|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70mm on the up
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-12-2003 06:14 PM
quote:
That was true in the 70's. But most, if not all cameras, lenses, editing equipment, screening equipment is way outdated and generally has been rotting in storage vaults for the last 30 years…if it hasn't been junked.
Absolutely not true. Arri introduced the Arri 765 back in 1989, which has all the bells and whistles of any of their modern cameras. Panavision introduced their Super Panaflex 65mm camera and an entire set of Primos lenses principally for use on "Far and Away" in 1991. Another camera by Wilcam or Mitchell (I forget which) was also introduced in 1989 mainly for Showscan work and received a lot of high praise.
And even when it comes to the stuff "rotting away for 30 years" you'll find that a number of filmmakers have taken very good care of such gear. "Baraka" was shot almost entirely with old Todd-AO 65mm cameras and the picture quality was spectacular. Much better color and sharpness quality than any 35mm movie ever made period. And "digital cinema" (or faux-HD video to be honest) isn't even in the ballpark for 35mm.
I'll also give my spin, yet again, for the "forward looking" reason for shooting a movie in 65mm. Sure, you may not have thousands of 70mm equipped screens for the initial release. But there will not be a video format invented by mankind within the next 50 years to surpass the quality of a 65mm negative. That equals a movie that will be MARKETABLE FOR MANY DECADES. MORE MONEY.
Many old movies don't sell well on home video or DVD (or even get good ratings on TV) because most look like shit. This will be especially true for people who stupidly shoot major film productions in very limited digital video formats now. They will not be able to "up-rez" to much higher definition formats a decade or two down the road. 65mm/70mm is very future proof to such developments. A very worthwhile investment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-13-2003 02:16 AM
quote:
That equals a movie that will be MARKETABLE FOR MANY DECADES. MORE MONEY.
Sadly the economics of Hollywood militate against a strategy of marketing films which are designed to recoup the production investment gradually over many years. The kind of big-budget productions which could feasibly absorb the extra costs of 65/70 have to generate a profit in the first week or two of release, or are considered a failure.
It's like the difference between the marketing of pop and classical albums in the music industry. Mariah Carey's new album fails to make millions for EMI shareholders within a month or two of hitting the shelves, so her contract is terminated. But go into the classical section and you'll find that it's full of CDs of symphonies and operas recorded 20 to 30 years ago. That's because the number of classical music buyers is so comparatively small that producing the recordings in the first place is only commercially viable if they're seen as long-term investments.
The film industry doesn't work that way, and exploiting its back catalogue of archival titles (in the way that classical record labels do) cannot generate enough money to support 'front end' investment in new product for the X years it would take to break even. This was tried with the road show presentations in the '50s and '60s, but sadly the sums didn't add up.
I don't think the public will ever be persuaded to pay for better technology on its own. When I worked at the Exeter Picture House from 96 to 99, we had Dolby Digital sound. At the time we were about the only venue within a 50 mile radius which had it. But a hard core of the arthouse crowd persisted in going to see their films at the local community arts centre, despite the fact that it had hard classroom seats, a tiny screen, mono sound and showed mainly 16mm. The reason? Cheaper tickets and you were allowed to bring drinks from the bar into the auditorium.
You can, gradually, over time, build up an audience which appreciates high-end presentation and is willing to travel and/or pay a bit more for it, as Darren has proved with his 70mm shows in York. But the bottom line is that you need films which are going to attract large audiences to start with. So if 65/70 is ever going to be reestablished in the mainstream, it will need to be reintroduced at the production end through the current model of big-budget, prestige Hollywood product.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 11-13-2003 08:36 AM
On the exhibition side, the 48 IMAX DMR prints of "Matrix: Revolutions" are doing very well, and holding much better than the 35mm theatres. You can argue whether 15-perf 70mm is the most efficient way to fill a big screen with a (letterboxed) feature film, but the price of 70mm film didn't deter IMAX or Warner Bros. from choosing the added quality of 70mm for this high profile release. As I noted, the 70mm market is driven by the creatives and showmen, not the film or equipment vendors:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=Celebrity&OID=38078
quote:
'Matrix' buttresses Imax hopes for big film debuts
LOS ANGELES - The human race may not be the only thing Matrix savior Neo lifts to new heights. Imax theaters could be next.
Imax Corp.'s opening week box office of just over $3 million for The Matrix Revolutions hit the top range of expectations and buttresses Imax's case for debuting major movies on its giant screens the same day as in traditional theaters, co-chief executive Rich Gelfond said on Monday.
"When we sat down and thought about how well the movie could do, this was certainly on the high end," Gelfond said. "For the last two years, we have been saying, 'wait until we open contemporaneously (with traditional theaters), then look at that"' box office result.
Gelfond told Reuters Imax is in currently talks with four major film studios for the same type of "day and date" debut as Revolutions, a science fiction movie about humans led by their hero, Neo, battling for survival against machines.
