Techniscope?
The IMDb says this was filmed in Techniscope, which if true is pretty interesting...that would make this the first movie in a while to use that, wouldn't it? I wonder why.
shareWhy not??!!?!?!?
shareIt's just outdated and looks markedly worse than using an anamorphic process (Panavision, etc.). Most of the time it was used as a money-saving device because it uses half as much film per frame--which is why it looks worse--but it's been a while since anyone bothered. It's a surprise to see someone filming with Techniscope in this day and age, if IMDb is correct about that. Pretty cool, though, if they're using it to get a deliberate effect.
shareA lot of films are actually doing it now these days. Aaton just released a cool camera called the Penelope which shoots techniscope. "The Fighter" with Mark Walberg was just shot in techniscope.
shareNeat! I seriously thought 2-perf was dead and gone for some reason. I guess the Techniscope brand name disappearing was what fooled me.
share[deleted]
LOL. I took a look at some of your other posts, and I don't know if you're trolling or this is really what you think of people who aren't exactly like you, but either way your online personality sucks. When you find yourself regularly using words like "sheeple" and "conformist" when not actually making fun of someone who uses words like "sheeple" and "conformist," you're in trouble. Too bad you've got to frame all this stuff in a bunch of nonsense about how much smarter you are than everyone, because you really have some interesting points here.
The reason I said it looks "markedly worse" is because I think using half the film real estate outweighs the issues caused by anamorphic lenses; two-perf films I've seen didn't look as good, in my opinion, as ones shot with anamorphic processes (the first few CinemaScope films excepted, I think it would go without saying).
But then I like the anamorphic look, including the focus issues you count as a negative. Obviously you disagree and like the two-perf look better, resolution be damned. It would be fun batting the debate around for a while, but not with you.
(Oh, and as for the added hassles of shooting with anamorphic, that has nothing to do with what it looks like in a finished film, just what it took to get there. I am now convinced you are a super smart non-sheep who's stunningly knowledgeable about production though, so thank goodness you spent 80% of your post on the issue of how easy it is to use one method over another instead of the final look. Talk about liking the look of your own words, ha ha.)
The next day: And waaaaait a minute, you're only half right anyway. I knew something was bothering me about your description. Putting a Techniscope film in theaters (back when Techniscope was the brand name for it) involved blowing up the finished product to a four-perf anamorphic print anyhow, so yes, that extra step did make it look markedly worse than a film shot that way to start with. Now we can create a digital intermediate and skip that step when, say, preparing it for digital projection or a DVD/BD release. But back then? Nope. So yeah, while 2-perf may be great nowadays, back when it was "Techniscope" it suffered a loss in image quality compared to anamorphic 35mm. (Lens issues aside.)