|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood 70mm/35mm release?
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-11-2019 04:42 PM
Here are the (North American?) 70mm bookings:
https://screencrush.com/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-70mm-theaters/
* Alamo Drafthouse New Mission, San Francisco, CA
* Arclight Cinemas Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
* Cineplex Varsity, Toronto, Canada
* City Cinemas Village East, New York, NY
* Music Box Theatre, Chicago, IL
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-11-2019 05:05 PM
And here are some of the 35mm bookings that I have pieced together from this thread and Google results. No doubt there will be many more. (Why doesn't Sony Pictures have a list anywhere?)
Alamo Drafthouse Brooklyn (NY, NY)
Alamo Drafthouse Cedars (DFW, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Downtown LA (LA, CA)
Alamo Drafthouse Lakeline (Austin, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Las Colinas (DFW, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Littleton (Denver, CO)
Alamo Drafthouse Lubbock (Lubbock, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Mainstreet (Kansas City, MO)
Alamo Drafthouse Marketplace (San Antonio, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Montecillo (El Paso, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Park North (San Antonio, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Raleigh (Raleigh, NC)
Alamo Drafthouse Richardson (DFW, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Ritz (Austin, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse South Lamar (Austin, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Tempe (Phoenix, AZ)
Alamo Drafthouse Village (Austin, TX)
Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers (NY, NY)
Arclight La Jolla (LA, CA)
Arclight Pasadena (LA, CA)
Arclight Sherman Oaks (LA, CA)
Belcourt (Nashville, TN)
Coolidge Corner (Brookline, MA)
Gateway (Columbus, OH)
Grand Lake (SF, CA)
Hollywood (Portland, OR)
Landmark SF East Bay (SF, CA)
Little (Rochester, NY)
New Beverly (LA, CA)
Nitehawk Cinema (Brooklyn, NY)
SIE Film Center (Denver, CO)
SIFF Cinema Uptown (Seattle, WA)
Somerville (Somerville, MA)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 07-12-2019 02:05 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Only a tiny minority of theaters have 4K RGB laser projection. Let's not forget very few contemporary movies are fully produced in 4K resolution; most are still 2K.
I consider it to be the difference between 35mm and 70mm back in the film days. You'd also see 70mm only go into the "premium" locations, the big rooms. The primary difference was that it wasn't common back then to charge a premium for the "big room experience".
The amount of RGB laser setups is steadily on the rise, as theaters start to replace their equipment in their bigger rooms. I guess that the install base of RGB laser systems already exceeds that of 70mm installs in its heydays or at least it is getting close.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Taking the current de facto post production work flows into account, I'd rather watch a 70mm blow-up of a 35mm-sourced movie that went through a 100% analog work flow than a digital TechniScope derived version of it. I might feel different about it if d-cinema audio/video standards were remarkably different from the tech available for home.
Isn't the end-result what counts, even if the technology in your living room and that in the cinema has a lot in common those days?
A good 4K scan of a 35mm film will get you any relevant information of what is in there. If you present it back using a high-contrast, digital projection system like an RGB laser setup, you get an extremely stable image and lose essentially nothing of what was in the 35mm frame.
Now, for a movie natively shot in 65mm, it's an entirely different story, but I don't necessarily see why we should put all the money into 70mm blowups if we've got cheaper alternatives that, if you cut out the nostalgia, don't under-perform.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The early 1990's had quite a few 70mm blow-up releases. Things didn't start falling off until the 1993-94 time frame. Nevertheless, doing 5/70mm in these new giant-screen stadium seated theaters would have been easy.
We were talking late 90's and things were pretty dire back then. I'd say from 96 on, there were like 2 or 3 movies a year getting a 70mm blow-up, but they got like 3 or 4 prints for the entire world, usually only reserved for the high-profile premiere locations or special screenings.
I worked at two different places back then that still had their DP70s and magnetic sound setup in full working order for 70mm, but it was just impossible to get a 70mm prints for anything other than the known repertoire titles and even that was hard.
I know a few big multiplexes that went up around the same time and that still put 70mm capabilities into their big houses, only to never play a single 70mm print in there until the day they went digital.
The failure of 70mm wasn't so much the fault of the theaters, but it was more a failure of the film industry not caring for the format. Even back then, volume was more important than quality.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-12-2019 11:52 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Isn't the end-result what counts, even if the technology in your living room and that in the cinema has a lot in common those days?
The end result counts big time. 25 or so years ago there was a tremendous difference between watching a movie in a theater via a 70mm film print (or even 35mm) versus watching it on a modest, square shaped, low resolution TV set at home. I drove significant distances to theaters in other cities just to check out a movie shown in 70mm. And if I chose to wait to watch the home video version instead I often had to wait upwards of year or more to do so. Today, with so little perceptible difference in image quality between the theatrical d-cinema version and HD version on home video, I have little desire to even drive across town to see a given at a local theater, much less drive 100 or 200 miles to the nearest theater equipped with laser projection.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
A good 4K scan of a 35mm film will get you any relevant information of what is in there. If you present it back using a high-contrast, digital projection system like an RGB laser setup, you get an extremely stable image and lose essentially nothing of what was in the 35mm frame.
Not with 'scope movies. And the 2.39:1 ratio is by far the most commonly used one these days. You can scan a 4/35mm film negative in 4K and get most of the image detail. But then the post production folks throw away half the image when squeezing it down to what's effectively a TechniScope 2/35 image. They don't expand the full 4/35mm image out wide the way a 35mm projector's anamorphic lens would do. They delete detail to acheive the proper aspect ratio.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
We were talking late 90's and things were pretty dire back then. I'd say from 96 on, there were like 2 or 3 movies a year getting a 70mm blow-up, but they got like 3 or 4 prints for the entire world, usually only reserved for the high-profile premiere locations or special screenings.
The fall-off of 70mm print production by distributors in the late 1990's is not all the fault of the distributors. The movie theater chains helped create that situation. They goofed big time in a lot of their new stadium seated megaplex sites by not installing any 70mm capability in their giant screen houses. The theater chains removed the necessary infrastructure for showing 70mm. Why would a movie distributor stike any 70mm DTS blow-up prints of a given movie if none of the big new stadium seated theater houses could play it? This one is 100% all on the theater chains as far as I'm concerned. They had perfectly workable options in front of them. There were lots of still-working 70mm capable projectors in theaters that were being closed down. Those systems could have been relocated to new theaters at no extra cost other than what it cost to move and re-install a projector they already owned. And if the chains insisted on buying new 35/70mm projectors they could have done so back then. They didn't bother.
What makes the situation even more absurd is when IMAX strolled along offering to do the job right. They saw how terrible 4/35 looked when projected on a 80' wide screen. They jumped on the opportunity to roll together some fancy DMR marketing and install some 15/70 systems. The movie studios had little hesitation at making 15/70mm blow-ups of their movies, using 3 times as much film as a 5/70 print!
If the theater chain operators had their heads screwed on correctly back in the late 1990's they could have installed traditional 70mm in those big houses, deliver a comparable experience to IMAX DMR, yet keep that revenue for themselves instead of handing it over to IMAX. The IMAX company itself has been in the driver's seat on efforts to eliminate 70mm. They chose to push their 2K Xenon system over 15/70 in the goal of boosting profits.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 07-12-2019 02:42 PM
Bobby, you're so right. It's a real shame 70mm wasn't installed into those megaplex theaters. IMAX tried to do something for megaplex theaters, but it came too late and at too high of a cost. Plus 15 perf is way overkill for a standard screen. I think 5 perf was the best solution.
