“Almost like a real web
• Search |
• News |
• Rumour Mill |
• Foreign Language
• in70mm.com auf Deutsch
WHAT'S ON IN 7OMM?
• Todd-AO Festival
• KRRR! 7OMM Seminar
• GIFF 70, Gentofte
• Oslo 7OMM Festival
• Widescreen Weekend
• Premiere |
• People |
• Library |
• Todd-AO Projector
• Distortion Correcting
• Ultra Panavision
• Super Panavision
PRESENTED IN 70MM
• Super Technirama 70
• MCS 70 |
• Dimension 150
• Sovscope 70
• ARRI 765 |
• 35mm to 70mm
• Blow-Up by title
• IMAX |
• Showscan |
• Various 70mm Films
• Large Format Engagement
SCOPE & RAMA
• Cinerama |
• Archive |
• Cinemiracle |
• Cinerama 360
• Circle Vision
• Realife |
• Natural Vision
• Vitascope |
• Early Large Format Films
• France |
• Denmark |
• Australia |
• 6-Track Dolby
• CDS |
• 7OMM Projectors
• People |
• 65mm/70mm Workshop
• 2025 | 2024 | 2023
• 2022 |
• 2019 |
• 2016 |
• 2013 |
• 2010 | 2009 |
• 2007 | 2006 |
• 2004 | 2003 |
• 2005 |
• 2001 |
• 1998 |
• 1995 |
• To record the history of the large format movies and the 70mm cinemas
as remembered by the people who worked with the films. Both during
making and during running the films in projection rooms and as the
audience, looking at the curved screen.
in70mm.com, a unique internet based magazine, with articles about 70mm
cinemas, 70mm people, 70mm films, 70mm sound, 70mm film credits, 70mm
history and 70mm technology. Readers and fans of 70mm are always welcome
• Support us
• Table of Content
|Extracts and longer
parts of in70mm.com may be reprinted with the written permission from
Copyright © 1800 - 2070. All rights reserved.
Visit biografmuseet.dk about Danish cinemas
An Interview with
Published in The Big Frame,
|Read more at|
The 70mm Newsletter
Written by: The Big Frame, 1986.
Reprinted with written permission from
Kelly Germain, Giant Screen Cinema
What was your first encounter with the IMAX/OMNIMAX film format?|
It was like a Close Encounter of the Third Kind. It was in Washington, at
the National Air and Space Museum when it first opened. I was there working
on "Koyaanisqatsi" as a matter of fact. We were location scouting the Air and
Space Museum. I hadn't really even heard that much about this format. So I
saw "To Fly" and it was like a close encounter. I just couldn't believe the
clarity, the concept of the film, a format that big, and that someone had
actually done it. I never, ever got that out of my head once I saw the size
of the image, the fidelity, and the fact that it was really a visual
When you say "visual presentation" what do you mean?
Well, it's like the word "IMAX." It's just a maximum image system where it's
geared for a fidelity image; where the concept of the theater, the
construction of the theater, and the optics of the theater are all geared
for high fidelity results.
This excited you Because you saw this as a mode of expression?
Yes. At the time I was working on "Koyaanisqatsi". I was
immersed in doing this total visual language film without narration or even
central characters. Working in the 35mm format, I was feeling that there was
something lacking. Once I saw the IMAX theater and saw the film, I realized
this is how it should be done, especially for a non-verbal film. It sets you
up in a real atmosphere.
Was the highly acclaimed film "Koyaanisqatsi" a model for your
first OMNIMAX film "Chronos"?
I think that whatever you do, you bring in your experience from whatever
you've done. Certainly in doing "Chronos" there would be a
lot of influence from "Koyaanisqatsi". Many techniques from "Koyaanisqatsi"
would be employed in "Chronos" and taken to another step,
really. Especially the time-lapse and motion control techniques. I was just
discovering them in "Koyaanisqatsi". And having then just
discovered IMAX at the same time it was like putting two and two together. 1
said to myself, "My God, you should do a non-verbal film in a format that is
tailored to it." Put all of the money into the equipment to get the images
going so that you have a real powerful way of expressing yourself visually
with the format. So, I would say that one led to the other.
|More in 70mm reading:|
70mm film maker
Sacred Site / Night of the Comet
"Baraka" cast and
Premiere in Canada, September 11, 2011
A Conversation with Mark Magidson and
"Samsara", "Baraka" and "Chronos"
GSCA and "Chronos"
"It's almost a Zen-like approach to film-making."
As a starting off point as opposed to a model, per se?|
Yes. You could say "Chronos" was an experiment in that
direction. It was to develop the time-lapse techniques into another area.
Not blooming flowers and rolling clouds, but taking it into areas where it
hadn't been applied in live-action motion control. It's so subtle you really
haven't any idea that it was shot in time-lapse. Yet it is revealing
something unfamiliar about very familiar things. I am more drawn and
interested in showing things that aren't visible. I know that sounds a
little silly but you experience something when you see a normal state
altered. You feel something different about something normal, and I like
that. I think it's expanding and it makes you think about who you are and
where you live in a different way. It's not documentary filmmaking. It's
approached that way but the feeling you get from it is not what you would
feel in a normal documentary. It's more experiential.
Ron Fricke at his editing console in the Canticle Films studio, Culver
What are the major differences between the design and photography of a film
in standard 35mm and in IMAX/OMNIMAX?
The whole visual thinking is altered. You could say it's like shooting with
an 8 x 10 plate camera as opposed to shooting with a 35mm still camera. It's
really that different. The frame is not that fluid or as loose as it is in
35mm or 16mm where you can just pick the camera up and shoot hand-held
stuff. In 35mm, you're used to moving the camera around a little bit. You
can be rough with it and your glitches don't show up as much. But in IMAX,
everything is amplified. Every little jerk, bump, and imperfection in the
lens, exposure, lab, and everything down the line has a cascading effect.
It's just so technical.
In shooting, it gives you a whole different visual sense because you're
shooting an image or a frame that's atmospheric. You're shooting something
that gives a lot of information in a scene. It's not a close-up medium, but
close-ups can be done. You really have to balance your composition so
they're quick and easy to read, not confusing or causing you to break your
neck to figure out what's going on in the shot. It's almost a Zen-like
approach to filmmaking. You have to be real quiet for this stuff. It's big
and a little bit awkward, and you have to be so delicate when you shoot with
it that it's almost like a Zen state you go into when you finally roll that
camera. You hold your breath because it's penetrating in a way that you
can't penetrate in normal cinema.
Do you consider yourself a perfectionist?
I don't know. I know I drive myself nuts sometimes trying to control
everything when, really, things are under their own control. I certainly
have my ideal about how everything ought to be.
When does a shot come to you?
You can work a lot of things out on paper but it gets down to this. When you
get to a location, it depends on how you feel, when you ate, what time of
day it is, what kind of access and permits you have. You actually look out
there at the real world and you look with this IMAX/OMNIMAX eyeball, you see
just what you can photograph. With IMAX some things will and some things
won't. And then and there you see it.
On "Chronos" that was my main objective. I went after what I thought would
photograph most dynamically in the IMAX/OMNIMAX format. I just excluded
everything else immediately and went just for what I thought would compose
and scale correctly to that system. The wide shots would balance and draw
you into the system, into the frame. Close-ups were handled like details
that were very easy to read, almost like landscapes.
"In "Chronos", close-ups were handled like details that were very easy to
read, almost like landscapes." (Detail from a sculpture in Notre Dame de
For CHRONOS, you filmed in eight countries and dozens of locations. Which
provided the most challenge and reward?
