To a Director, increasing image quality on a the screen may not be such a good thing. In reading the Imax Film Directors guide, it cautions about background litter such as half eaten donuts, candy wrapers and footprints. Normally in flat 35mm work, these elements read as background noise. In higher and higher resolution, these elements become a real problem meaning expensive reshoots.

I am sure these kinds of things cross the Directors mind when he or she selects the final format presentation.

Like it or not, it's the Directors vision that dictates what is up on the screen. The 1.85 flat format is a very comfortable format to work in. It also gives the widest possible distribution. It won't go away simply because a anamorphic 1.85 format exists.

Also, since the flat 35 to 35 scope is about about equal increase quality step as to 35 scope to 70mm, it would put an additional smaller quality step between flat 35 to scope. A complication many worker bees in the system may not what to deal with.

 |  IP: Logged

Unfortunately, in today's economic climate, a new format is a "hard sell", even if it does offer significant advantages.

A R%D design for a 1.5 anamorphic would be at least 1 million dollars before the first production lens is installed on a projector. Most lens design and production houses have very high overhead. Even Kodak's lens production and design division has a 600% to 1500% overhead.

I would expect a production of 7000 lenses for 3500 theaters would cost about 10 million dollars.

In these days of 400+ million dollar gross pictures, that 10 mil doesn't seem like much but the motion picture industry has the expense account down to an art form. The end result is, a 400 million gross dollar picture loses money.

It's much easer to spend money on fancy hotels then pieces of glass you don't understand and with the public not knowing the difference.

IscoOptic has offered "ISCORAMA" 1.5X anamorphics for many years, and has developed 1.5X anamorphics for DLP-Cinema digital projectors. Isco was the vendor for the 1.5X anamorphic lenses used in the optical printer and on the projector for my demo of "Scope 1.5X":
http://www.iscooptic.de/english.html

Likewise, Schneider has developed 1.5X "CINE-DIGITAR" anamorphics for digital projection:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/projection/digital/digitarthrow.htm

In quantity, the cost of 1.5X anamorphic projection lenses for 35mm film would likely be comparable to normal 2X "scope" lenses. For that price, the theatre would get 1.5X more light on the screen, and an image of much better quality than 1.85:1 "flat".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
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

Simply stated and correct . The primary advantage of 70mm prints for huge screens is that it allows you to spread the light (and heat) of a large lamp over a larger area of film. With less heating, the film stays cooler and less likely to have "focus flutter" or heat damage. The longer focal length lens used also has greater depth of focus. The discussion was all in the article I wrote:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
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

The 1.5 Anamorphic might be better image quality but how much better? It seems to me that the quality fit would be somewhere between flat and 35 scope although it might be slightly better then scope fitting between 35 scope and 70mm.

If the R&D is already done then sure, one million bucks are saved. You still need the lens production at $1000 to $2000 each. I think at least 7000 lenses will need to be made. Many theaters won't like spending that kind of money. Although, Kodak might get the ball rolling by making these lenses and giving them away.

I say this because I understand that of all the photographic film produced by Kodak, 70% is used in the motion picture industry. The other 30% is used in the consumer(15%) scientific(10%)and professional(5%)markets.

Just one feature film uses almost 10 million feet of 35mm film from production to distribution. Just about as much as all the professional photographers shoot in a year.

Kodak has lots to lose if somehow 70% of their market dries up.

Again quality issues may mean different things to different directors. You still have the candy wrapper issue. Not to say anything about better set designs and so on.

The Imax manual gives real insight into all the problems improved image quality creates. This is not to say 35mm 1.5 anamorphic would reach Imax level. It's just that improved image quality may not be a Directors friend with his presentation.

Then that director needs to learn to do his job better or just shoot on DV and distribute his crappy work on the internet.

</rant>

I started to read the Imax LF "Bible". I have seen many instances where they don't even follow their own guidelines when producing films. I guess I'll have to have a more serious look at it tomorrow.

