|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is 70mm Gone For Good?
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-24-2003 03:05 PM
Scott wrote:
quote:
If the distributors don't care about having quality operators to run their 35mm prints, then why would they care about it with their 70mm prints?
It isn't so much that the distributors would care about the 70mm prints per se. Rather, they would likely point to the decline in 35mm showmanship and suggest that the exhibition industry at large needs to get its act together before demanding 70mm on the grounds of needing better quality.
In fact, the studios are pointing to the decline in 35mm showmanship as justification for moving to dCinema which, as we are all painfully aware, is technically a medium of lesser quality.
Also, it is presumed that the number of 70mm prints would be relatively low as compared to the number of 35mm prints. Combine the scarcity of the 70mm prints with the increased manufacturing costs and we can understand why the studios may care a little more about how these prints are handled.
Furthermore, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the penalties are much higher when theatres damage 70mm prints. As mentioned in that same post, some theatres declared a moratorium on 70mm bookings after being hit with penalties for print damage. One has to wonder whether those theatres have experienced a change of heart.
quote:
Related topic: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the quality of projectionists (in general) seems to have improved in the last year or so? I deal mostly with "first run" (whatever that means in this context) art house titles with an occasional mix of assorted repertory prints and mainstream titles.
The only used prints I get are "art house" product and, yes, they are usually in good condition.
Does this mean that the quality of projectionists has improved? Not necessarily.
I believe that art houses have to work harder to attract and maintain their audience. Our art house patrons know the managers by name and talk to them about the movies and other things. They are also more apt to complain if something isn't right.
I also wonder whether art houses are running 24 screens with a single operator...or are they perhaps running 3 or 4 screens? I don't really know.
Add to all of that the process of QC for those prints when they are returned to the depots. One would imagine that the studio might request careful QC for those titles because there aren't usually that many prints in the first place, necessitating a greater percentage be re-used for the sub-runs. The depots may be applying that logic on their own initiative.
--------
Bobby wrote:
quote:
35/70 blowups should be a mandatory requirement for any oversized theater screen. The UA Galaxy 9 in Garland, TX claims to have the largest indoor movie screens in Texas. I don't care. I'm not watching a 35mm print on a screen 80 feet across.
This is an interesting argument. I could go along with this.
Same applies to the notion that dCinema is presently inappropriate for high-capacity houses.
Perhaps, then, we ought to see three release platforms:
* 70mm for large venues.
* 35mm for small and "average" multiplex locations in cities
* dCinema for rural locations
With fewer theatres receiving 35mm prints it would be hoped that the labs would have time to make better looking prints.
--------
quote:
In the long term 70mm actually helps. It will future proof a movie and make it easier to repackage and resell on newer, better video storage/playback formats.
Video has a long way to go before outgrowing 35mm. The argument that 65mm is necessary for "future-proofing" video is ludicrous at this point.
While I am not opposed to dCinema -- even in its present manifestation -- I believe that it should be considered a "release-only" technology and its use should be discouraged/discontinued on the production side.
--------
quote:
I wouldn't know the improved grosses on D Cinema features versus 4/35. But I would expect a significant increase with all the silliness that surrounds the "digital is perfect" hype. One of the big things that helped 70mm in the 1980's were the big logo boxes you would see in the stack ads which separated the 70mm booked theaters from all the other ones only showing 35mm. Many customers went to the 70mm theaters. Most probably didn't understand what 70mm was, but they figured it must be something that makes watching the movie better and didn't want that hollow feeling of having settled for something less.
(Emphasis added.)
And, by that same logic, I think that the viewing public at large will buy into dCinema...as you seem to predict.
[ 12-24-2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-24-2003 07:03 PM
quote:
The equipment is out there, either in place or gathering dust in a warehouse and with a little cleaning or overhaul could be installed relatively inexpensively along with a few other doodads (DTS reader, platter, guidance, cue detector, splicer). Equipment is barely an issue.
I dunno, Steve. In reality, that's quite a laundry list. I suppose it would depend on the movie.
A good candidate might be a Pixar release where the 70mm houses got a 4-week headstart over their 35mm counterparts.
quote:
Personnel able run it without destroying it is an issue, as is willingness to commit the big screen to play this film for at least a few weeks to justify making the print.
That's an angle that hasn't been explored yet. If I were advising a theatre going in on this deal, I would insist on a platform release pattern where 70mm houses get a headstart.
quote:
In return the distributor supports it by noting the 70mm houses at the top of the ad.
