Don't forget that most of the reason flat images look so poor is because someone either cheapened out, or just screwed up the theater design; that's not the format's fault. Flat looks accaptable on a 50ft wide screen, and few of today's theaters have any screens bigger.

I'll happily jump on this bandwagon -- again. GO JOHN!

1.85/1 is clearly a desirable format for many film makers, popular not just for its "economy" compared to Scope but for its artistic impression as well. To "do it right", the Super 35 format with a 1.5X Anamorphic that John describes is the best answer with a fairly reasonable expense to all concerned.

Problem is that any type of "expense" right now in the industry puts a bit of a hold on things. Hopefully that's a situation that can change.

 |  IP: Logged

Anyway, what about the Maxivision idea? Not neccessarily the 48fps, but the 3 perf pulldown. I think that makes some sense, or at least more than the wasted film for 1.85 with a 4 perf pulldown. The change in equipment needed to change to a 3 perf system will never happen though.

Why do theatres have a hard time getting enough light on screen when in flat?

The reason that people might have a harder time getting enough light onto the screen using the standard 1.85 aperture is that when you are using the 1.85 aperture plate, you are essentially blocking off more than 1/3 of the light a full 1.33 frame would allow.

Super 35, if i remember correctly is a production format, not unlike super 16, that shoots the image into the area that would normally have the analog soundtrack on a release print. Super 35 is sometimes used for blow up to 70mm or for animorphic 35mm prints. It allows for a wider image without anamorphic lenses. I think Titanic was shot on Super 35.

There are two ways to get a 1.85 ratio image on the screen. One way is to do what we do now; shine a lotta light through a small 0.446" x 0.825" opening in the aperture.

Another way is to make the opening in the aperture larger to allow more light. I forget the exact size, but it would be something like 0.670" x 0.825". To get it to correctly fit an existing 1.85 screen, compress the image on the film, just like 'scope, but use a anamorphic lens with a 1.5X squeeze (instead of 'scope's 2X.) This was/is the Iscovision process.

There's slightly more to do than new lenses and apertures. Most turrets only hold two lenses; there will be some confusion during any transition. And, what about future showings of the thousands of already made flat film. Cost? Another prime lens (apx. $800), a 1.5X anamorphic adapter (regular 2X adapters are $1000, a safe compairson), about $100 in aperture plates and labor for a total of $1900 per screen. I do think it's a good idea, but it's just too late.

Same thing with Maxivision, only you need to change lenses, apertures and intermittents! Add another $800 (current intermittent price, although I'm sure a Maxivision intermittent would cost much more.)

Even when the industry was making money 3-4 years ago, no one wanted to spend the money. I think most people thought it was'nt worth it; If someone though a "high-quality image theater" was worth investing in, they looked at the cost-reduced IMAX competitors.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

Charles Everett writes:

"Mulholland Drive was pitched to ABC/US as a TV pilot but the
network didn't buy it. No TV footage was shot AFAIK."

It's true that the network didn't buy it, but the entire pilot
was shot and edited. I watched it with my own eyes almost two
years ago, so I'm not just passing on rumor. And no, I wasn't
watching an early cut of the movie--it was the ABC pilot.

It was framed for TV. Lynch shot additional footage to flesh it
out for theatrical release (footage that would never have been
shown on network TV) .