wizzer wrote:these days i watch alot of (2.35:1) movies wondering if they are shot on 70 mm or if they are shot on 35mm and and just matted off. could you tell me where you got this information? i heard that john carpenter always shoots on 70mm film and i think he's made a movie or two since tron. i'm not doubting you but just am curious about such things.
I think you're mixing up terms like true Anamorphic (35mm) photography (Cinemascope/Arriscope/Panavision etc) which is what John Carpenter uses, with true 70mm photography (actually shot on 65mm wide negatives, the extra 5mm on prints was added to carry the 6 magnetic soundtracks)
These days, many 2.39 wide films (That's the current Digital soundtrack Anamorphic Projection Aperture ratio. Since the mid '90's) aren't shot in True 35 Anamorphic lensed photography which having a negative area of 17.5mm x 21mm gives a superior grain free image (almost 60% better), but instead are shot "flat" (using spherical lenses)letterboxing the area on Silent Aperture cameras to 10mm x 24mm and then they are later blown up optically (and squeezed) into the 17.5mm x 21mm area of the anamorphic prints.
So films like Lord of The Rings, Underworld, T2, T3, etc, are shot on 10mm x 24mm while true Anamorphic films like Carpenter's and the older Original Trilogy Star Wars, most Star Treks, and Scope Bonds wrere shot on 17.5mm x 21mm (which as i said is almost 60% more negative)
Furthermore, with the advent of Digital Intermediates, film negatives are being scanned at various resolutions (1.5K, 2K, 3K, 4K etc) and from them on their quality is digitally fixed. For example the Super-35 negative area of Lord of the Rings2 was scanned at 2K of which you saw about 814 x 1946 pixels on the theaters (I posted a link to a1920 pixel HDTV crop of that on the the beggining of the <a href="
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... t=lor">How do u think Disney movies will look on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?</a> topic where you can see it's a little grainy.) True Scope/Panavision looks at least twice as good as this. To make a good capture of True Anamorphic 35mm Cinemascope you'd need something like 1700 x 2048 pixels
btw the Scope/Anamorphic ratio hasn't been 2.35 since the 70's. From then on was 2.40 till the mid 90's were it was trimmed back to 2.39 *in* projection to prevent the added DTS control track to show up in the worst of projector alignment cases (The prints themselves and negatives are still 2.40 wide)
70mm films, like Lawrence of Arabia-maybe the most famous example, and 2001, are in another cathegory since they are shot on a 22.1mm x 48.6mm area (2.20 wide) of the 65mm negative and they have the potential of recording more than 3000 analog lines per picture height. A digital capture to do them justice would probably need a minimum of about 2000 x 4500 pixels if not more.
Of course the 35mm films, be it inferior Super-35 or superior Cinemascope/Panavision, can be blown up into 70mm prints for steadier, brighter, slightly more focused presentation (this has to do with physics and optics) if done with good quality control.
But they will never look as sharp and detailed and grain free as true 70mm photography cus the resulting image from the bigger negative taking area is more than 3 to 4 times better than on 35mm.
Today 70mm photography is kind of "dead" and gone. (look below for what I consider the LAST 70mm film for a pleasant surprise
)
To determine wherether a 2.39 wide film was shot on Super-35 or True Anamorphic Cinemascope/Panavision, you could wait till the end of the credits and see if it says
Filmed in Panavision (true anamorphic photography) or
Filmed with Panavision cameras and lenses (flat/spherical photography) (or brand variations like Arrivision/Arriflex cameras and lenses, etc) but this is always not correct and in the Digital world it's starting to blur too. Or you could check in trade magazines or American Cinematographer, Cinefex, Widescreen Review, etc for info.
For old films i use all this, Leonard Maltin's movie & video guide, and common sense/my eyes
I hope this satisfies your curiosity
So with that preamble done, I think the last films shot in true 70mm photography after they stoped doing them regularly in 1970 (Ryan's Daughter, Song Of Norway, and The Last Valley) are:
Brainstorm. Filmed mostly in 1981 but delayed because of Natalie Wood's death and released in 1983 (The opening and the parts showing the Thought Recordings were filmed in 70mm, the rest was standart 1.66 widescreen 35mm) (Note: The 70mm parts were originally planned to be shot on Trumbull's Showscan process which films 70mm at 60 frames per second! So they would have looked hyper real. But the studio said nay)
Tron. 1982
The Black Cauldron. 1985 (Tho technically not a 70mm film since it's Technirama, the quality is about the same cus the negative area is equivalent, just easier to shoot/process cus it's 35mm filmed sideways)
Le Grand Blue. 1989
Baraka. 1992 (This is more like an IMAX/National Geographic gorgeous image documentary/travelogue)
Far And Away. 1992
Little Buddha. 1994 (Parts shot in 70mm)
Hamlet. 1996
There's also the IMAX films which are 70mm shot sideways (like VistaVision and Technirama are 35mm shot sideways) but those aren't exactly "movies"
Furthermore, with the advent of CGI films, if they are rendered in more than 1200 pixels per picture height(which i would consider 35mm Cinemascope/Panavision quality) they could be considered to be "Digital" 70mm films
I've seen a Shrek 2048 x 2939 1.44 wide render pic so I assume that was for an Imax version, and I've seen a The Incredibles 1708 x 4096 pixels 2.40 wide render pic, so The Incredibles if the prints are made that way could be considered a D-70mm film!
(term tm R and (c) deathimouse 2004 
) 
And the 2-disc DVD is excellent.