Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70mm on the up

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » 70mm on the up (Page 6)

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 11-14-2003 01:52 PM

Likewise at 60fps. [Cool]

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 11-14-2003 02:25 PM

The light remains the same. Just spreading it over 2 frames instead of showing the same frame twice.

>>> Phil

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 11-14-2003 02:47 PM

Since you can go to a single shutter occlusion instead of two, don't you actually get more light efficiency? Or have you found you need more degrees of coverage by the shutter blade?

In other words, if you use a two blade shutter at 24fps, each blade will typically be about 90-degrees, and the shutter will be about 50% efficient. At 48fps, you only need a single 90-degree blade, so the efficiency would be 75%.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-14-2003 06:54 PM

On the Imax remove the interceptor blades from the rotor and the master stays the same width

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-14-2003 09:50 PM

quote:
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.

Leo, you missed my point. Naturally any major film production will need to be successful (and profitable) on the initial release. The same standard would hold true for a modern feature shot on 65mm film.

What I am talking about is successful re-marketing of a "classic" film that was successful in its original release, but then doing certain things to keep the film from looking dated for viewers decades from now. It is a fact many people turn up their noses to older classic films in part because the visual look of the older films do not stand up well to most modern movies. A movie that is shot on 65mm film will be easier to transfer over to whatever video format is state of the art 20 to 50 years from now, if not even father into the future. Lots of work gets put into making 20 year old films like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" look good enough for 480p DVD release. Imagine the headaches down the road if someone's TV shows 6,000 X 14,000 pixels. 65mm is something that can stand up to that.

Give it 20 or 30 years and the video technology used on movies like "Episode II" or that "Desperado" sequel, "Once Upon A Time in Mexico" will seem inferior to consumer home video cameras. That's not to say either of those two films are "classic" at all, but it would be a shame for a filmmaker to shoot a ground breaking classic of a movie and waste that on getting screwed over for the fashion of shooting "digitally." Critics might hail the work for decades, but audiences will turn up their noses at it because the low rez video that was once considered good decades later looks like crap.

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 11-16-2003 06:29 AM

If it has been determined that there is no need to go beyond 60fps that is valuahle knowledge. It has been posted here at film-tech that a lot is gained going from 24fps to 30fps. It would seem natural to me that improvements in picture quality from inreased fps depends a lot on the kind of scenes that are shot. With lots of action I am sure 48fps is superior to 30fps and with less things moving 30fps is good enough.

Is there no point in shooting 48fps and then you can project every other frame for a 24fps presentations. I assume that using sensitive modern film and shooting 65mm 48fps do not introduce any real problems.

1 70mm 48fps sd-70 release with the latest DTS
2 35mm from 65 mm original projected 24fps

Altenative one could be for permiere theaters / events
Alternative two for regular viewing

Also it seems sd-70 is using 96Hz flicker rate.

[ 11-16-2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-16-2003 12:59 PM

One thing that has been noticed is that skip frame print downs from the 48fps negative to 24fps prints seem to exhibit more strobing than a 24fps original of the same content
probably because there is less blurr to the moving edges of objects

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 11-16-2003 02:26 PM

That's true Gordon. When Iwerks was looking to buy ShowScan's 60fps ride-film library, we ran skip-frame tests to see how they would play on our 30fps equipment. The results were very acceptable, but the skipping was more noticible in the fast pan shots...but not objectionable.

>>> Phil

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 11-16-2003 03:45 PM

Adam said;

quote:
Imax MPX does not maintain the (approximate) 1.4:1 aspect ratio of 1570. It masks off the top and bottom of the image to create a 1.75:1 image on screen. It will only be good for DMR films that are letterboxed on the print. Original 1570 films will appear to have something missing.

Sure; I didn't mean that you could show true IMAX films in MPX theatres, just the other way round. However good point re. the ratio (they refer to it as 1:1.78 in their brochure). It means that even if you were to shoot 65mm and reprint upwards, you'd have a huge letterbox, possibly obviating any advantages of the larger image size.

But added to all the obstacles of shooting 65mm, there's the problem of too many formats. How can one, even with the best of intentions, justify printing say, Matrix : Revolutions in both 15/70 AND 5/70?

Not to mention the frame rates as above [Confused]

| IP: Logged

John McConnel
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 118
From: Okmulgee, OK USA
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 11-16-2003 05:27 PM

What's MPX? I just got in on this topic. Thanks.

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 11-16-2003 05:44 PM

New IMAX System Unvailed (sic)

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 11-16-2003 06:34 PM

If IMAX release, whether day and date or delayed, of conventional films is becoming all the rage is it that much to ask that a studio at least TRY releasing a few 5/70's and see if those jack up attendence (with appropriate advertising) like they used to? It's incomprehensible that they don't even try.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-16-2003 08:36 PM

yes and call it MiniMax [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-17-2003 12:19 AM

Did Sony learn anything of interest from the 70mm rerelease of LOA?

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 11-17-2003 01:46 AM

quote:
What I am talking about is successful re-marketing of a "classic" film that was successful in its original release, but then doing certain things to keep the film from looking dated for viewers decades from now.

Sadly, the film and TV industries have a pretty poor record when it comes to 'future proofing' their output. Nitrate continued to be used for three decades after the decomposition process was fully understood: in the '40s, some very stable early chromogenic colour processes were abandoned in favour of cheaper ones which were far more prone to fading (more on this in this book), and of course the main reason videotape became so popular for TV production was that it could be wiped and re-recorded.

However, now that we have a far bigger 'secondary' market for archive film (e.g. cable/satellite, DVD) I think studios are starting to take this issue a bit more seriously, but I can't see any systematic evidence of studios being willing to accept a cost hit at the point of production in order to ensure effective preservation. A pity, because restoring a film later is usually far more expensive.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.