Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

70mm movie camera


Recommended Posts



Technically speaking, a bona fide 70mm motion picture camera is a total impossibility for the average person to use or even consider making a home movie! Have you ever seen a 70mm camera? Well, the size alone would prohibit its use along any portable means or that it?s simply too huge an instrument to lug around. There has never been any sort of small or handy portable unit ever devised for 70mm filmmaking outside of the movie industry: period.


Besides, with today?s digital technology, you can actually create a Hi-def, wide screen film and then perhaps project the imagery onto a big screen, thereby giving you the same sort of portions or presentation of what was once 70mm widescreen film. It simply isn?t feasible to think that the old 70mm process would have ever made it to a practical use among any advance amateurs or even the most season veteran of professional cinematography to consider its use beyond major motion picture production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Even if you could shoot a film in 70mm . . . How then are you going to later on present the film? The next step would have to be a handy projector. That's another item next to impossible to even consider. Of course, one might just process the negative to crop it down to a standard size; say 16mm? But then, that wouldn't really be considered 70mm. No, your best bet is to simply go digital and forget all about film . . . It's a dead issue these days outside of the movie industry that for now is still holding on towards film use, even though its days are numbered!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just for the record, the great Stanley Kubrick did contribute to creating a hand-held 70mm camera that he used on his classic and controversial 1968 Sci-Fi masterpiece, ?2001.? Although the camera was for its time rather revolutionary, it was still cumbersome and heavy. Kubrick couldn?t use the camera so easily, whereby the weight could over a period of time, become a physical burden. He could only use the camera for about ten minute intervals, taking breaks to rest, until he decided to simply mount the camera on a tripod and taking it from there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Imax film 70mm? I have a piece of Imax film and it seems exactly twice the size of reg 35mm film. Wish I knew where in this black hole of a warehouse it is....


I hail from "filmland USA" Rochester NY and definitely have a strong affinity for film vs digital images. It's a wholly different look and feel-light is projected through film, digital images are...I don't know what. Inferior at least at the home snapshot stage.


I've noticed a small eruption in interest of film photography vs digital photography almost akin to the new old vinyl revolution vs downloadable music. My art group meets every Friday and it's become a "record player" party.


Maybe film photography will be considered "artsy" and digital will be the "beginners" medium. I certainly hope so, I really prefer the look of film projection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>TikiSoo you wrote:

> Isn't Imax film 70mm?


?Yes and No. . .? You see, IMAX goes by way of a different designation called 15/70 film format. This essentially means the frame is 70 millimeters high and 15 perforations wide. The negative and prints are square, double the size of standard 70mm; whereas, the more common or standard 70mm filmed area on the negative is not square and rectangular. IMAX is actually considered a larger process, taking up more space than 70mm, but the width is about the same. The big difference is in the final projection method that is done horizontality on IMAX, while standard 70mm utilizes the usual vertical projection system. At one time, 70mm was projected horizontality, on the old Technirama widescreen system. But, like its 35mm counterpart, the once popular and respected VisiaVision system (mostly used by Paramount Pictures) it didn?t last long, in favor of the more practical processes that simply used lenses to widen the compressed screen image.


The huge, double size of IMAX gives off with an immense amount of clarity that not even standard 70mm can compete with or match. It stands to reason that while IMAX has in some ways rejuvenated the motion picture film process, it remains in the hands of the professional aspects of filmmaking. So, you are to my estimation correct to assume that digital is more for the masses and easily accessible. Certainly, a good 35mm or 70mm clear cut widescreen film presentation can still be exceptional. However, most of what you get or see in the multiplex theaters these days aren?t exactly first rate or without flaws in the presentation. I find most films today are packaged poorly and it?s probably the fault of the theaters, if not, the film companies that market their product. So, one has to simply take their pick as to who to blame for the junk we mostly get these days.


There?s no doubt for an old-timer like me, IMAX is a throwback to that past era, when films were presented in a special or spectacular way of thinking. This was the time of the 1950s and the movie industry had to get so many of us away from the television set! There is something to be said for the high quality that IMAX offers. So far, on an overall basis digital has yet to match IMAX in the professional field of presenting films. It will be interesting to see in the next few years just how well IMAX can stack up against the onslaught of the digital age and thereby, those predictions of film?s demise come to be realized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Goalieboy82 wrote:}{quote}

> does anyone know if they make 70mm movie camera's for the general public. would love to make a film using 70mm camera and 70mm film. the film would be a ice hockey game film.

> thanks


Firstly, there's no such thing as a 70mm camera. Large-format films are, and have always been, shot on 65mm film which is later printed onto 70mm film for release.


Secondly, there are lightweight 65mm cameras; one, its body constructed of machined magnesium and introduced earlier this year, weighs all of seven (7) pounds, not including the film, itself.


Lastly, the cost of the negative film stock and processing would be ruinously expensive. In this age when one can buy a near-professional quality high-definition 24fps digital camera for about $1200, it's incomprehensible that anyone outside a major movie production would want to deal with the problems of 65mm photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Sprocket_Man you mentioned:

> Firstly, there's no such thing as a 70mm camera. Large-format films are, and have always been, shot on 65mm film which is later printed onto 70mm film for release.


From the nitty-gritty technical side of thinking, you are correct that the actual area of the negative is in fact 65mm. Of course, the remaining area of 5mm is for the soundtracks. However, from a traditional industry standpoint, after 1959, *the* *camera* has always been referred to as ?70mm? and not 65mm.


Your rundown on the technical aspects of the system was clear and precise in signifying the problems any amateur would have in attempting the use of the system. The idea that film might still be considered the purest and finest form of big-screen presentation, it simply doesn?t make any sense to even consider a 70mm camera over today?s practical use of digital cinematography. Right now, there?s been this waiting game to see when it finally comes to pass that digital can in fact, exceed or match today?s last big widescreen film process of IMAX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...