Wouldn't you agree it's the least they could do?
quote:
There is no doubt the 70mm prints would outgross the 35's all other things being equal. But if it's viewed as simply canibalizing the other runs they might not see a point.
Excellent point. They've shortened the shelf-life of the movies already by implementing an ultra-wide release strategy. It's all about the first weekend.
This goes right back to the "few weeks" commitment. With the right movie, a platform release would undoubtedly generate a formidable "want to see" buzz around the movie. 35mm houses would probably benefit by the time they come online with the movie.
Again, though, the success or failure of a 70mm revival would depend to a great degree on the movie itself.
Another major factor would be the quality of the presentations -- Radio City Music Hall may do a wonderful job with 70mm but those kinds of venues are becoming increasingly rare; the multiplexes and megaplexes are bound to be the weak links.
quote:
And would the difference in grosses hold up on subsequent releases or would people shrug it off not noticing a difference when it's just a blowup?
This is really what it all comes down to. If the customers can't discern an improvement then there's no point. This is why dCinema is actually viable despite its current shortcomings.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-24-2003 08:09 PM
I agree with the others that "Return of the King", or the entire trilogy for that matter, deserved the 65mm treatment. Or AT LEAST true anamorphic! It would be nice to have 70mm blowups of the three extended versions. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Manny: I wouldn't go so far as to give 70mm houses a few weeks of a head start. A few days would do it. Say a movie is opening on a Friday, have the 70mm houses open it on the Wednesday before. For Wednesday (and holiday) releases, have them open it the Friday before. And the key would be to advertize it as such. "Starts Wednesday at Select theaters, Friday everywhere"
Truth is "Seventy Millimeter" is a mouthfull. Someone should come up with a catchier, more sellable name. MAGnavision? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The digital sound folks need to wake up, too. If DTS would push its 10-track audio exclusively on 70mm prints, or if Dolby would print double tracks on both sides of the image in place of the outer Mag stripes, they could boast 10-track audio, too, or at least have a redundant 5.1 track in case of dropout. And what's the problem with putting optical DTS-Stereo on DTS70 prints now that all that area covered by the mag tracks is reclaimed? Being I've never personally seen a DTS-70 print before, I could be putting my foot in my mouth...
Our Kodak Vision Premiere 2393 print of X-2 looked absolutely awesome. I could only imagine a Vision Premiere 70mm print. You'd almost want to step into the screen...
=TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-24-2003 09:12 PM
Kind words, Sam. Thanks!
I agree with everything Bobby just said.
Thomas -- as Sam just pointed out -- a 70mm print can't be downgraded if the smaller houses aren't equipped to handle it. For that reason alone, the 70mm houses will need more than a few days "protection" on their investment.
Inventing a new name for 70mm ignores the fact that there is actually already a fan base for the format, albeit a relatively small one.
An attempt at reintroducing 70mm under a new name could backfire, inadvertently creating confusion. Or, worse, it could *really* backfire if people get to thinking that we're trying to sell them "something old" by merely "calling it something different." ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Magnavision isn't that much easier to say than 70mm, especially when I consider that many people "in the know" just call it "seventy."
Cinerama always reminded me of "ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong" and, in fact, we jokingly called it "Cineramadingdong" when I lived in Southern California.
Regarding 5/70 with DTS:
1. Same discs as 35mm?
2. Has a 5/70 DTS release ever shipped without the discs?
And would there really need to be a ".2" in a new format? What would that be? Stereo LFE?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 12-24-2003 10:32 PM
Some point that seem important in my opinion:
1. 70mm release prints are necessary for the largest screens because you can get a brighter picture and less focus problems. Films shot on 35mm will look better as a 70mm blowup, too. Films shot in 65mm will look like IMAX without the big headroom, but better because of the 5-perf's better depth of field.
2. All films that have potential for epic looks should be shot on 65mm. Reduction prints on 35mm anamorphic will look much superior to 35-35 prints IF the quality is not lost through careless duplicating and printing operation.
3. There is no shortage of 65mm cameras or lenses for a few big productions a year. BUT there is a reluctance with today breed of cinematographers to use a tool they are not familar with. Good cinematographers choose the best tool they can get. MOST cinematographers do what they are used to and find some stupid "artistic" reason for it afterwards.
4. There is presently no major director who cares enough about image quality so he will check that cinematography is top-notch AND have the international release print quality checked. This is not impossible, as Stanley Kubrick used to prove (except EYES WIDE SHUT, which was shown in some places in prints with inferior image quality - because Kubrick had died before the release).