The problem with 5 perf of course is that doing a photochemical blowup costs a lot of money. When dolby stereo and eventually surround sound came out, the need for 6 channel 70mm soundtracks was negated. We went backwards technology wise until the digital audio age which solved many of the issues 35mm faced. 35mm prints were so much cheaper, it was down to a cost element. Yes IMAX did make a hand full of prints, but reality is, they cost so much money, it was the end of IMAX film. Had they just sucked it up and did 5 perf projection instead, we may still have film around in IMAX theaters today, considering the digital format we use today, has way less resolution than any of the film formats.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 07-12-2019 07:01 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Today, with so little perceptible difference in image quality between the theatrical d-cinema version and HD version on home video, I have little desire to even drive across town to see a given at a local theater, much less drive 100 or 200 miles to the nearest theater equipped with laser projection.
Sure, but try to keep a realistic view on things. I know many people with pretty big TVs but none of them is set up in a way that closely resembles a proper cinema setup. Also, there are more factors than just image and sound for going to the movies. The social aspect of "going out" is also important. It's the same as going to a concert, where sound quality is often shitty and the performers are so far away, they could be remotely operated puppets for all you know.
Also, history has the tendency to paints stuff rosier than it really was. The quality of many 35mm screenings back in the multiplex heydays was often so bad, that even a good VHS recording could compete with the experience.
While I'm not trying to defend the way theaters got eventually pressured into digitizing their auditoriums, the good thing was, that many theaters took this occasion to fix some long-standing issues in many of them.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Not with 'scope movies. And the 2.39:1 ratio is by far the most commonly used one these days. You can scan a 4/35mm film negative in 4K and get most of the image detail. But then the post production folks throw away half the image when squeezing it down to what's effectively a TechniScope 2/35 image. They don't expand the full 4/35mm image out wide the way a 35mm projector's anamorphic lens would do. They delete detail to acheive the proper aspect ratio.
Even a good 4K scan of a scope 35mm image retains the information. It's not that a 35mm frame suddenly grows more grains, because an anamorphic lens was used to compress the image. The problem is with the projection, where scope simply looses too much light and some vertical resolution.
But I'm personally a proponent of introducing "non-square pixels" (or pixels, with a "virtual" aspect ratio) into the DCI format itself. That way, the extra vertical resolution of the DCI imagers can be used, in combination with an anamorphic lens. There is also no need to stretch the image across the DMD in that case.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The fall-off of 70mm print production by distributors in the late 1990's is not all the fault of the distributors. The movie theater chains helped create that situation.
Well, there was probably a shared responsibility here. What I want to add is that from my perspective, I've seen quite some theaters that maintained their 70mm equipment and even some new developments that still put in 70mm equipment into their new houses back in the late 90's.
And like I indicated, we really tried to get 70mm blowups for some popular films, but we never could get hold of one. We even didn't ask for subtitled versions, just the original releases.
If they really cared, they would have some around for the select few theaters that still could play 70mm, wouldn't they?
Keep in mind that the first feature release for IMAX ever was Fantasia 2000 in 1999 and the first DMR releases only started to show up in 2002. I think that IMAX's entry into the Hollywood firm distribution process was primarily due to the failing market they found themselves in. The possibility to run some Hollywood blockbusters in those huge IMAX ventues would also open up some new possibilities for those venues that, until now, only played the same documentaries over and over for the last 15 or so years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-13-2019 12:21 AM
quote: Tyler Purcell
The problem with 5 perf of course is that doing a photochemical blowup costs a lot of money. When dolby stereo and eventually surround sound came out, the need for 6 channel 70mm soundtracks was negated. We went backwards technology wise until the digital audio age which solved many of the issues 35mm faced.
The budget breaker on 70mm back then was the magnetic audio striped onto the film print. That was the thing that ballooned the cost of a 70mm print over 35mm. Those mag-stripe prints could only be "sounded" in real time. The mag coating (which has all sorts of issues in itself) is applied to the print like a blank cassette tape. Then the sound mix is played back to that print in real time. Not a very efficient way to make movie prints, especially if you had to make a bunch. I wonder how much time it took the print labs to make all the 70mm Dolby mag prints of huge runs like Dick Tracy, Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade, Hoffa or Far and Away. If there was only one print replication setup making prints they could not have made any more than perhaps 10 prints per day working on a 24 hour schedule.
