                 
|
director of photography, peter gray, dp, cinematography, dop, cinematographers, lighting cameraman, videographers, dv, high definition, 24p, digital films, HDW-F900, CineAlta, Varicam, AJ-HDC27F, 70mm, independent films, lighting directors, filmmakers, filmmaking, HDW-700ATECHNISCOPEA CONCISE HISTORY
In the 1960's, anamorphic cinematography was more popular in Italy than the United States. However, the added cost of anamorphic production often meant a reduction in some other aspect of production. Italian producers did not have the luxury of relatively large budgets, like their American counterparts. Then Technicolor in Rome came up with an interesting alternative, a new system know as Techniscope. Significantly, the system employed normal spherical lenses. Anamorphic lenses at the time, were more expensive to hire, needed more light, and were less sharp. In addition, working with anamorphic's narrower depth of field, was considered a limitation by cinematographers in the 1960's. The horizontal angle of view of a standard 18mm lens on a Techniscope camera was equivalent to that of 35mm 'scope lens. The 18mm lens has a substantial increase in depth of field, compared to the 35mm lens. So this effective increase in depth of field was seen as a significant advantage of the Techniscope system at the time. The use of readily available standard lenses was an undeniable bonus to both cinematographers and producers alike. These lenses performed better, cost less, were more available, and there was a wide variety to choose from. However, the 35mm camera needed modification for shooting the Techniscope system. The movement was changed to expose a two-perforation area instead of the normal four-perf. pull-down configuration. In addition, the camera aperture was changed to 1 : 2.35 along with the viewfinder markings. A re-centring of the lens axis was not necessary with this system. Mitchell, Arriflex and Eclair, among others, produced these modified cameras. The two perf. pull-down meant another significant advantage of Techniscope, because the film stock now lasted twice as long as the equivalent length required for normal 35mm cameras. On a specialized optical printer, Technicolor added a 2 x 1 anamorphic squeeze and, at the same time, optically 'blew up' the half-frame image to the full, 4 perf., anamorphic format. It could then be projected in the same way as regular CinemaScope/anamorphic films in virtually any cinema around the world. Despite this 50% enlargement of the image, Techniscope was usually clearer and sharper than CinemaScope at the time. It was ironic that it performed better than the system it tried to emulate. While the laboratory work was slightly more expensive than normal, production costs in film stock were cut in half. And there were further savings by avoiding the need to hire the more expensive anamorphic camera lenses. A summery of the advantages of Techniscope are as follows: 1). The cost of the camera negative is halved, and therefore, the processing costs are also halved. 2). The ease and efficiency of shooting "a 'scope picture" but with normal spherical lenses. A wide range of high-quality, spherical prime and zoom lenses, can be utilized. These are generally much lighter and faster than anamorphic lenses, and are more readily available. 3). A better standard of image sharpness, and greater depth of field, is achieved through the use of lenses of shorter focal length. 4). It is possible to film for twice as long without reloading. Negative wastage is also reduced because 'short ends' are longer and hence more 'useable'. 5). Camera noise is reduced due to the fact that less film is moved through the transport mechanism. 6). A saving on the extra cost of hiring anamorphic lenses. 7). Techniscope allows for the extraction of a variety of 35mm and 16mm prints in both standard and anamorphic formats. The most common are: [A] the standard 2 : 1 squeezed anamorphic print with a 2.35 : 1 aspect ratio; [B] standard masked prints 1.66 : 1, 1.75 : 1 and 1.85 : 1; and [C] 16mm prints. Disadvantages of the system include: 1). A special projector is required for viewing rushes (or to accept a compromized screening with a normal projector). 2). A special Techniscope editing table is required for cutting the film. A normal table, like the projector, will show two adjacent images simultaneously on the screen at double the speed. You will see 48 Techniscope frames, in 24 pairs, in one second; instead of the correct 24 single frames in one second. 