Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is 70mm Gone For Good?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Is 70mm Gone For Good? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: Is 70mm Gone For Good?

Jeff Taylor
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 601
From: Chatham, NJ/East Hampton, NY
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 12-22-2003 08:18 AM

I've learned enough over the years to "never say never", but doesn't the size of the average 'plex pretty much answer the question on 70mm? I think you have to look at it from the standpoint of the average exhibition venue.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

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

posted 12-22-2003 08:26 AM

IMAX DMR is the key to marketting 70mm; they've shown there is a market and that it can be tapped.

Is it possible to translate the IMAX DMR market into a 70mm market? There are obvious obstacles:

IMAX is a "household word," in a way that 70mm just is not. Everyone knows that IMAX means, but few understand what 70mm means.

Exhibitors are not lined up behind 70mm like they are behind 35mm or even IMAX. Any process to try to get 70mm houses with quality projectionists to run film in major cities is going to painful. Not to mention the potential dual inventory audio issues.

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-22-2003 10:36 AM

The studios aren't worried about the growth of the home-theatre market. While the battle with TV is credited for the emergence of formats like widescreen, 3D and 70mm it is plainly apparent that TV and, in particular, DVD have become important sources of revenue for the studios. Thus, it is the exhibitors and not the studios who have reason to worry about the increasing quality (and decreasing cost) of home-theatre technology.

My feeling is that exhibitors may at some point in the near future look to 70mm as some kind of savior but I don't see the studios going along with it. Generally speaking, theatre operators will need to improve their 35mm presentations before they go demanding 70mm prints.

The bit about Disney striking 70mm prints is interesting. I didn't know that. Is this recent history or is this still happening? Gord, can you recall some titles? Are these 5/70 or are you talking about the IMAX shows (Beauty and the Beast, Fantasia, The Lion King)?

[ 12-22-2003, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]

| IP: Logged

Christopher Seo
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 530
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-22-2003 10:58 AM

I know Disney struck a 5/70 print of "Pearl Harbor" for the Japan premiere. I believe sound was provided by a DTS special-venue unit which could preserve the 5-screen-channel mix without recourse to SDDS-8. However, the US premiere (at Pearl Harbor) was "just" a 35mm EK.

Which leads me to think, if 35mm EKs can look phenomenal, the industry needs to work on improving their 35mm prints first. Whatever the reason (budget Super35 production, budget 2K intermediates, etc.), there are far too many 35mm prints out there which are far below their potential. I bet a 65mm cam neg --> 65mm interpos --> 35mm interneg --> 35mm release print chain would provide superior results to most prints today.

If the execs even feel that a few 70mm prints should be struck, that can be accommodated (with DTS 10.2?). And in any case, the production is 'future-proofed' thanks to the 65mm neg, as others have said.

Still, even this scenario seems preposterous. I don't think there is any chance of it happening without the involvement of some filmmakers with clout.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-22-2003 11:14 AM

Filmmakers with clout...

1. Steven Spielberg -- still insisting on shooting 1.85:1 (The "Indiana Jones" movies were shot in 'scope to satisfy George Lucas).

2. George Lucas -- too busy advocating digital

3. Francis Ford Coppola -- I like his attitude, method and movies but does he still have clout?

4. Martin Scorcese -- So far, of this list of "usual suspects," I think that Scorcese would be the most likely to express an interest. Scorcese is certainly a well-respected film scholar and moviemaker but I have to wonder if he's got enough "box office clout" to justify a 70mm release.

5. Ron Howard -- I'm listing him because he's done it before and he could conceivably do it again. One has to wonder why he has yet to revisit 70mm.

My list is by no means comprehensive but these are the obvious cloutmeisters that sprang forth in my mind. Feel free to point out the others that I missed.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 12-22-2003 12:06 PM

Manny, I would also add James Cameron to that 'clout' list.

quote:
Unfortunately, people like Sean Penn, while within their rights to debate politically, show little passion to mobilizing support for improving projection quality of the "art" they put out.

Mr. Penn did go totally berzerk and tore into one of our managers and projectionists after he (Penn) was sitting in a screening of 'The Pledge' that had bad SDDS tracks on it. The 'passion' is there, but he needed to be a little less 'hot-headed' about the solution.

-Aaron

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 12-22-2003 12:28 PM

Yes it was Batman returns sorry
Most of the Disney cartoon had a 5 perf 70 struck in most cases with a 35mm print runniong on a dubber to playback the SRD track

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-22-2003 01:26 PM

6. James Cameron -- advocate of the Super 35 format which, I admit, would look absolutely fabulous when blown up to 70mm. [Eek!]

But, seriously, Cameron has box office clout and TITANIC is one of precious few mainstream titles to enjoy a 70mm release in recent years and so -- yes! -- he's on the list.

Looking back at that list -- don't you think those guys would be getting 70mm releases if they wanted them? I think they're not that interested or else we'd still be getting 70mm prints...at least occasionally...but, really, what would be the point? A 5/70 release today would likely come with the same DTS track available to 35mm houses. This leaves us with only the image considerations. With this in mind, I now ask the following question:

How many of this year's movies (2003) do you think warranted a 70mm blowup?