The film debuted last week in 48 Imax theaters marking the first time a big-budget, franchise film has opened simultaneously on Imax and in traditional theaters.
Imax wants to entice studios to debut big budget films on Imax screens -- some of which can rise 8 stories high -- and in standard theaters the same day. Imax believes the promotional pull of the big films will bring more people to Imax theaters.
However various concerns, including some over cannibalizing normal ticket sales, have led to reluctance in Hollywood.
Last year, Imax was able to get older films like Apollo 13, animated The Lion King and more currently The Matrix Reloaded in its theaters but only after debuting in traditional theaters. Still, they provide the only comparison.
Reloaded opened at Imax in June, two weeks after standard theaters. That weekend, it sold $903,000 of Imax tickets.
This past week, Revolutions took in an average $63,000 per Imax venue versus The Lion King, which sold about $25,000 per Imax venue in its first weekend at Imax last December.
Gelfond said the Imax theaters were charging premium prices of about $2.50 more, on average, than standard theater tickets and still selling-out. In some cases, the prices rose as high as $15 per ticket in Imax.
"Our first look at the statistics shows very little cannibalization," he said.
Please send your comments or feedback to newsfeedback@abs-cbn.com
Reuters/abs-cbnNEWS.com
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 11-13-2003 02:41 PM
quote:
Another camera by Wilcam or Mitchell (I forget which) was also introduced in 1989 mainly for Showscan work and received a lot of high praise.
The camera Bobby was referring to is the Cinema products CP-65, I believe the movement was designed by Geoff. Williamson. Veteran cinematographer Jack Cardiff shot one of the Showscan movies with it.
For years, filmmakers kept bitching about cameras and lenses being to big and too heavy. We know what they did when Arri introduced the state-of-the-art Arriflex 765: NOTHING. A few short films, parts of Bertolucci`s LITTLE BUDDHA and besides that only SFX shots. They wanted modern tools with all bells and whistles, and when it was available, they began shooting shitty Super35, because even the anamorphic lenses seemed to unmanageable!
Today`s filmmakers are too uneducated, to lazy or to cynical to care for the great look of true 65mm photography.
If directors and cinematographers had been such sissies in the 1940s and 1950s, we would never have had Technicolor films like GONE WITH THE WIND or THE RED SHOES - "Mommy, the camera`s too heavy!" - "I need to much lights! It`s getting so hot!" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
How I hate these "creative decision makers". I hope there`s a special hell for them where they have to watch "Dogma films" all day long. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 11-13-2003 08:34 PM
I'll just add here that the Producer of "Baraka" (Mr. Mark Magidson) has spoken at my theatre (the Egyptian, in L.A.) several times, in conjunction with showings of the film.
And I recall him stating that the lenses were (mostly, if not all) from Hasselblad, so that confirms Mark's speculations, and also accounts for some of the amazing image quality you see there.
The "construction" referred to, in the camera credits, I believe is mostly making of the motion-control, and stop-motion system used during the production. I'd have to refer to the audiotapes of his talks to be sure, but I think one camera was an Arri, and the Todd-AO camera was camera #2 and was the one especially used for motion control.
In any event, Todd-AO (along with Dr. Richard Vetter) also made that demonstration film, aptly entitled the "Cinespace 70 Demonstration Film", about the same time as "Baraka" was made (circa 1991). One of the reasons for making it was to demonstrate -- and illustrate -- the Cinespace 70 camera, so DPs could see what it was all about. If you can ever see this film projected, I highly recommend it. Among other nice things, it is to run at 30fps, which brings it closer to the ideal film speed some of us would like to see utilized everywhere!
Incidentally, both of those films (Baraka & Demo. Film) were shot during the reign of what Kodak called the "EXR" family of film camera stocks. In the mid 90s, the "Vision" series of emulsions was brought out, with finer grain and better color, and the "Vision Premiere" print stock. So the film stocks today are already one complete generation improved since 1991...and now there is at least one newer camera stock, part of a possible "Vision 2" series of emulsions.
I will think I have died and gone to heaven when someone shoots something in 65mm on these new camera stocks, and then prints it on real "Premiere" print stock. Can you imagine how grand that could be?
And finally, we should mention the SD-70 ("Super Dimension 70") process, which has been demonstrated around L.A. for a couple of years, but so far has not lit any fires as far as being utilized for a major production. It is 5/70 image size, at 48fps(!). He has a projector custom-made with two (2) intermittents, one at the top and one at the bottom of the gate, to run the film through that fast. It's very impressive, and he seemed to have a valid business plan to get it into theatres (where the theatres would not have to pay for the machines, music to any theatre owner's ears!), but still -- no known applications that I've heard of.
They have a web site, <superdimension70.com> which you can visit for more info on that one.
| 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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But arbitrarily increasing prices to subsidize other products is generally perceived as unfair. That's why 70mm film is about twice the price of the same film in 35mm --- it's twice as big.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. I suspect that it just has a digital controler like the Iwerks Linear Loop machine does.
Printer-friendly view of this topic