|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70mm on the up
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 11-11-2003 10:07 AM
Steve Guttag wrote:
quote:
If Kodak were to "prime the pump" I would predict 5/70 would again breath new life. Kodak and the film industry have the most to gain with 70mm. They ought to remind the industry of just how good it really is as compared to all other formats, film or digital.
If you think Kodak doesn't do enough to encourage larger formats, you aren't paying attention. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Kodak HAS worked closely with the movie industry to promote improved presentation quality, sometimes "priming the pump" when necessary. Certainly Kodak leads the way in maintaining the availability of the full family of 65mm and 70mm film stocks, at a price proportional to their size (i.e., 70 mm print film is about twice the price per foot of 35mm print film --- even though it costs more to slit and perforate due to smaller volumes.)
On a personal basis, I have written multiple articles, made multiple presentations at SMPTE, ShowEast, and ShoWest, and generally promoted the significant advantages of larger image areas on improved presentation quality ("Scope" and 70mm). Here are just a few:
Splendor of 70mm Part 1
Splendor of 70mm, Part 2
Scope 1.5X
Caring About Composition
SMPTE Presentation on Scope 1.5X
"Significance of CinemaScope", SMPTE Journal, October 1996, page 595.
Advantages of Scope
Here are some additional Kodak publications promoting 65mm/70mm films:
Hamlet 65mm/70mm
http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1996/44/hamlet/hamlet_visit.htm
quote:
The decision to use 70mm instead of 35mm on "Hamlet" was partly a creative, but (surprisingly) also a financial decision. Firstly it has always been a dream of Mr Kenneth Branagh, the director, and Mr Thomson to once make a film in 70mm. Castle Rock only agreed doing the film in 70mm, if it would not cost them anything more, concerning film stock, camera rent, etc. Panavision, Inc and Kodak were so kind to let them use the materials for the price of a 35mm production.
Making "Everest"
Kodak is a long time supporter of the GSTA and LFCA, and their members, all deeply committed to large format production and exhibition. Or do a search with "Kodak" on the http://www.in70mm.com website to see the numerous 65mm/70mm productions Kodak has helped enable.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 11-11-2003 02:34 PM
If you look at the history of large format production and/or release, the ones who have made it happen are the creatives and the showmen: Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, Howard, Branaugh, Todd, Zanuck, DeMille, Thomas, etc.. Kodak can facilitate, encourage, and even "prime the pump", but the real drive has to come from the "Creators of the Dream Machine". IMHO, providing a discounted truckload of 65mm film is not the issue.
So how many complete upgrades to 70mm have you installed for YOUR customers FREE of charge?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-11-2003 07:57 PM
John,
Ideally, you have a customer that wants the quality you have to offer. That is the way it used to be. However, you have a situation where you have a quality that they don't realize they want...the last time 65mm photography was really used for mainstream cinema it was back during Epics and quality of show was an issue.
The current crop of film makers today have not worked with 65mm photography and don't realize the benefits it will bring. There is also a learning curve to using it...just one or two films won't make experts out of them overnight but right now they have ZERO experience with shooting 5/70.
I've talked with studio reps on premiers and always inquire about upcoming 70mm releases...they always think that 70mm was about the sound and with digital sound...what is the point? So even at the studio level, there is a misperception about 70mm. Sure magnetic sound was/is the greatest but that was only half the story...great photography was the other part that made a 70mm feature better than the rest.
As for giving away product...yes I've done free installations with free equipment...can't recall a 70mm one though. However that would not be the same comparison.
I have and will still give away product if I feel it will stimulate sales. In reality the product becomes the advertisement. At trade shows you see product give-aways all the time. The idea is to generate interest where there may not be any. Right now you don't have any interest in shooting in 65mm...Kodak needs to generate some.
If the product is as good as you and I think it is, it will eventually sell itself. You don't give it away indefinately, just to prime the pump to get it going. Has anyone approched a Lucas, Spielberg or other big-gun director with an offer too good to refuse to give the 65mm product a try for a couple of films? Get them hooked (Lucas will be a tough nut to crack but even he won't be able to deny that 65mm spanks 24P...he also doesn't carry the clout he once did before his digital rampage). 65/70 will deliver it is just that good.