Please...I know that some of you would like to say "all movies should be 70mm" but, for the sake of this discussion, let's try to be a little more practical than that.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 12-22-2003 01:59 PM

Manny said "How many of this year's movies (2003) do you think warranted a 70mm blowup?"
probably none
One of the big stumbling blocks is the fact that the larger film is more easily damaged due to the inerta and weight. It also has a higher linear speed. Even in the age of the blowups how often I heard from a distributor when a print was damaged the extra print cost now destroyed didn't equal the extra revenue. And one circuit when they were billed for a replacement 70mm print promptly removed every dual purepose machine from their circuit stating it wasn't worth that type of cost

The rise of the DMR to a large sense ensures a reasonably higher level of care to the prints as there are fewer venues and usually with a higher technical skill level involved
There is no reason that DMR could not generate a 5 perf print if desired but I doubt that will happen

| IP: Logged

Ron Lacheur
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 650
From: British Columbia, Canada
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-22-2003 03:18 PM

Spielberg does have the power to do 70mm blowups. Just look at his films from the 1980's. All of them except for the Color Purple and possibly 1 or 2 others were given a 70mm blowup treatment.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-22-2003 03:31 PM

That may well be the case. But consider also that you are referring to an era in which 70mm blowups were quite common.

I still have a promo kit from DTS which contains a letter from Steven Spielberg in which he declares how happy he is that all theatres can now have access to great sound and not just the premiere venues. Since we haven't seen any 70mm prints of his later movies I'd have to infer that Spielberg doesn't see much point to doing 70mm blowups anymore.

And, for the record, I never said that Spielberg did not have the clout. Just that he doesn't seem to have the interest in pushing the format.

| IP: Logged

Warren Smyth
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 158
From: Auckland ,New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-22-2003 04:07 PM

I believe horizontal Vistavision had a lot going for it. Naturally, it wasn't going to take on as an exhibition format while projector manufacturers discarded the notion of duel format operation. I don't believe duel format was impossible. A projector that rotated 90 degrees on it's optical axis could have done the trick. The strengthening and a suitable bearing around the light cone would not, I believe, have been an engineering impossibility. Maybe a twin sized intermittent sprocket would have been possible to cater for the 8 hole pull across. Today, it would probably be achieved with a stepper motor along the lines of the Kineton option. I don't want to trivialize the challenges. but I just believe a projector to run horizontal Vistavision and conventional vertical 35mm could have been designed. The alternative, the development of a white elephant is said to have been responsible for the closure of the very successful Gaumont Kalee projector plant in Leeds England.

Now look at the benefits of Vistavision as a large frame format. It used standard 35mm film, so standard processing and printing (with modification) was possible. The cost per print would be about that of two prints of the same title. Compare that with a 70mm print today. The writing speed of 180 feet per minute would provide a better frequency reponse from optical analogue tracks. Shipping is much cheaper. There's much less bulk in 2 35mm prints than there is in one 70mm print of the same title. I believe if Vista Vision had received the same standard of development as an exhibition format as did 70mm, it would have been more sucessful than 70mm. The economics were always against 70mm.

But let's face it - I'm dreaming. We will never see the benefits of Vistavision. This is not an industry that really cares much about resolution on the screen any more. After all 80 percent of American films are produced in 1:1.85 aspect ratio which discards a whopping 35 per cent of the available frame area. How many industries waste that amount of their product without going broke?

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that an anamorphic system of slightly over a one and a half expansion, (instead of twice) would provide the 1:1.85 aspect ratio from the same frame area as that used for Cinemascope. The resolution on the screen with no frame loss, even with the imperfections of the anamorphic, would be improved significantly. I'll leave others to do the maths. The light output for the 1;1.85 aspect ratio would also be improved significantly.

What would be required? an additional anamorphic and backing lens ,not unlike that once used for Superscope, and aperture. The backing lens would be the same focal length as that used for scope. The cost would probably be about the same as that for the conversion to cyan tracks which produces NO technical improvement for the audience. The problem is, the industry is not spending money where it counts in the final result to the audience.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-22-2003 04:35 PM

quote:
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that an anamorphic system of slightly over a one and a half expansion, (instead of twice) would provide the 1:1.85 aspect ratio from the same frame area as that used for Cinemascope. The resolution on the screen with no frame loss, even with the imperfections of the anamorphic, would be improved significantly. I'll leave others to do the maths. The light output for the 1;1.85 aspect ratio would also be improved significantly.

I am certain that John P. will be along shortly to provide info and/or links relating to the work that has already done to accomplish exactly this.

quote:
The cost would probably be about the same as that for the conversion to cyan tracks which produces NO technical improvement for the audience. The problem is, the industry is not spending money where it counts in the final result to the audience.

Are you referring only to the cyan tracks? Or are there other examples of industrywide mis-spending?

Just a side-note: At the very least, cyan dye conversion gave us reverse-scan LED readers which do a better job than the old filament exciters. Even if cyan dye *never* takes off, at least a lot of us got better scanners.

Maybe we should start another thread if people want to share their thoughts on that.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 12-22-2003 04:50 PM

Isco vision was the 1.85:1 anamorphic format and if one does a search there is alot on this site about it
Vistavision isn't as simple as rotating the head 90 degrees since lazy 8 projection runs from the lower reel up to the upper reel requiring the intermitent at the other end of the trap
Unless one wants to flip the machine the other direction and lie on the floor looking uppwards to lace up [Smile]

VistaVision and techniramma both provide a good source of a large format negative for 70mm prints as was done with many super techniramma titles

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 12-22-2003 04:53 PM

We are straying now, but I'm curious...

Was VistaVision ever implemented as a projection format and, if so, to what extent (how widely available) ?

Somehow, I had always figured VistaVision as a shooting format, like 65mm.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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.