New photo - The Man Who Came Back

Hi all,

New photo on ufoseries.com, from THE MAN WHO CAME BACK (Col. Lake and Craig Collins).  If this is poor quality on your web browser, refresh the page, as I replaced an older, poor quality scan with a newer, better one.  This new one is from a 2 1/4" transparency, courtesy of ISOSHADO:

  http://ufoseries.com/publicity/detail.php?303

Marc

Marc:

Was the 2.25" transparency a standard film studio format?  How does it compare in resolution and color integrity to a 35mm Kodachrome slide from the same period?

JEK

On May 28, "JEK [via SHADO]" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Was the 2.25" transparency a standard film studio format?  How does it
> compare in resolution and color integrity to a 35mm Kodachrome slide from
> the same period?

Yes, if you go on eBay you see lots of 2.25" transparencies from TV shows in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.  They are a lot larger than slides, so presumably better resolution.  Of course, everything we fans get a duplicates, so it's difficult to say much about what the quality of the originals were.  But in my experience, the best scans come from 2.25" transparencies, with 35mm slides being second best.

Marc

Which explains why film studio publicity stills usual have such superior detail to the actual film productions.  A little math work shows that your 2.25" slide is close in size to a 70mm print.  

What was the film size used for UFO?

UFO was shot on 35mm film, same as most movies, although 35mm for film & TV is a smaller area than 35mm for a camera/slides, as one uses the film vertically, and one uses the film horizontally.

I think 2.25" transparencies are larger than 70mm film... I could do a comparison sometime, as I'm sure I've got some 70mm frames from DUNE around the house, somewhere...  :-)

Marc

This kind of gives you an idea of different sizes -- the smallest image of a B-142 space probe is a standard 35mm slide. The next larger ones are 2.25" transparencies, and the largest ones are 4x5" transparencies.  This image was inverted, so most of these were actually negatives.  Also, I think everything was probably originally shot as 2.25" transparencies, and the other sizes were downsized/upsized at the time (optically, in those days)

thumbnails.jpg

Marc wrote:

> This kind of gives you an idea of different sizes -- the
> smallest image of a B-142 space probe is a standard
> 35mm slide. The next larger ones are 2.25"
> transparencies, and the largest ones are 4x5"
> transparencies...

Thanks for taking the time to arrange these side-by-side.  That certainly is quite a size difference between the B-142 probe in 35mm slide and the 4x5" Interceptor Silo & Launch shots.

>....Also, I think everything was probably originally shot
> as 2.25" transparencies, and the other sizes were
> downsized/upsized at the time (optically, in those days)....

Which explains why the density and superior detail of the images.

Any idea why the red marker lines were drawn across some of these?  Oddly enough, these lines in your Interceptor Silo shot pretty much match the landscape orientation of my own Interceptor Silo photo.

Am I correct in thinking that all of your 2.25" shots are perfectly square?  The "trimmed-out" areas almost match the area lost to the 4:3 aspect ratio of the original film.

JEK

> Thanks for taking the time to arrange these side-by-side.

That didn't take any time at all, as I did that scan years ago.  :-)

> Any idea why the red marker lines were drawn across some of these?  Oddly
> enough, these lines in your Interceptor Silo shot pretty much match the
> landscape orientation of my own Interceptor Silo photo.

Yes, those are lines to be used for cropping purposes.  In some rare cases
I've been able to Photshop those away and use the full image, but usually
I just crop them as recommended.

> Am I correct in thinking that all of your 2.25" shots are perfectly square?

Yes, 2.25" transparencies are square.

Marc