The Color of Money - What Film?

StoneNYC · May 14, 2014

I was watching "The Color of Money" today on TV, and I was looking at the type of imagery that was used, the way that things were shot etc. as we may do from time to time as photographers and those involved in the cinematography trade, and I know that the lighting itself was obviously high in contrast to begin with, it did seem that this must have been shot on some kind of transparency film from the beginning though, the type of color and contrast, I don't know that much about cinematography and I know that now everything is shot on color negative film, but I would assume that back in the day they still preferred to shoot on transparency film even though it was going to be duped and then reduped again for producing the final distribution cut.

My question is, and I have this often times with older films, what film was the movie actually shot on?

It doesn't seem as if IMDb cares much about the type of film a movie was shot on, but I would like to know where the public might easily access this info?

It's a great film, as an adult I think I appreciate it more than I did as a kid, Paul Neumann (RIP) was wonderful and Tom Cruise actually wasn't horrible like he is today, lol

But I would love to know what film, I would ALMOST say Kodachrome but the skin tones are too pink, maybe a Fuji type film?

Dr Croubie · May 14, 2014

This what you're after?
Eastman 400T and 5384 Print.

(otherwise I would have just suggested to freeze-frame the closing credits, it's sometimes in there somewhere)

eddie · May 14, 2014

If you liked that one, you should watch The Hustler.

StoneNYC · May 14, 2014

Dr Croubie said:
This what you're after?
Eastman 400T and 5384 Print.

(otherwise I would have just suggested to freeze-frame the closing credits, it's sometimes in there somewhere)

OMG!!! I could never find this before!! Awesome! Didn't realize there was a "see more" option for additional links.

Thanks!

I notice they "blow up"ed the 35mm to 70mm, were there a lot of 70mm projection systems back then that it was worth actually blowing it up?

What advantage would that give since the original data wouldn't give any detail gain... Unless the "blow up" on a dupe would cary over more detail than a standard dupe?

StoneNYC · May 14, 2014

eddie said:
If you liked that one, you should watch The Hustler.

Shall we call you "fast" Eddie?

I've seen both...

eddie · May 14, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Shall we call you "fast" Eddie?

No, but people used to confuse us...

Dr Croubie · May 14, 2014

StoneNYC said:
I notice they "blow up"ed the 35mm to 70mm, were there a lot of 70mm projection systems back then that it was worth actually blowing it up?

What advantage would that give since the original data wouldn't give any detail gain... Unless the "blow up" on a dupe would cary over more detail than a standard dupe?

Don't ask me, I was 3 years old when it was released .
I suppose the detail you get comes down to all the typical answers, viewing size, distance, lighting conditions, quality of projection lens etc etc.
70mm was normally used for IMAX and such, wasn't it? How much grain can you see on 35mm projected on a normal screen, and how much projecting 35mm on an IMAX screen? (no idea, I've never been to an IMAX).
If you did something like blow the 35mm neg up to 70mm for editing, then maybe you would end up with a bit better quality than if you edited on 35mm and then blew up to 70mm for the print (especially if your editing involves cropping)?

dehk · May 14, 2014

Alright, does anyone know what Rocky I was shot on?

yulia_s_rey · May 14, 2014

Dr Croubie said:
Don't ask me, I was 3 years old when it was released .
I suppose the detail you get comes down to all the typical answers, viewing size, distance, lighting conditions, quality of projection lens etc etc.
70mm was normally used for IMAX and such, wasn't it? How much grain can you see on 35mm projected on a normal screen, and how much projecting 35mm on an IMAX screen? (no idea, I've never been to an IMAX).
If you did something like blow the 35mm neg up to 70mm for editing, then maybe you would end up with a bit better quality than if you edited on 35mm and then blew up to 70mm for the print (especially if your editing involves cropping)?

70mm for cinema is oddly as old as cinema itself. When W. Kennedy Dickson (the man behind Edison's Kinetoscope) left Edison's company and formed the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company he developed a camera & projection system that used 68mm. Early in the golden age of cinema Fox Film Corp. toyed around with the 70mm format as well. Then in the 1950s (as a result of movie studios competing w/ television) Cinerama came out, it used 70mm projected on a curved screen. From then on, other companies did their own 70mm equivalents including Panavision. 35mm blowups to 70mm were big in the 60s-80s for some features. The blow-up process trades ability to project on larger screens (drive-ins, etc) for a "slightly noticeable" loss in quality.

All films shot in 35mm were edited in 35mm and then blown-up by a tech. (Digital intermediate now-a-days) Editors don't crop, the framing is the DP's work and that's done while shooting.

Now IMAX is sort of the late comer, it uses 70mm but not in the same way as the earlier systems, as IMAX systems runs the film horizontally (versus vertically) and uses 15 perfs per frame (instead of 5)- it is a substantially more film area being used per frame.

wblynch · May 14, 2014

70mm was also common for cinerama theaters.

I remember seeing Grand Prix on opening day in the Cinerama on 70mm film. Amazing!

Also saw 2001 A Space Oddyssey and The Sound of Music in there, and many others.

There will never be anything like it, ever again.

Transformers is a sick joke.