3). It is necessary to negative match and strike an optically derived print (which could be the first answer print, for example) before track laying and mixing can commence. If the mix was done in the two perf. configuration, all the dubbers would have to run at half speed, and hence the sound quality would be diminished. The system was quickly seized upon in Italy, Spain and other European countries. The first feature, The Pharaoh's Woman (1960 in Italy and 1961 in the U.S.A.), demonstrated beyond doubt that Techniscope was a quality, wide-screen process. That first release carried an attractive logo stating, "In Techniscope High Fidelity Wide Screen." The quick acceptance of the process in Europe took Technicolor in Hollywood by surprise, but soon they set up facilities to process and print Techniscope, and began hawking it to studios. Amazingly, few took much notice other than independent producers. Then Paramount utilized the process on a series of two-week, very low-budget westerns produced by A. C. Lyles. The Law of the Lawless [1964], the second in the series, is often erroneously credited as the first Techniscope film. The photographic success of the Paramount-Lyles series led to the studio employing the process on several other features. This influenced Universal to adopt Techniscope as the system for all their features, except for a few co-productions with independent producers and super-budget projects that used Panavision. Universal's policy changed in 1970, as the studio decreased their 'scope productions and started shooting more films in the spherical format for cropping. More and more minor league producers started using the process until it eventually died out in the late seventies. Rarely is the system employed anywhere today. In fact, Technicolor strongly discourages its use and has on several occasions farmed out the optical conversions to other labs, notably Opticals West. In its heyday in Europe, this system was so commonly used that Technicolor could not handle all the lab work and licensed other labs to develop Techniscope under the trade name Cromoscope. European prints often bore the Cromoscope credit. This was confusing if you didn't know that the two names applied to the same process. The Techniscope trademark was used only on prints manufactured by Technicolor. Films processed by a licensed lab, but release-printed by Technicolor, also bore the Techniscope trademark. Here is a short list of some better known titles that were shot in Techniscope (in chronological order) ... The Ipcress File (United Artists 1965) With so many advantages, why has Techniscope fallen from grace? Two factors contribute to this. Firstly, modern anamorphic lenses are greatly improved, and rival the performance of the best spherical lenses. Secondly, the cost of optical printing has become extremely expensive, especially when your entire film must be optically derived in the last stages of post production. On most films now days, the savings made during shooting are quickly absorbed by the massive, post-production lab costs for optical printing. This is usually in excess of one hundred thousand marks for a typical feature. The irony is now reversed. It may cost even more to produce a 'scope film in what has become an inferior system in terms of image quality. Exactly the same argument applies to another so called "super" formats, like Super 16. Both systems have, and still have, advantages during the actual shooting period, which may very well justify their use for certain specialized applications. Crew mobility is one example, especially in the documentary context. It is usually the low-budget producer who is the first to be lured by the immediate advantages of Super 16 and Techniscope. But care must be taken that, in terms of both budget and image quality, the decision does not turn out to be penny wise and pound foolish. The Techniscope trademark lives on, in name only, in another system called, Super Techniscope. This is actually the same as the SuperScope 235 process, first introduced in 1956. There are many similarities to Techniscope. The system uses normal spherical lenses, for example, but the normal 4 perf pull-down camera. The image is exposed across the full width of the negative into the sound track area, and framed to allow rather severe top and bottom cropping in order to extract an image with an aspect ratio of 1 : 2.35. The release prints are optically 'blown up' with a 2 x 1 squeeze, and later projected in the same way as a normal anamorphic film in the cinema. The advantage of the system is the ability to shoot a wide-screen 'scope picture with spherical lenses and a normal camera (set to a super 35 configuration). The cost is some loss of overall image quality and the price of the optically derived release prints. Like so many wide-screen systems from the 1950's, it has faded into obscurity. The Soviets occasionally use it under their all-embracing "Sovscope" tag, and it is often employed on Far East-made features. A modern version of SuperScope 235 or Super Techniscope with preserves many of its characteristics, utilizes a recent generation camera set to 3 perf. pull-down and super 35 configuration. This provides a larger than normal 1.85 : 1 negative with a noticeable increase in image quality, along with a 25% saving in stock and processing costs. The final 1.85 : 1 release prints are optically derived preserving much of the gain in image quality. Three perf. pull-down, super 35 may well become the new standard for High Definition Television, with digital sound supplied on a separate roll or disk. Such a system would make exceptionally efficient use of the 35mm format, perhaps only rivalled by anamorphic systems like the CinemaScope derivatives such as Panavision. These are the finalized specs for Techniscope by Technicolor. They vary slightly from the particulars that first applied to the system when it was first introduced. Techniscope Specifications Camera and negative: compiled Amsterdam 1993 Copyright © Peter Gray (1993)
Peter Gray
|
