What is the Universe expanding into..
- Thread starter M Gregg
- Start date
When it hit the box office our family was driving by a theatre in Toronto with the posters up. $5.00 a ticket when normal admission was anywhere from 25 to 75 cents. My dad exclaimed "forget it!" I was 11 then so no argument, mind you it was a high end theatre with the latest ancillaries. I've still not seen it.
It was also the first time I'd heard surround sound!
According to Wiki, the technology behind the "wrap around" 2001 was Super Panavision 70.
Special optics were used to project the 70 mm prints onto a deeply curved screen to mimic the effect of the original three-strip Cinerama process.
According to Wiki, the technology behind the "wrap around" 2001 was Super Panavision 70.
Special optics were used to project the 70 mm prints onto a deeply curved screen to mimic the effect of the original three-strip Cinerama process.
You're as old as the woman you feel...
Correct Galu, it was 70mm projected in one go, but they still billed it as cinerama - perhaps people were familiar with the name. I still have a big poster... somewhere. We got to see it and got lots of souvenirs (posters, etc) as a friend's dad worked for the uk promoter.
Correct Galu, it was 70mm projected in one go, but they still billed it as cinerama - perhaps people were familiar with the name. I still have a big poster... somewhere. We got to see it and got lots of souvenirs (posters, etc) as a friend's dad worked for the uk promoter.
The original Cinerama process projected images from three synchronised 35mm projectors.
This was known as 3-strip Cinerama, as I mentioned above.
After the 3-strip process was abandoned, Cinerama continued as a brand name.
Wikipedia is my friend!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineramaAttachments
I see - I misread again - not like me!
My research shows that Super Panavision 70 was technically compatible and virtually identical to Todd-AO.
Googling Todd-AO reveals it was designed to be:
“a motion picture system that would photograph action in very wide angle ... with one camera ... on one strip of film ... to be projected from a single machine ... on a very large screen ... with a quality so perfect that the audience will be part of the action, not just passive spectators.”
https://in70mm.com/newsletter/2002/67/what_is/index.htm
P.S. The film size was actually 65mm, but an extra 5mm was added to carry the sound track.
P.P.S. It's a while since I've been to the Cinema, but my sons like to view the latest blockbusters on the big screen.
My research shows that Super Panavision 70 was technically compatible and virtually identical to Todd-AO.
Googling Todd-AO reveals it was designed to be:
“a motion picture system that would photograph action in very wide angle ... with one camera ... on one strip of film ... to be projected from a single machine ... on a very large screen ... with a quality so perfect that the audience will be part of the action, not just passive spectators.”
https://in70mm.com/newsletter/2002/67/what_is/index.htm
P.S. The film size was actually 65mm, but an extra 5mm was added to carry the sound track.
P.P.S. It's a while since I've been to the Cinema, but my sons like to view the latest blockbusters on the big screen.
Attachments
I have been trying to wrap my head around the Infra-Red James Webb Space Telescope.
I totally get how false-colour imaging makes old Galaxies look normal.
But how does normal stuff like Jupiter look?
Bit weird, IMO. Doesn't seem to be better than Hubble here:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/07...and-more-now-available-in-commissioning-data/
Not detecting any new Physics.
I totally get how false-colour imaging makes old Galaxies look normal.
But how does normal stuff like Jupiter look?
Bit weird, IMO. Doesn't seem to be better than Hubble here:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/07...and-more-now-available-in-commissioning-data/
Not detecting any new Physics.
They've just started for goodness sake!
Doing things like mapping the movement of galaxies to test our models of the universe may take a few years.
The image of Jupiter to which you refer is taken with a single 2.12 micron filter - that's why it looks a bit strange.