Athiril · May 14, 2014

Some kind of technicolor.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · May 14, 2014

When the last technicolor film lab was in china , there was amazing kung fu films been made. I am happy to see these films and silly not to went cinema more. After 20 years , I went to new star wars , crap and noisy. I only love the sahara desert shots from that movie. I think they used a purple filter and only amazing colors were them.

yulia_s_rey · May 14, 2014

wblynch - I envy you for having seen Grand Prix on the big screen, and on the opening day, that must've been a memorable experience. From an editing standpoint that film was required studying in film school.
Funny I still haven't seen Transformers, or Lord of the Rings...the list goes on... I'm too busy watching Turner Classics

AgX · May 14, 2014

yurisrey said:
The blow-up process trades ability to project on larger screens (drive-ins, etc) for a "slightly noticeable" loss in quality.

In most publications on 35-70mm blow-up there is reference to the better image quality gained. Of course the 70mm print film frame itself is less grainy than its 35mm counterpart.
But the image exposed on it still represents the graininess and resolution of the original camera-film.

The advantage of blowing up is in the ability to send much more light through a film frame.
Or just to use larger gauge equipment.

Athiril · May 14, 2014

Lord of The Rings is great however.

There's a theatre that does film projections of films that are no longer at cinema and older films, sometimes 70mm iirc.

Pacific Rim was great at IMAX, as was Superman in 2D.

wildbill · May 14, 2014

transparency film wasn't used for entire studio films, only for scenes here and there in recent movies (I mean modern films) before they axed it. Too high in contrast plus several other reasons I won't get into. Often used for flashbacks and dream sequences, of course. I've seen some nice commercial footage shot on 35mm velvia and I shot a fair amount of kodak 100D on a surfing movie a few years ago before it went away.

yulia_s_rey · May 14, 2014

AgX said:
In most publications on 35-70mm blow-up there is reference to the better image quality gained. Of course the 70mm print film frame itself is less grainy than its 35mm counterpart.
But the image exposed on it still represents the graininess and resolution of the original camera-film.

The advantage of blowing up is in the ability to send much more light through a film frame.
Or just to use larger gauge equipment.

I see, I hadn't taken into account the larger screen and the distance from the projection booth. Otherwise to the viewer, there is no difference in granularity/resolution in comparison to what they'd be used to in regular 35, in fact it would look better if the venue used this to their advantage (projector distance, etc ) and because of the inherent nature of film-to-film magnification. One more reason why film surpases vs digital cinema.

StoneNYC · May 14, 2014

Interesting... I was told by someone that when shooting a movie in 70mm, the frame was still shot horizontal. So this must mean that even films shot on 70mm would need a "blow up" for IMAX 70mm which uses horizontal?

yulia_s_rey · May 14, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Interesting... I was told by someone that when shooting a movie in 70mm, the frame was still shot horizontal. So this must mean that even films shot on 70mm would need a "blow up" for IMAX 70mm which uses horizontal?

70mm 5 perf (vertical) was pre IMAX. You can read about the IMAX camera here:

http://www.imax.com/fr/community/blog/imax-101-series-inside-the-mind-of-the-imax-camera/

Dr Croubie · May 15, 2014

Kind of like how 645 uses vertical-feed, but 6x9 and 6x12 use horizontal. IMAX is like the 6x9 to normal films' 6x4 or something.

StoneNYC · May 15, 2014

Gotcha, thanks guys

It's really a shame... I would totally buy some 70mm vision film if they got rid of that nasty RemJet ... It's not HORRIBLE to deal with but it's certainly an added step that is tedious.

I know SOME "70mm" film is 65mm or something, but I'm not sure if that's just that they don't count the perf or if it's actually smaller.

Either way I would buy some cans if they only made it in Eastman Double-X...

Dr Croubie · May 15, 2014

StoneNYC said:
It's really a shame... I would totally buy some 70mm vision film if they got rid of that nasty RemJet ... It's not HORRIBLE to deal with but it's certainly an added step that is tedious.

Well, if you ignore the price, they did make portra 160 in 70mm: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Kodak-Po...7551711?pt=US_Camera_Film&hash=item4181065b5f

wblynch · May 15, 2014

yurisrey said:
wblynch - I envy you for having seen Grand Prix on the big screen, and on the opening day, that must've been a memorable experience. From an editing standpoint that film was required studying in film school.

I was a teenage kid but I remember it as if it were today. The framing was all new. No one had done those mosaics(?) before. And the camera shots right up the tail pipes and into the throats of the fuel injectors.

What struck me were the gaggles of photographers everywhere you looked.

It's fun to think of iconic films that broke the mold in their own ways. CGI and animation can't match it.

MattKing · May 15, 2014

I remember seeing Apocalypse Now in 70mm at the Stanley Theatre in Vancouver, BC. First run, and they even gave out a (very political) program.

I could be wrong, but I think the sound for that movie may also have involved some then new advancements.

Now almost every screen is digital.

"The Horror, the Horror"

wiltw · May 15, 2014

wblynch said:
70mm was also common for cinerama theaters.

I remember seeing Grand Prix on opening day in the Cinerama on 70mm film. Amazing!

Also saw 2001 A Space Oddyssey and The Sound of Music in there, and many others.

There will never be anything like it, ever again.

Transformers is a sick joke.

And digital cinema is a pathetically anemic sick joke

The Color of Money - What Film?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency