hi and thanks for your answer! I saw LAWRENCE in the restored longer version in 70 mm back then in Munich - you had the impression you could count the sand pebbles and stones of the desert! Perfect projection - but alas: not the norm. Clarity is important, of course... but how could a really objective comparison be tested? I find the digital projections very bright and clear. "Back then" there were some dark screenings with old lamps, I remember... and all those other faults that could happen. Just when you thought you knew them all - came a new one!
Clark, you remind me of myself at your age, I did all the things you're pursuing. Don't forget the fun of all this, treasure it as I know you will. Oh, and i'm a fellow Aussie too! Keep it up brother :)
Thanks Tubie for the kind words! It's been a very interesting and fun journey learning about all this. Being able to go up in the projection booth is unreal.
bloody freezing here in Sydney at the moment....
Cheers!
@@ClarkTeddles I'm in Sydney as well, freezin'. Yep, I did the project both as well and that got me into film and television, which was my career. It's hella fun so pursue it if it's what you want. Great channel, keep it up!
Don't you have two platters for this film as it's close to four hours long and has an intermission. When do you do the changeover to Part 2
During the intermission 👍
3 hours 42 minutes: 24,987.5 feet (7,616.2 metres).
24,987 feet of glorious-ness!
Настоящее КИНО! А не то говно, что сегодня в "кинотеатрах" крутят. 🤝👏👍
Совершенно верно!
Simdi film gösterimi kolay..