I can sell DLPs or 35/70s...right now I make more with the DLPs...Kodak's market is in film, 65/70 is its best...I don't see it selling its best. I see digital closing the gap on film in quality and price. The Barco DP-50 street price is now below $100,000 (including 6KW lamp)when it was about $130,000 just 6-months ago. The DP-30 is knocking around $71K....the gap is narrowing. Clearly too pricey for the mainstream but it is getting there. Then again, those are the big gun systems...how many theatres need a 6KW lamp?
So I maintain, Kodak is not doing enough to get the 65/70mm market going for conventional cinema as evidence that it isn't being used despite being a superior product.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-11-2003 09:52 PM
One thing that continues to hurt 70mm is the line "current 35mm stocks are as good as 70mm was in its heyday."
Having seen true 70mm films like "Lawrence of Arabia" I have to strongly say that is a line of bulls**t. I have never seen any 4/35 presentation come anywhere near the ballbark 70mm maintains on showing sharpness of detail.
Perhaps 35mm prints today can maintain better color quality when optically stretched out to scope (so you don't get that color drain effect), and maybe that might make the print seem a little like the quality of a 35mm/70mm blowup print from the 1980s. But the lie that 4/35 in any way compares to 5/65 and 5/70 processes really has to stop.
And then of course there's that "we have digital now so we don't need 70mm" garbage.
Someone has to get out there and promote the format, but do so through a film-making project. To use a really strange analogy, 70mm is affected by the same problem that affects home video gaming consoles. You can have the greatest, most powerful console ever created by man --but if you don't have the "software" (or in the case of 70mm, movie titles) to support the platform it will not go anywhere.
Back in 1992, I was kind of disappointed from a certain respect that a film like "Far and Away" would try to revive the format. Why can't someone shooting a guns-a-blazing action epic or some other big event movie do something in 70mm? One of the things that killed off 70mm was that many of the movies using the process were overlong bible epics and musicals. It's real easy math. Look at the kind of films that are typically the #1 box-office money makers. If a film like "Terminator 2" were filmed in 70mm format, I guarantee there would have been a lot more films throughout the 1990s using the process.
And maybe this is where Kodak needs to step in, particularly to peak more interest in FILM-making. If they can make a good offer to a big-ticket movie production to shoot something in 5/65mm rather than stupid Super35 it could breathe more life into the 70mm format. I'm sure camera makers like Panavision and Arri might be eager to get in on the offer, since they did pour a good amount of money in developing modern 65mm cameras.
The main thing is audiences will be true believers in 70mm when they are able to see the difference a real 65/70mm show can offer. Then they'll cringe at the grainy crap that often hits the screen in Super35 and demand something better.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug
Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 11-12-2003 12:19 AM
(Pulling giant condom over entire body for protection)
Assuming that many studios and producers/directors got all excited about 565/570 and Kodak discounted, or even gave away the film stock, 70mm still wouldn't fly. And, while digital video is a significant factor, the overall problem is much more than the encroachment of "TV" into the commercial "movie" theatre biz.
Also, put aside the fact that 2000+ (or whatever) 35mm reduction prints still would have to be made for all the theatres that do not have 70mm projection. Granted, the quality would be better than what we now have and much better than the current "modern" 70mm blowups from 35mm. The bigger issue is lack of camera and editing equipment, and "expertise."
quote:
...camera makers like Panavision and Arri might be eager to get in on the offer, since they did pour a good amount of money in developing modern 65mm cameras.
That was true in the 70's. But most, if not all cameras, lenses, editing equipment, screening equipment is way outdated and generally has been rotting in storage vaults for the last 30 years…if it hasn't been junked. Many 65mm cameras were converted to 8 perf. Everyone now is, and has been for a long time, spoiled by the lightweight, self-blimped 35mm cameras and modern super-sharp, fast lenses from Panavision and Arri, and others.
Also, the increased production costs due to the complexity and shear "bulkiness" of these un-blimped humongous cameras all make for a doomed format. Add to the fact that "most" of Hollywood's "wonder boys" really don't care about quality like in the "old" days. They are more concerned about getting their "masterpiece" made and at a cost that will make the financial people have an orgasm. Granted there are several really great films in recent release, but in general most of it is crap with waaaay too much CGI!
As much as it kills me to say this, and as much as I love film, the world's a-changin' and 35mm itself will have a hard fight to survive let alone 570.
>>> Phil
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic