Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Seeking Opinions on Big Screen Presentation

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Seeking Opinions on Big Screen Presentation (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Seeking Opinions on Big Screen Presentation

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-01-2006 01:46 AM

Maybe it's about time someone actually bit the bullet and released a blockbuster in 70mm as well as 35mm.

There's enough of those around to see how marked the difference would be in box office between the 35mm and the 70mm houses.

A bit of work would need to be done on the attributes of 70mm though as the last 70mm 'release' was what...Titanic? Many wouldn't know what the hell 'IN 70mm' was. It needs work.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 10-01-2006 04:49 AM

Yet, why do 70mm when you now have BIG screens that can be filled with 2k, and coming soon over the horizon, 4k DIGITAL movies...when you have is information loaded on a HDD, which is loaded into a server instead of huge machinery hustling that megasized film from platter (or still reel) to projector and back...

Sorry, thinking of the price and the demand in this era of film presentation ....

If the price of 70mm drastically comes down to the price of processing 35mm, THEN we would possibly see the increase for the visual demand for 70mm, but as for now..just gonna be a rare treat for us all.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-01-2006 08:21 AM

Because Monte, 70mm is still at least 6 times better than 2K digital even being conservative...that is 6 times the information and still retaining film's greater color pallet, dynamic range...etc. Only 70mm can really give the customer the really big screen appearance that the consumer can't get at home...what DCinema offers the consumer is the Home experience...why pay for that?

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 10-01-2006 09:17 AM

But the question was really about what can be had from 35mm.

Getting 16fL on a 80ft x 45 screen (1.85) would be tough even for 70mm. This is an example of where every part of the optical system would have to be optimized. I guess I would start with a glass reflector, using a short-arc xenon bulb. You might experiment with and without a heat filter. It reduces the heat, but at a cost of less light. Films don't stay in theaters very long nowadays, so sacrficing the print through excessive heat may be OK for some 'markets.' The film will get heat imbossed resulting in poor focus, and the color will fade.

The projector would have a blower to reduce the buckling effect of the heat on the film, like Century's 'Cinefocus' option. I'd water cool the gate; not that it provides any direct picture improvment, but so the operators wouldn't burn their hands what taking out the gate to clean it every time.

Experiment cutting back the shutter to allow more light; you might have to buy a few shutters in case you go too far and get ghosting. A trade-off can be decided on between slight ghosting and more light, or less ghost and less light. A fast pull-down intermittent like Simplex's 'drive-in' intermittent or the "Quickermittent' (sp?) I don't know if Kintone's electronic intermittent can be programmed to go faster, but it might be a good idea because it will keep a steady image (although prints made today are not so steady, it would still help with a large screen.) Twin rotating shutters? I don't know which of the above allows the most light; tests would have to be done.

Optical glass for the port window; usually people use two panes to reduce noise, but here you might consider only one. Extra big exhaust fans for the lamp.

Depending of the shape of the theater, consider a gain screen. There are guidelines for the proper shape of the curved screen frame needed (ray-tracing.) More gain gets more light, but it narrows the good seating area. The best lenses of course; maybe even a custom design.

None of these ideas will get 16fL, but it's a starting point. They are also not easy or cheap, but if the goal is the brightest picture at any cost ........

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 10-01-2006 05:29 PM

quote: John Walsh
I'd water cool the gate; not that it provides any direct picture improvment, but so the operators wouldn't burn their hands what taking out the gate to clean it every time.

Oh it improves picture resolution for sure. I put in water circulators in my screening room and am only burning 2K lamps in there and the difference was staggering.

I pretty much agree with John's comments. My setup for such a big screen...Kinoton "D" projector and 10K lamphouse with heat filter and water chiller (not circulator). (Yes you can use a 10K on 35mm if it is a Kinoton to get more light out of 35mm due to their use of glass reflectors. It is my understanding the the E pulls down slower than the D, so someone from Kinoton would have to chime in on that.) A gain screen for sure (Harkness Perlux is my preferred) and Schneider Premiere lensing (I hate the bland washed out look of the red ISCOs). Some people may don't believe it, but running FG on every show also makes for a noticeable improvement in resolution with high wattage lamps. Overkill exhaust fans should be a standard on EVERY installation, regardless of lamp size to get the best performance and life of the bulb. Then of course those bulbs would be pulled at 1/4 life and used in smaller houses, such that there would be 4 auditoriums burning 10K lamps, and the smaller ones get the hand-me-downs. 16fl should be easily achieveable on an 80 foot common height screen with this setup.

| IP: Logged

Bob Jones
Film Handler

Posts: 47
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 10-01-2006 07:59 PM

I was noticing comments from a few years ago on this subject - and several commented that maybe 16fl on a screen that large (80ft) may be too much -- combine that much light with the degradation that is going to come with blowing up a 35mm frame that large. Just a thought.

Brad - do you know off the top of your head - where there might be a Kinoton wiht a 10K lamphouse installed?

And are there any thoughts on Technalight - and how it may/or may not play a part in attempting to accomplish the goal.

thanks

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 10-01-2006 09:52 PM

I guess hi gain/ sliver curved screens should be mentioned if its a wall to wall screen. this would improve the brightness of these sized screens.

Personally I have seen screens in 100 seat cinemas that are toooo big. especially large 1.85/ small scope. Its a give away when people aim straight for the back row and sit on the sides only.
35mm is not IMAX. It is not composed to be seen that way, nor does it have the resolution.
Although if it were to be sped up to 48 frames to 60 frames per second, I am sure 35mm would easily fill the biggest screen. Remember the frame rate is films biggest compromise. Its only one step beyond an epileptic fit!

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 10-02-2006 01:05 AM

Oh..I do agree with you Steve, totally - just the cost thing is what really sticks out in all of this.

Would 70mm increase ticket sales or not to justify the demand of producing these films again...and to prove once and for all that this format is not unbeatable in presentation factors?

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-02-2006 01:52 PM

My own opinion is any theater with a screen around 70' across or larger should be using nothing but 70mm when projecting film. It doesn't matter if the 70mm prints are blowups from 35mm or natively photographed 65mm material. The 5/70 format is the ONLY film format that can manage to do the job right. 35mm simply doesn't work for screens that big. It is just too damned dim.

From the matter of showing 70mm blowups on such a screen, I don't care if the "70mm" buzzword is advertised or not. What we're talking about here is doing a job correctly. 35mm on such giant screens is only doing the job wrong. It does not achieve an appropriate level of brightness.

On the same issue regarding digital cinema. Placing a standard CP2000 projector in the booth armed only with a single 4K or 6K lamp would be equally as stupid. Christie does make a large format variant of the CP2000 which uses a couple 6K lamps.

Fundamentally, any movie theater company anywhere has no business building giant auditoriums if they have no intention of projecting the proper level of brightness on the screen. They should not build it if they can't do the job right. With film, they need to go with 70mm only. With digital, they have to use the right projector for the job. If those guys want to go cheap, then they need to stick to building small to medium sized rooms.

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 10-03-2006 09:31 PM

Concerning the cost of 70mm prints: The big cost of prints in the Todd-AO and 70mm Dolby 6-Track Stereo days was the cost of striping the print for mag. Assuming new 70mm prints would use digital sound, the incremental cost would not be anywhere near as much as it used to be.

But you're still not going to see 70mm. Even in the Dolby 70mm days, 70mm was used more to get the 6 mag tracks of sound than the better picture. Most audiences won't perceive the difference in light.

The fact is that back in the Dolby 70mm days, theatres showing 70mm prints of Star Wars, Superman, Star Trek and many other films did most of the business. Was that incremental to the business if no 70mm prints had been made at all? That's impossible to tell. But the fact that consumers sought out 70mm presentations tells me that it made a difference. If you can find some old posts of mine about this, I quote direct figures from old issues of Variety. (I'll edit this post if I can find them.)

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 10-04-2006 04:57 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Fundamentally, any movie theater company anywhere has no business building giant auditoriums if they have no intention of projecting the proper level of brightness on the screen. They should not build it if they can't do the job right.

Well is there a method in place that sets strict guidelines into the design and build of Theatres?