I recall 15 years ago when it was very rare to see a movie made in Super 35 or Super 1.85. Yet now, there are multiple camera and lens packages well suited to it. It also seems there are more Super 35 originated 'scope films these days (particularly for their "home video friendly" 2.35:1 approach).

But the visual problems with Super 35 and Super 1.85 are why I would want a 1.5x anamorphic 1.85:1 system made both as a camera filming and projection format. You can do direct printing without generational loss from an optical step. Super 35 can look pretty decent, but I've never found it to look better than anamorphic 2.35:1 photography. It doesn't look completely great on DVD either, at least not quite as good as an anamorphic 2.35:1. The color just seems drained. I've only found 70mm blowups of Super 35 elements to look particularly good.

The brightness problem with 1.85:1 is real, especially on large screens. When I saw "Jumanji" for the first time (at an opening for a Cinemark theater in Grapevine, Texas), it was shown on a very large screen. I'd say it was at least 60 feet across. The picture just looked terrible. Perhaps there was a possibility the projector (using a custom reflector and 7000 watt lamp) was not well set up, but I think the primary blame for the dim and blurry image was just that small 1.85:1 35mm image being blown up so big on a giant screen.

Another comment was made earlier about "warnings" for filming in large formats like IMAX (with the same thing being reasonable to apply to 70mm filming as well). Sure, a movie set may get extraneous pieces of trash on it. But I think it is really a sad thing if someone is going to say it is a "benefit" to use a smaller gauge just so the production can be a little less organized in its management of film sets.

I don't work in a projection booth. I'm just an incurable film fan with what some may consider is an unhealthy fascination about the mechanics of making and showing movies. But I do distinctly know the pleasure of seeing an extremely well-photographed movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" presented on a 70mm print with very sharp detail. I can recall seeing "Rolling Stones: At The Max" with a full body shot of Keith Richards playing guitar on the stage --and with an image so sharp you could practically see the time on his watch. I think film photography of such high definition should be something that Hollywood promotes instead of giving off an impression of "warning, do not use."

If a "Scope 1.5X" format is used for the camera negative as well, you also have a significant improvement in sharpness and graininess, even compared to "Super-35", plus the advantage of not having to use an optical printer.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
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

John please don't get me wrong. I think the 1.5 scope idea is a good one. Even more so if it included the camera.

I am trying to look at both sides of the issue. On one side you have the Director who is trying to tell a story and meet production cost. The other side you have the theaters who want at least to have a reasonably good visual presentation.

The think one Director who tried to improve image quality was RIT grad Dug Trumble and his Showscan system. I understand with the showing of his movie Brainstorm, he wanted two types of projectors. One being a 70mm Showscan projector and the other being a standard projector using the standard flat .440x825 aperture plate.

All the normal scenes would be 1.85 35mm standard flat projector and all the Brainstorm scenes would be 70mm Showscan. A real changeover nightmare for the projectionist.

The idea was to show the big quality difference with his Showscan system. Something like the introduction to "This is Cinerama" but all through the picture.

Well it got nixed by producers and theater owners alike. Although Brainstorm did hit the theaters, it was usually shown in all standard 35mm scope with cropped normal scenes with full scope Brainstorm scenes. Not sure, but several 70mm prints might have been made.

No one ever got to see his Brainstorm vision of this super quality jump from 35mm 1.85 flat to 70mm 35+fps Showscan.

 |  IP: Logged

Are you saying those 70mm Brainstorm prints are in Showscan? I remember reading several articals about Showscan and how it was nixed for the Brainstorm project. In the theater I went to, the film was in 35mm scope.

There is also a listing of all original 70mm films on the net from 1955 to present. Brainstorm is not in that listing.

I know Showscan is faster then Todd-AO but I wasn't sure how much faster. I did see "Niagara" Showscan presentation at the falls. Again it was out of focus.

 |  IP: Logged