70mm DTS prints are easier to produce. It's just image and time code, nothing else. Had the movie theater chain executives used a few brain cells they could have ran with that and ended up with a 70mm format whose prints only cost 2.5 times what an ordinary 35mm print would cost (rather than a 10 to 20 fold price increase per print). But no, 35mm with 3 different brands of lossy compressed digital sound is a perfect replacement for 70mm. That was the mindset until IMAX came along and started making up their own rules.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Sure, but try to keep a realistic view on things. I know many people with pretty big TVs but none of them is set up in a way that closely resembles a proper cinema setup. Also, there are more factors than just image and sound for going to the movies.
I'm sorry, but what the hell does "proper cinema setup" mean when I'm watching a movie (or any kind of program) on a huge 65" flat panel TV screen in my living room? My sense of color acuity is a hell of a lot better than most people (thank God considering what I do for a living). I don't see anything obviously wrong with the color and contrast of my TV screen. When I watch a movie on that screen I'm pretty much seeing just about all the color and detail I would see in a commercial movie theater. The difference in detail and color between the two platforms is very marginal at best. As for the communal experience of watching the movie among an audience, we all know that has giant pros and cons. As much as I like a big crowd reaction to an important moment in a movie I really cannot stand the fucking constant disruptions from inconsiderate assholes in the audience. I wish every movie theater had a zero tolerance policy on the damned mobile phones.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Also, history has the tendency to paints stuff rosier than it really was. The quality of many 35mm screenings back in the multiplex heydays was often so bad, that even a good VHS recording could compete with the experience.
I was lucky in my own personal circumstances living in NYC in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Most of the movies I watched in cinemas were shown in 70mm. But even the ones I watched in 35mm, movies like Robocop, Big, Dances With Wolves and Full Metal Jacket still looked better than what I see in d-cinema and at least sounded decent for 2 channel audio. I've seen plenty of sub-par 35mm shows as well. But NONE of them would be bested by a fucking VHS tape or even a damned Laserdisc for that matter. A sub-par 35mm presentation in a theater was still showing something effectively in high definition. No home format back then could equal that. Compared to a crappy 35mm presentation a good home video setup might have sported better color and contrast but the detail-resolution level would not have been for shit. Throw in some pan and scan vomit for good measure. That was VHS back in the day.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Even a good 4K scan of a scope 35mm image retains the information. It's not that a 35mm frame suddenly grows more grains, because an anamorphic lens was used to compress the image. The problem is with the projection, where scope simply looses too much light and some vertical resolution.
But I'm personally a proponent of introducing "non-square pixels" (or pixels, with a "virtual" aspect ratio) into the DCI format itself. That way, the extra vertical resolution of the DCI imagers can be used, in combination with an anamorphic lens. There is also no need to stretch the image across the DMD in that case.
That gets back to the concept I think movie studios and theater should have been using from the outset: use 1.25x anamorphic lenses in conjunction with DCPs covering all of the pixels of 2048x1080 or 4096x2160 d-cinema projector imaging chips. It would have been similar to what DVD offered with 16x9 enhanced widescreen.
Going more extreme, I don't think d-cinema projectors should have rectangular imaging chips. I think they should be taller and much closer to square in order to improve overall optical quality. I think the chips should have the same ratio as a 4/35mm film frame and basically be a little over 3000 pixels tall by 4096 pixels wide. If the movie is in 'scope format then a 2:1 anamorphic lens will stretch that 3Kx4K image out to that width. And it will look a hell of a lot better than anything we're seeing in d-cinema currently. The optical path in a projector is not rectangle shaped. It is a sphere. The circle/square relationship has greater harmony there. When someone involves a rectangle shape in the path that essentially means needing a much bigger lens. I think if you have a roughly 4:3 ratio chip in the projector and a more modest sized anamorphic lens (maybe even on a turret) it could potentially be a more cost effective approach than some of the honking huge applications I've seen (such as those giant looking Konica-Minolta lenses on Christie d-cinema projectors).