The great quality in many showmen like Mike Todd, David O. Selznick or David Lean was that they CARED about every aspect of their work's presentation. Today, NOBODY has the power to do so because moviemaking has become so expensive that nothing but the first weekend gross counts.
5. The additional cost of 65mm original photography is negligible with any major production. Additional cost of film stock (double 35mm + 20%) looks like a drop in the ocean regarding today's budgets.
6. There would be additional work and money spent if the digital effects and postproduction were to be done at full 65mm resolution. IMHO the downhill race in cinematography began when every film had to have some digital work done. So they had to degrade the non-effect photography, otherwise the CGI stuff would stand out like a sore thumb. Welcome, Super-35! Hello, high speed film stock!
Digital effects can be done in highest resolution and will outdo anything on 2K Super 35 film - imagine T-REX in IMAX-like quality without the added headroom!
7. This would be the time ro revive Technirama. For years, the outmoded printing process would have prevented the use of it. (Although I believe that 8-perf-technirama-to-35mm printing was still offered by Technicolor labs some time ago, but I may be wrong.)
Today, it would be easier. Shoot on 8-perf, use any given lab (it's plain 35mm film), use a telecine for viewing and postproduction, then scan the camera neg at 4K rez and record it onto 35mm interpos/interneg stock, adding more squeeze to get 2x. The 35mm prints will be the best anamorphic print you can get.
AGAIN, the problem lies with the cinematographers.
There are a few 8-perf cameras, for example from Wilcam (Clairmont rents them, I think) or Filmtechnik Fromm. Only one (the Wilcam) is blimped for sound recording. So you would have to manufacture a number of these 8-perf cameras to shoot a major film.
But then there comes the problem of getting lenses. Cinematographers love to use their favourite lenses, and one of the reasons why they embraced inferior Super-35 is that it allows them to use their standard lenses!
Few cameraman will go back to the Technirama age where they had exactly four focal lengths.
THEN there is the problem of the anamorphic adapters. The original Technirama anamorphics were huge units, as you can see on Marty Hart`s great site:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr1.htm
Sure you could make smaller anamorphic lenses today, but this is very, very costly. The ISCO company seems to have done a few when Kinoton unsuccessfully tried to introduce a 35mm/1,5x anamorphic format in the 1980s, making even a modest series of 1.5x anamorphic lenses for 8-perf (unless you want to use the SLR-type 1.5x lenses known as Iscorama ) will be an expensive thing.
I am afraid that today's cinematographers will not accept tools that do not come of a rental houses shelf. Most new films are badly photographed, and films that have the potential to bring an unique experience to the screen (LotR, for example) are shot with limited resolution only - money saved means more profit later.
8. This thread touched the question a few times whether the audience notices or not. THIS IS THE WRONG QUESTION.
The movies a a whole must make an impression. Perfection in imaging will heighten any delightful experience that acting, effects, direction and storyline create.
Films like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA had it all, some films like RYAN'S DAUGHTER did not catch the viewers as intended by the filmmakers, although they are technically marvellous. They are remembered so well after decades not only because of their great story and acting, but because the outstanding image in 70mm presentation has a subconcious additional kick to the viewer (I will not say subliminal )
That goes for any technical point, it is not necessary for the audience to be aware of a stereo surround, but when it is used cleverly like in MASTER AND COMMANDER or RAPA NUI, it pulls you even deeper into the film experience (although sloppy pictures like in M&C can prevent that, at least for me...).
So do not ask, It is so much better that people will take notice.
The question is, Will the film make more impact through better photography ?
Remembering the fact that even 'scope films statistically gross more than flat movies and 70mm presentations did better than the same title in 35mm, I would say YES. But to prove it, you would have to change the way films are made during the last 25 years.
I's love to see it, but I doubt it will happen. Who knows?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-25-2003 12:20 AM
65mm shooting increases the cost of production in more ways that just film stock. There is undoubtedly increased cost associated with camera equipment (and, probably, crew too) and then I'm told that more lighting is needed. Add to those increases, the printing and projection of dailies. So, it's a bit more expensive than just the raw film stock.
It is also a little naive to downplay the question of audience perception. As you pointed out elsewhere in your own post, there are business concerns and -- like it or not -- some of those concerns carry a lot of validity. To my way of thinking it is perfectly acceptable to consider the end user because if I were producing a movie and I had to choose between (a) shooting/releasing in 35mm and getting all of my effects shots, having a stereo mix and the star(s) that I wanted or (b) shooting on 65mm and/or releasing in 70mm with fewer effects and less of the other good stuff...I'd have to go with using 35mm so that I could get the other stuff that has been *proven* to sell tickets.
70mm may have marketing power as a gimmick but I doubt there are many people saying "I won't go see it because they released in 35mm." It's not a critical factor in the audience's decision-making process.
And why did I just *know* that, even with 70mm, there would be DTS disc issues!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 12-25-2003 01:40 AM
Manny,
the question is whether the 65mm postproduction would really drive up the budget so much. I am no specialist on CGI and visual effects, so someone else will have to answer this question.
You may be right about the way decisions are made today. But making films (the creative part, not the financing and distribution) is more than just weighing everything that has proven successful in the past. There are many examples for things that were risky or (from the back-then point of view) not logical, but the people who made those decisions made better films and bigger profits.
Walt Disney made the first animated feature film when everyone said that no audience would pay for seeing a cartoon longer than seven minutes. Mike Todd produced AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS in a format for which there was no working projector, no editing equipment - he could have been wrong about guessing what people would enjoy.
When you reduce the whole movie making process to logic, you get what many of us (and the ticket buying public) do not care about any longer: basically always the same film repackaged, retitled and played safe.
The customers do not need to know whether the sound comes from analog, digital or how many channels there are. They don't have to care about the film stock, the projection system or anything else. But when the sound is very effective and the picture looks great, it creates a more intense experience.
Why did George Lucas have his experts reinvent visual effects for the first STAR WARS film? Audience seemed happy enough with the state-of-the-art effects which look cheesy and unconvincing to us today - but would you say that the effects did not play a role in the success of STAR WARS?
70mm is a technique of improving the visual impact of films.
Nothing more, nothing less. Does it pay to make a thing better?
It's a question for the creative people in the film industry, not for the bookkeepers and executives, for they don't understand, they never have. This goes back to the days of Technicolor or panchromatic black&white stock.
As for the added cost of 65mm shooting: There are some modern 65mm cameras that will be easy to use, like the Arri 765 or the CP65 (used for Showscan). They run silent, have all the accessories and "little helpers" that today's cinematographers are used to.
Yes, there are handheld cameras (MOS) and they can be adapted to a Steadicam and remote heads. It does not necessarily take more light to shoot 65, but it will look best if you add about one lens stop to give better depth of field.
I have met cinematographers here in Europe who told me that they couldn't shoot a certain film in Scope because they would have needed more extras for the wider picture. I went and asked the directors and set designers. It turned out that some of the DoPs just lied, they just felt comfortable using their own equipment.
Shooting Scope compared to 1.85 or (European standard) 1.66 wide screen, you will not need more extras or bigger sets. It all depends on the angle of the camera lens you want to use. I could write pages about cinematographers who told the biggest lies about their work, lies so big that every amateur photographer would have laughed his head off. Many times I was told that they would not shoot Scope because the anamorphic lenses were so inferior to sphericals. They took opinions and facts from the 1950s and repeated them without knowing anythings about new lenses or formats - all to justify what they did everyday.
At a dailies screening, a well known DoP raved about how great the Super-35 format was. I asked him why the image looked so grainy and soft, and he said: "Oh, that's because of the printing process. You know, the S-35 gets squeezed to Scope, and the lenses in this theatre are not good, like most scope lenses."
His explanation seemed strange to me. I knew that most S-35 dailies were screened flat to avoid the optical step-printing at that stage.
Back at the projection room, I asked the projectionist in charge what they had run. It was a contact print (shot S-35 full frame) from the original camera negative, matted to 2.35 width with a spherical lens.
The next day, I had a little chat with the 1st camera assistant, and he confirmed, that the DoP had requested shooting that scene "wide open" with his favourite zoom lens which tends to go soft below T4, and he insisted on using ASA500 stock and push it in development. This was the true reason for the lousy image quality, not the theatre's evil anamorphic lens.
So I would be careful with cinematographers telling you about 65/70mm "It's too expensive", "the equipment is hard to handle" and all the stuff. From my experience, the people saying "it can't be done" are mostly the people who either don't know how to do it or don't even want to try.
There are many cinematographers that I will praise and respect, but if you look behind some of the stories of others, they just have nothing do do with optics, laws of physic and sensible photography.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic