Talk:Panavision

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

Panavision received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

70mm or 65mm?

From the second to last parapgraph in the Early history section:

"This employed using 65 mm film in.... This process was also named MGM 65 and Panavision 65.... ...due to the fact that all 70 mm theaters.... The first two films to actually be shown in 70 mm anamorphic...."

This seems inconsistent. Should those "70mm"'s really be "65mm"? Rangek July 5, 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Yes, it can be confusing. The film that is shot is 65mm wide. The film that is projected has an additional 2.5 mm added on each side of perforations for the soundtrack. It's 65mm during production and 70mm for projection. This is also clarified in the 65 mm film article (which redirects to 70 mm film, btw). --Girolamo Savonarola 5 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

"Filmed with panavision cameras and lenses"

I was just wondering; it says that if a film uses spherical lenses then it must display the above credit. Well that picture is from the matrix so does that mean that the matrix was not filmed with panoramic lenses? It is clearly a 'cinemascope' film, I thought all 'cinemascope' films used panoramic lenses? Borb 15:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anamorphically projected films do not necessarily originate the image anamorphically. In the case of the Matrix, a Super 35 process was used with spherical lenses. Later in the lab, the frame is cropped to 2.39 and given an anamorphic squeeze. --Girolamo Savonarola 17:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, i meant anamorphic lenses not panoramic. By the way, did you just know that about the matrix off the top of your head? Just curious. Thanks for the reply. Borb 18:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if only... No, I didn't, but the technical specs are available on the IMDb subpage for the film. If I couldn't find it there, I would've likely checked an old issue of American Cinematographer or an interview with the DP, one of which certainly would have said in detail. --Girolamo Savonarola 19:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panavision Genesis

Hi. First off, I must say how excellent this article is. Very informative. But... I wonder... should we put the detailed information about the "Genesis" camera on the Genesis (Panavision) page? If we don't then we run the risk of having two pages which duplicate the same information (three if you count the WikiBooks Movie Making Manual page on the Genesis). Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 12:00 GMT, 4th Oct 2005

I really think that while a cursory glance over the Genesis is important, the information depth and formatting is more suited for a separate article. I mean, if you read through this whole article, it sticks out like a sore thumb. And the massive digi-vs-film commentary and opinions really don't belong on the page much, aside from a brief - stressing brief - mention, IMHO. There's a lot of dedicated work put into this page, including most of this new info, and it's great, but it would be a shame for a featured article to descend into a forum for that discussion. This page is about the company at large. The major products should be discussed, sure. In depth analysis and detailed description of recent products which will likely remain in the film news for some time probably deserve independent delineation and discussion elsewhere. Just my opinions... --Girolamo Savonarola 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]