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Well, there was probably a shared responsibility here. What I want to add is that from my perspective, I've seen quite some theaters that maintained their 70mm equipment and even some new developments that still put in 70mm equipment into their new houses back in the late 90's.
I hear what you're saying, but I still insist the theater chains should carry the bulk of the blame on this one for building lots of new theaters in the late 1990's as 35mm-only. They didn't give the distributors a chance to attempt booking anything in 70mm.
Yeah, there were still quite a few standard slope theaters equipped for 70mm still in operation til the end of the 1990's and even on into the early 2000's. I visited a bunch of those places, really stellar places like the GCC Northpark 1-2 theater in Dallas. The problem back then was stadium seating had turned into a big, Goddamned fad at the time. Attendance levels at the old fashioned theaters was plummeting. Given the choice between seeing a movie at the old Northpark theater versus watching it at a new stadium seated site like the AMC Grand 24 I would have picked the Northpark theater every single time. But I was in the tiny minority of movie-goers. Everybody else loved the stadium seating thing and chose that over theaters that actually had better projection, better sound quality and even bigger auditoriums. The Northpark had over 1000 seats! It was a legit world-premiere class theater. Yet it closed down amidst a bunch of recently built 35mm-only stadium seated "megaplex" locations around the greater DFW area.
If any new builds were installing 70mm in the late 1990's it had to be a very rare thing or for a niche purpose. I remember the UA Galaxy 9 theater in Garland, TX (Dallas-Fort Worth suburb). That theater had two giant sized 80' wide screen houses, but only 35mm in the booths. Yet it had a special venue Showscan theater (70mm @ 60fps) when it first opened. But no one ever shot a 2 hour feature film completely in the Showscan process. Douglas Trumbull, the guy who invented Showscan, had the best shot when he filmed Brainstorm, but that ended up being a mix of 4/35mm and 5/65mm material at 24fps.
Regarding IMAX, Fantasia 2000 and their later DMR releases, like The Matrix: Reloaded, I still stand by my opinion that IMAX jumped onto an obvious opportunity when they saw how theater chains were screwing up with their new megaplex sites and 35mm-only on 70'-80' wide screens. They did some great salesmanship and talked theater chains like Cinemark into adding IMAX 15/70 houses onto existing high profile sites and including IMAX 15/70 screens in new builds. The opportunity would not have been there for IMAX if the executives at various theater chains like UA, Cinemark, Lowes/Sony and others had been thinking clearly. This wasn't any kind of secret. Even back in 1995-1996 when the first of these new 35mm-only giant screen houses were being installed people in the exhibition industry were scoffing at how 35mm wouldn't work on screens like that. You can only get so many watts worth of light out of that little hole. 70mm throws a much brighter (and more steady) image. All it would have took was a few key people between the theater chains and distributors having a simple conversation. We could have had a LOT of movies in the late 1990's through the 2000's released with 70mm DTS prints. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
I consider it a tragedy of sorts IMAX effectively abandoned its large format roots. I thought they had a good thing going when it was all about documentaries in 15/70mm film format. Now IMAX is just regular Save The Cat! movies projected in 2K HDTV resolution with sound a bit louder than the old people TV speakers volume one can hear in the non-premium houses.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 07-13-2019 03:18 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
70mm DTS prints are easier to produce. It's just image and time code, nothing else. Had the movie theater chain executives used a few brain cells they could have ran with that and ended up with a 70mm format whose prints only cost 2.5 times what an ordinary 35mm print would cost (rather than a 10 to 20 fold price increase per print). But no, 35mm with 3 different brands of lossy compressed digital sound is a perfect replacement for 70mm. That was the mindset until IMAX came along and started making up their own rules.
