Talk:Ultra Panavision 70

Fair use rationale for Image:MGM65.jpg

Image:MGM65.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no single-projector Cinerama

Movies filmed in Ultra Panavision 70 sometimes were shown in Super Cinerama, which also uses three projectors but in a single booth, whereas the original Cinerama would require three booths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.110.113 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Robin was presented in 2.39:1

According to both the IMDB and the Shot On What database Christopher Robin was presented in an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 not 2.40:1. Zaitan42 (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Panavision lens anamorphism

From the (current) fifth paragraph of § History (highlighting added):

New anamorphic optics were built by Panavision which were very different from CinemaScope lenses which used optical ground glass elements set in a frame to create the anamorphic image. The problem with these lenses, however, was that whatever was in the center of the image tended to be stretched wider than whatever was at the edges. In close-up shots, this distortion was particularly noticeable. (Actors' faces became so noticeably distorted that the problem was known as the "anamorphic mumps".) Placement of a dioptre lens in front of the anamorphic lens could correct this problem, but itself created problems with focal length, required increased light on the set, and had other issues. To avoid the "anamorphic mumps", Panavision did not use an anamorphic lens. Its new system used two prisms set at angles to an anamorphic 70 mm camera lens to reduce the "anamorphic mumps" effect.

...Hurr? I don't have access to the cited book (Ward, Peter. Picture Composition for Film and Television. Oxford, UK: Focal, 2003.), but should that perhaps read something like "Panavision did not use a corrective lens"? (Or, "...did not use a dioptre lens to correct the anamorphism"?) By our own account, an anamorphic lens was still very much a component of the Panavision system.

(Also, a small secondary point: In the second sentence of the quoted section it is perhaps not completely clear which "these lenses" are being discussed, the new optics or the old CinemaScope lenses. Presumably it's the CinemaScope ones, but that does require a very minor bit of presumption on the part of the reader. It's probably better to just state explicitly which lenses suffer distortion effects and remove all ambiguity.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)