Well, that's a hard question to answer. I think the most rewarding were the
interiors. I thought about the interiors as
shooting a light moving around in a room but not really visualizing the
effect that it would have on the screen, of being in an interior that had
not been lit, but only illuminated with natural light. The effect was
something as if you were outdoors. It gave you a whole different sense of an
interior and that was something I didn't expect or really didn't
It fit well. Especially the Vatican, the tilt inside St. Peter's, I think,
is my favorite shot in the film. It was probably the scariest to shoot
because we were working under a certain time structure. We didn't know if we
were going to get the permit, and then suddenly we were allowed to be on the
Pope's balcony, under armed guards. We were setting up the equipment and I
didn't know if there were clouds outside or not. Most of the time I wanted
clouds because I wanted some movement but when you're indoors you don't want
any clouds because you want the light to come in. And then suddenly, it all
happened like magic. These light beams appeared and I just kept praying that
the camera would keep running. We were working with a prototype camera that
was doing five second exposures per frame and tilting at the same time, and
all of these systems were operating with motion control. Everything was
beeping and all of these Italian guards were looking at us. It took us over
two hours to do that take and it was like splitting hairs. It was a one-take
shot. You don't get to shoot it a couple of times. A lot of elements have to
fall into place and luck has a lot to do with it.
"Chronos" location shoot with Wayne McGee at Lake Powell.|
Which shots in "Chronos" turned out to be less than expected?
What didn't come out so well were the aerials. There was a lot of shake. It
was very disappointing because of the amount of work we did to get them. We
built the mount and then we rented the Williamson W4 camera on a special
arrangement. Because our budget was so low, we had access to it only at
certain times. Again, we were up against all those elements of weather. At
the actual times we did fly it wasn't that turbulent and I was able to get
images that I thought composed really well. But unknowingly, the lens was
shaking in the lens mount
and that caused a vibration. It really made me feel a little sick after I
saw those images. So you've really got to double-check your equipment before
your go out and that's one thing we did not check.
You have just returned from location at flyers Rock in Central Australia to
film the southern night sky and the April 1986 apparition of Comet Halley.
What was your reaction?
Well, when I walked out to the International Halley Watch Site and looked
up, I said, "What is this, clouds?" The astronomers said that it wasn't
clouds, it was the Milky Way, as if to say, "Where
have you been?" 1 thought it was cloudy, honestly! It was very brilliant and
bright and I could tell we were going to get excellent results right then
because I had not seen anything like that in the Northern Hemisphere. Even
from the top of Haleakala in Hawaii there were very bright stars against a
very black sky, but the Milky Way was not very bright. But in Australia, out
at Ayers Rock right in the middle of the Outback, in the land of the
Aboriginals, there is a whole different sky. Very brilliant. It was an
amazing feeling just to look up at it.
Did you have to become an astronomer to shoot this film?
No. Actually I don't know that much about astronomy but I had enough expert
help around me at the Halley Watch Site. There is a quite funny story about
when we first arrived with all of our cases of equipment. They thought, my
God, what have you got in these cases? So when we dragged out our equatorial
mount, which is a pretty big mount to hold this IMAX camera, they were
looking at us like we were authorities on astronomy and they started asking
us questions. I had to tell them, "Look, I don't know anything about
astronomy." And they said, "You have all this equipment and you don't know
anything about astronomy?" I said, "Look, I'm a filmmaker. Now all I know is
to put the camera on the mount and it's supposed to track. But I need you to
set up the mount so that it does track." And that's what they did. They did
the alignment which took about a day and a night. Essentially, the
equatorial mount is a mount that a telescope goes on. What we did is take
the telescope off and mount the camera so it will track with the earth's
rotation. That way the stars won't streak.
How would you describe the major location for the shoot? Were you at one
Yes. The astronomers told me you would see the same sky no matter where you
went so 1 felt we should go to one spot. The spot we picked was Ayers Rock
and that was based on the weather report. It had the least cloud cover. The
weather satellite picture on television in Australia was always clear with
clouds along the coast. I think we made the right decision even though it
was dusty. Out of 12 nights of shooting, we had 11 clear nights.
