American Cinematographer - February 1994 - 12

The 65 Millimeter Question

Regarding the 70mm process,
I have never been lucky enough to find a
clear explanation as to why the camera
negative film is 65mm wide and yet the
release prints are 70mm. Of course,
space is provided for the soundtracks on
each side of the release print, but I can¬
believe that the raw stock is 5mm
for purely economical reasons.
As this is the only process not using the
not

The world's

brightest
controllable

light source

narrower

width for the negative and the
positive (apart, of course, from the sys¬
tems using optical frame repositioning),
does this not cause any technical prob¬
lems, especially during the contact-print¬
ing process (different sprocket widths,
same

etc...)?
I would be very
of your readers
this point.
-

grateful if any
could enlighten me on

and discarded. Nor does it necessarily
follow that the cinematic skills we used
have become obsolete.

Billy Wilder was once quoted
making an observation,"... he's gotta
show he's a genius in every goddamn
frame." How perfectly apropos today.
The heavy-handed devices we see used
in pictures today reflect total disregard
for good taste on the part of both direc¬
tors and cameramen, and are probably
the result of a crying need for recogni¬
in

tion.
Most of the
Mr.

things stated in
quite true -
person who believes in

Clabaugh's letter

are

but don't say a
tried-and-true methods which have
served this business well for 65 years is

living in the past. Such a statement is the
of absurdity, in spite of today's

essence

free thinkers.
No matter how you slice it,
there is still only one way to make a good

Carlo Piaget
France

picture. Do it right.
Obtrusiveness
and Obsolescence
As a reader of American Cin¬

ematographer since 1930, and
tired assistant

Richard Clabaugh's letter
criticizes the article "The Non-Obtrusive Camera" by Karl Malkames, ASC

(Filmmakers' Forum September). It
seemed to me after reading this piece
that it contained much good thinking
which could be put to good use in mak¬

ing pictures these days.
To say that a lot has happened
in pictures during the past two decades
certainly would be an understatement.
Techniques have been changed and al¬
newer

of the

Al W. Kern

Moab, Utah

methods,

sure, newer

Brave New Matte World
Ron Magid's article "CGI

Spearheads Brave New World of Special
Effects" (AC December) quotes Scott
Ross, one of Digital Domain's founders,
as saying, "If I was a producer and
wanted traditional matte painting, I'd go
someplace like Matte World." We would
like to thank Mr. Ross for his gracious
However, if he had gone to
Matte World, he would have found that
we have already produced digital mattes
for Morgan Creek's Ace Ventura and are
comment.

currently using digital matte processes
on Universal's The Shadow, Disney's Tall
Tales, and CAA's latest Coke
cial. We also still

use

commer¬

traditional matte

painting techniques because they are
frequently the best way to achieve the

MOBILE LIGHTING. LTD.

talents in all

most credible illusion.

Nationwide:
515/673-0491 * 800/354-4448

ever,

Also, I would like to add that
almost all members of the visual effects

departments. This, how¬
is not to say that the rules we fol¬
lowed a generation ago are to be trashed

Los Angeles:
818/988-1791
10

new

equipment and, to be

use

who

issue.

tered to coincide with

-

as a re¬

logged
some 30 years working alongside many
of the best cinematographers on both
coasts, I feel prompted to comment on a
letter which appears in the December
cameraman

And thanks for the

hall.

February 1994
American Cinematographer - February 1994

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - February 1994
