‘One Battle After Another’ Is in VistaVision. Should You Care?

The brand that’s often associated with the sort of high-quality pictures that people go to the movies for is IMAX. The name pops up in the promotional materials for “One Battle After Another,” the new film from Paul Thomas Anderson. Far less common is the inclusion of another filmmaking technology, VistaVision.

Although it will also be shown on IMAX screens and in several other formats, “One Battle After Another” is the latest film to be shot mainly in VistaVision, which uses larger film negatives for sharper quality. It follows use of the format in “The Brutalist,” the nearly four-hour period drama that earned its cinematographer, Lol Crawley, an Oscar.

“One Battle After Another” will also be projected in VistaVision in only four theaters around the world — in Boston, London, New York and Los Angeles — because very few are equipped to do so. (“The Brutalist” was shot in VistaVision but not projected in it.) Still, more VistaVision releases from major directors, including Yorgos Lanthimos, Greta Gerwig and Alejandro G. Iñárritu, are on the way, which may lead moviegoers to become acquainted with a technology that hadn’t been this popular since before Anderson was born. Here’s a breakdown of its long journey.

What is VistaVision?

VistaVision, created by Paramount Pictures in 1954, runs film stock through cameras horizontally, like photo and IMAX cameras, instead of vertically. The change results in a higher-resolution image and enhanced quality.

The format was used in dozens of films in the ’50s, including Cecil B. DeMille’s epic “The Ten Commandments” and the John Wayne western “The Searchers.” Alfred Hitchcock was one of the VistaVision era’s most prolific directors, using it to shoot five films, including “Vertigo” and “North by Northwest.”

Why was it invented?

By the 1950s, studio executives were fretting about an ascendant new technology called television. The number of households with a set increased from fewer than 6,000 in 1941 to nearly 10 million by 1950, while the weekly admissions for movies tumbled by 20 million from 1946 to 1950. Studios tried to home in on what movie screens could offer that a living room couldn’t.

Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.