"Chronos" location with Ramses II in Egypt.|
Your objective was to get enough material for a three-minute short film, but
did you have a definite scenario?
Not really. We were just going to go down there to photograph the comet and
the night sky. Also, we stayed in Australia for nearly four weeks in order
to shoot the lunar eclipse. The comet window was around the 8th through the
15th of April. The lunar eclipse was on the 24th. Only then, the night of
the lunar eclipse, did I
see the film flash in front of me. Actually, what had happened was that the
full moon was in the sky, washing out everything in the night sky except the
bright stars. Slowly the moon began to disappear and when it became fully
eclipsed, there was the entire night sky and Milky Way in all of its
brilliance! It was like a super window that allowed you to see the comet. As
the moon began to eclipse back, it disappeared. It was then that the idea
was born for a structure for the film. We would start the film on a sunset
into a moonrise, then the moon would rise, the moon would eclipse, you would
go into the Milky Way, the comet, back to the moon, then it would eclipse
itself back and set.
Do you have a title yet?
We're working with "Night Fires" because in the Aboriginals' mythology, the
stars were thought to be the campfires of those living in the sky world.
This is very fitting because the mythology is alive and well in their
culture and they are very much alive and well in the Australian desert.
We had an Aboriginal guide. His name was Dickie. We would drive down the
road, get out, and he would wander around and say, "Well, you can film in
this area but don't go on this side of the road or don't go any closer to
the Rock here." And we would ask why and he said that there was a man
sleeping there. And this goes back into his mythology. A certain part of the
Rock was called the "kangaroo tail" and under the kangaroo tail is a man
sleeping and you don't want to disturb
him. The Park Service and rangers would do exactly what this Aboriginal
elder said. Therefore, it restricted us as to what we would shoot. But as we
became friendly with Dickie, he let us get closer and closer.
What subjects are you thinking of for future IMAX/OMNIMAX projects?
I really like the idea of nonverbal films in this format and films that are
more upbeat and fun, and dealing with really good music. Gershwin is an
example, also big band swing music, classical music, and Beethoven. I would
love to take the Ninth Symphony and do a piece on that.
Are you going to extract something from the music to develop a theme?|
Take Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue." It's about America's big cities. It
gives you the concept. I think the emotion comes in as to how you approach
shooting the film. I work very intuitively so I work with my emotions and
let things happen more than I try to make them happen.
Do you have any advice to filmmakers who are taking on a project in the
IMAX/OMNIMAX format for the first time?
There is a lot of homework to be done. There are two different types of
formats. You have the OMNIMAX and then the IMAX. Ideally, you would shoot a
film tailor-made for an OMNIMAX theater with fish-eye lenses and other
lenses and subject matter that work very well on a dome. You have a high
where things can be composed and sound and music all fit the atmosphere of
the dome. Unfortunately, what happens is that you shoot a film in IMAX and
it ends up in a dome theater and vice versa. You have to be very careful
about how you compose your images and what lenses you use to a point where
it gets very frustrating at times because you are losing a lot of
compositions. You just know it's going to look like hell on the dome. Great
on a flat screen but not on the dome. One way out of this is that when you
compose with a fish-eye lens you compose it all for a flat screen. If it
looks good distorted, then it will look fantastic on a dome. And then vice
versa with the flat lenses. You use all your flat lenses to compose for the
dome. It's a little bit backwards each way but it allows you to bridge that
gap when you're forced into a situation where your film will run in both
theaters. It cuts your ability and vision down a bit and you should be very
well aware of that.
What would you like to see happen in the big frame medium?
It would be nice if more independent filmmakers could make films in this
medium because it's very attractive to visionary filmmakers—the clarity and
the dynamic range of the sound system. Imax Corporation has built a
beautiful system and I would like to see films that are more in a personal,
creative vein that make the most use of that format, to heighten people's
experience about things around them rather than doing it in words and
traditional documentary film.
|Go: back - top - back issues - news index|