Dolby could've developed a 70mm version of SRD, even allowing for higher bandwidths (which could've been used for extra channels or better quality), yet choose not to do so. CDS was available for 70mm, but that format failed miserably and there have been a number of other experimental implementations dating back to the 80's.
The failure of digital sound formats adapting for 70mm, with the exception of DTS somewhere in 1996, also shows the lack of interest for 70mm back in the late 90's.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm sorry, but what the hell does "proper cinema setup" mean when I'm watching a movie (or any kind of program) on a huge 65" flat panel TV screen in my living room?
The point is that not everybody has their living room optimized to watch movies, even if they put in a big TV.
For cinemas it's pretty hard to follow the current technological race. I've upgraded my TV in the living room to a 65" 4K OLED about a year and a half ago and the next iteration of 8K screens is already around the corner.
So, the technical gap, so to say, is closing in rapidly, but not everybody is following the trends and there are still other incentives to go to a cinema.
quote: Bobby Henderson
As much as I like a big crowd reaction to an important moment in a movie I really cannot stand the fucking constant disruptions from inconsiderate assholes in the audience. I wish every movie theater had a zero tolerance policy on the damned mobile phones.
Most theaters have policies regarding mobile phone use and almost all of them are very strict on paper.
Maybe the theaters that don't police those rules should not make those rules in the first place. Maybe promote it as a feature: Mobile phone use during movie welcome. Chattering with your friend? No problem, welcome in our cinema cafe, where the movie is just a sideshow. Those theaters who actually follow their policy and do have the guts to effectively warn and eject people should also clearly advertise it. At the very least it would help me to choose the correct theater.
quote: Bobby Henderson
A sub-par 35mm presentation in a theater was still showing something effectively in high definition. No home format back then could equal that. Compared to a crappy 35mm presentation a good home video setup might have sported better color and contrast but the detail-resolution level would not have been for shit. Throw in some pan and scan vomit for good measure. That was VHS back in the day
There was a bigger technological gap back then, but I've been to 35mm shows, so crappy, where the digital sound had given up or wasn't even installed and the analog audio sounded so bad, you were lucky you had subtitles to make out what the dialog was about, all the while the print looked like it was dragged right out of a giant trashcan, combined with an out-of-focus and unstable image... yeah, watching it at home on VHS or Laserdisc would've been a better experience overall...
Laserdisc was actually a pretty step-up compared to crappy VHS, even though the image part was still analog.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That gets back to the concept I think movie studios and theater should have been using from the outset: use 1.25x anamorphic lenses in conjunction with DCPs covering all of the pixels of 2048x1080 or 4096x2160 d-cinema projector imaging chips. It would have been similar to what DVD offered with 16x9 enhanced widescreen.
The irony is that, the first production generation pre-DCI digital machines from e.g. Barco/Kinoton did use an anamorphic lens and "non-square pixels" in the source format for scope. Look for example at the Barco DP50. Eventually, DCI explicitly eliminated the concept from its standards.
quote: Bobby Henderson
All it would have took was a few key people between the theater chains and distributors having a simple conversation. We could have had a LOT of movies in the late 1990's through the 2000's released with 70mm DTS prints. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
I think that the major mistake they made is that they all waited for digital systems that would fill in the gap. Meanwhile, 35mm was considered "good enough" and since the volume was enormous, it was also relatively cheap and it "worked". IMAX in that sense, may have been the fore-runner of the PLF trend, although I never considered the 15/70 format a good format for film, since its native aspect ratio was almost never used for feature films.
The first fully digital projections didn't come around until 1999, and it would take another 10 years before it would turn main-stream, but by then it could barely replace 35mm.
The irony is that even now, we don't really have an off-the-shelf digital solution that can easily replace 70mm, at least none that's DCI compliant. Filling giant screens with decent looking images is still a challenge, while, sadly, the trend seems to go to smaller rooms, for a more "intimate" and "customized" experience...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 15 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 14 15
|
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