Do studios/distributors refuse to rent out a film to a given Multiplex that is not perfectly equipped and fails in all areas of on-screen presentations?

I read often articles with Directors whining about the level of presentation standards but does anyone do anything about it?
Can something be done about it?

Here is an edited quote from an interview with Director Eli Roth (Cabin Fever, Hostel) and Suzanne Hodges from Widescreen Review magazine:

quote:
Q : Can you share you thoughts on Digital Cinema?

A: I think eventually it will get to where it's all digital. And hopefully the technology is good enough that it will look like film and you can't tell the difference. I don't think that the technology is quite there yet, but one thing that excites me about digital is when everything is digitally projected it's all going to look the way you want it to look. I mean, i've gone into Theatres- and you do all this work with lighting and colour to get the set to look perfect, and you shoot and you time it- and the projectionist has the bulb set on 7 instead of 16 and you can't see anything. So basically, at the end of the day, you are at the mercy of the 17-year-old kid in the projection room. When it's all digital, it's all going to look exactly the same and it will be perfect. And you are not going to have scratches and the prints aren't going to get dirty. You have to embrace the technology. I just hope it looks as good as film. If it looks as good as film, I don't care how it gets delivered. I'm not one of those people who needs to see the photochemical process.

I wonder if Eli Roth has seen any films in 70mm format.

| IP: Logged

Andrew McCrea
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 645
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-04-2006 09:54 PM

So, are you telling me that if if a chain asked for 70mm prints, they'd do it?

What about independents with 35/70 projectors? Could they request blow-ups with digital sound?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-04-2006 10:34 PM

quote: John Koutsoumis
Well is there a method in place that sets strict guidelines into the design and build of Theatres?

"Strict" guidelines? No.

The act of designing and building a movie theater auditorium correctly is a strictly voluntary thing. It's rare these days for movie theaters to feature great quality auditoriums.

quote: John Koutsoumis
Do studios/distributors refuse to rent out a film to a given Multiplex that is not perfectly equipped and fails in all areas of on-screen presentations?

I've seen no evidence to suggest film distributors do any such thing. Right now my impression is film distributors couldn't care less about the commercial theatrical end of things and can't wait for the movie to hit DVD, where they feel the show will finally make money.

quote: John Koutsoumis
I read often articles with Directors whining about the level of presentation standards but does anyone do anything about it? Can something be done about it?

Sure. A lot can be done about the problem. But it's like herding cats to make any progress. Apathy exists across the board from filmmakers, movie distributors, exhibition companies and even many of the customers themselves. You have to get people to care about quality in all those parts of the chain. Right now too many people don't give a shit about quality. "Good enough" is typically the order of the day.

Regarding the quote from Eli Roth, little does he realize any D-Cinema projector can have its lamp brightness turned waaay down just like any film projector. Although the D-Cinema companies are supposed to do all the technical work on that hardware, I'm sure a few booth people here and there will monkey with knobs and switches anyway.

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 10-05-2006 08:37 PM

I agree that D-Cinema does not fix presentation issues nor do I believe that it will put more bums on seats.

If one wants to bulid Theatres with 70ft+ screens then that's all good since people really get into the bigger screen experience but technically it should all be worked out so that the best possible on-screen presentation is experienced day in day out.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-06-2006 07:39 PM

Agreed - there needs to be dialogue on this IMHO between Engineering bodies (e.g. SMPTE, ITEA, etc.), Crafts organisations (e.g. the ASC) and Exhibitors (e.g. represented by NATO).

The message needs to be sent out that 35mm cannot generally be pushed beyond a certain limit (60-70ft on Scope seems to be the consensus), and that in this size range you need 70mm.

This could also provide the impetus that Steve Guttag implied earlier that would need to come from Exhibitors to re-introduce 70mm prints.

The practical and cost aspects are being looked at at present, and bodies such as NATO can be appraised of this, which will help, but if there was education and understanding on this issue across the industry it would help a lot.

I have heard of the Inter-Society Committee, which was just such a structure for dialogue across the industry, but don't know if it is still active, or whether they could play a role. Can anyone elaborate?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.