|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70mm Refuses To Go Away
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-12-2006 01:27 AM
quote: Michael Coate
These new prints were grainy and contrasty in a similar fashion as the last round of "2001: A Space Odyssey" prints were.
I had the same reaction. I saw LOA twice in 70mm back at the Century Plaza #1 in 1989 and both times the film was incredibly sharp and grain-free. When I saw the new print at the Cinerama Dome, I was surprised at the lack of quality. Of course, I attributed this to the much larger magnification of the Dome's screen, not to mention that washed-out look from cross reflections. Still, it seemed to lack the "pop" of the original. And I was somewhat bothered by the discoloration band during one reel with the desert scenes. It looked like the same shown during a few of the opticals in HELLO DOLLY (credit sequence). Now I've read that this was damage from heat buckling from the original shoot, but I sure don't remember seeing it in 1989.
2001: a Space Odyssey: When I saw this back on a Sunday morning 10am showing at the AMC Century 14, the print was superior looking to what this decade's looked like (and I've seen this new print three times now, twice at the Egyptian, once at the Aero). The AMC had not properly focused the lamphouse for this one showing; it was hot spotted with some fading out at the four corners. Still, the print had deep rich blacks with a clarity that let you read every line of the toilet instructions. While the new print exhibits a grainy redness on some of the apes' fur and the robe that Keir Dullea wears during the last sequence, these were pure and grain-free at the AMC. I have to presume this was a recently struck print at the AMC, EXCEPT for the last reel (only a couple of minutes of movie, plus end credits). This last reel had faded completely to red, and a non-matching "in 70mm" tag had replaced the "In Cinerama" logo in the credits (although there was no jump in music).
I wanted to add that the last screening I saw of BARAKA was the same thing. It just didn't look as grain-free or as rich as it did when I saw it at the SHowcase upon it's oringinal release.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 06-18-2006 10:42 PM
A few days ago I wrote:
quote: Michael Coate
I chose "Lawrence" due to the added bonus of the Tomlinson Holman birthday party & roast. (I should have some pics posted sometime soon.)
The Holman pics are now posted for anyone who may have an interest.
quote: Mike Heenan
Isn't it possible you guys who arenot remembering things right, are doing just that? Seems like it'd be hard to remember grain or scratches, etc, on a print you saw 15+ years ago.
Despite the bizarre wording of your question I think I grasp what you are asking, and the answer is: If it were any other movie or film format I would say "yes, it is possible things are being mis-remembered." But with something like the 70-millimeter film format and classic well-known titles such as "Lawrence Of Arabia" or "2001: A Space Odyssey" I would say the answer is a definite "NO." And here's why.
With 70mm, the presentation is often the main attraction, and many folks, including myself, often traveled a great distance to see such presentations, all the while scrutinizing newspaper advertisements and carefully selecting which theatres to patronize. These screenings were events and as such are easier to remember than other "ordinary" trips to the movies. Plus, back in the '80s and into the early '90s when "Lawrence" had its major re-issue, a 70mm presentation had such a huge (no pun intended) advantage over 35mm in terms of having its presentation characteristics stand out...even to the average moviegoer if only on a subconscious level.
And with myself, that '89 re-issue of "Lawrence" marked the first time, I believe, I saw a "true" 70mm film; everything I saw through the '80s had been a blow-up. And my impression had already been firmly established that blow-ups nearly always looked better than their 35mm counterparts and always sounded better, and the whole experience was without question unique and special.
Anyway, I don't remember "Lawrence" looking in 1989 the way it did in the past three years with these new prints. If it had, I surely would've questioned what the big deal was with 65mm large format origination. In fact, my distinct recollection of seeing "Lawrence" at the Century Plaza in February 1989 was that the image blew away anything I had ever seen up to that point in time (and I saw the film a few additional times between '89 and '02). As I mentioned earlier, these new prints are grainy and have contrast too high for my taste. And I bring this up because, based upon everything I've read and heard and been told by Bob Harris, I believe that every print from '89 forward has been struck from the same generation element, so there should be only minor variations from print to print, not the major difference this time around.
Let me add that I really hate to even be bitching about this quality issue because I know it may seem like biting the hand that feeds to an extent, especially from someone who praises the virtues of 70mm frequently. But that's just the point. If 70mm cannot be shown to its advantage, then it has lost whatever edge it has, so it's no wonder so many folks have given up on it or believe it has no current value.
By the way, I saw "Geronimo: An American Legend" -- a blow-up from 1993 -- last night in Santa Monica and, burn me at the stake for claiming it, but I thought it looked better than that print of "Lawrence" I saw last week. And damn, I can't close this post without mentioning how awesome those gunshots in "Geronimo" sounded! You sure can't beat a contemporary mix played back in six-track mag SR!!!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler
Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 06-19-2006 07:44 PM
quote: Mike Heenan
Isn't it possible you guys who arenot remembering things right, are doing just that? Seems like it'd be hard to remember grain or scratches, etc, on a print you saw 15+ years ago.
You know, I actually used to think it was possible my memory might be playing tricks on me, and that all those 70mm prints I recall from the 70s and 80s didn't really look and sound as great as I remembered.
Then last year, the Castro theatre in San Francisco did a 70mm festival, during which they played some very old prints from that era, and my memory was vindicated. Despite the fact that some of the prints had faded pink, I was still amazed by the clarity of the picture and sound. It was still miles ahead of everything in theaters today.
Ever since then, I've been more sure than ever that something important has been lost. No audio/visual reproduction system in use today compares to what once was.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 06-23-2006 06:21 PM
quote: Bill Gabel
But only in a full screen / pan and scan version.
I got on Sony's case about that, too! And if I recall correctly, that DVD had a Dolby Digital track and, a rarity for Sony at the time, a DTS track. How idiotic to think that Sony felt the target audience for the re-issued "Annie" disc would be children not hip enough to appreciate widescreen but eager to have an audiophile format such as DTS. I guess in this case, DTS stood for Digital Toddler Sound.
quote: Bill Gabel
They junked a few 70MM prints when Pixfix handled the Columbia account.
Well, at least one print has survived. I'll make an effort to visit the booth this weekend and check the shipping labels to see where the print came from. I believe around 40 or so 70mm prints were struck for its original release (despite the claim to the contrary by the Sony rep I mentioned earlier). It may be hard to believe now, but "Annie" was Columbia's major release in 1982 and they sunk a ton of money into its production and its release, and many of the major city engagements offered reserved performances reminiscent of the roadshow days.
It still pisses me off thinking about the Sony rep telling me that no 70mm prints were ever struck for "Annie," which was meant to imply that a six-track audio master never would have been created. He claimed that any city promoting in its newspaper a 70mm engagement...was lying! It would've been easier -- and more credible -- to simply say something like, "Oh, the six-track was damaged, so we had to go with the two-track" or "Unfortunately, we could not locate the six-track and budget constraints prevented us from creating a new mix for the DVD." Instead, they tried to discredit me by, essentially, claiming: "This kid from a dumb credibility-challenged magazine has some nerve telling us what's in our vault."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic