|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 01-31-2006 04:05 PM
Like "passing the gauntlet" - 5/70 to 15/70 with a huge increase of picture area, even though the frame speed is the same, is like analog recording methods to digital recording methods for audio - huge percentage of audio head room that was increased with digital against the analog.
Bottom line is the money - how much money can be made with such improvements and how much is the demand by the public, plus the longetivity and security it is for the developers - they don't want to get caught in the "Edsel" syndrome.
Yes, it's part of the "romantic" era to run and see 5/70, run changeover machines with carbon arc lamps, run big 'roadshow' performances in which all of this was fun....
But, unfortunately, time marches on and we must wake up to face the reality and adjust with the changes that is instore for us in the present and for the future if this business is going to remain with us as long as possible.
And the filmmakers, releasing studios, and the theatre circuits, small and large, "indies" and partnerships will eventually will have to change as well for if they want to survive as well - and this not meaning that they must get ready to change to digital, but to keep their equipment as operational as possible to ensure continued operation until they can make this huge and growing demand for this format change.
Yes, IMAX is a very growing format due to the large screen presentations and the use of the Sonics digital sound processing, which is purely HDD driven-no soundtrak is on the film.
Advantage also with the IMAX with that much larger picture area on the film itself, is that the screen size can even be more bigger along with the usage of much larger xenon lamps that no 5/70 machine can even think of using without melting down - let alone the amount of heat that would be on the 5/70 film itself..
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-31-2006 06:22 PM
Just as a matter of interest, if one shot on 65mm, could both 5-70 and 15-70 (DMR) prints be derived from the negative?
That would give the Distributor the best of both worlds, and a larger exhibition base than say, IMAX DMR alone.
The other thing that comes up from this debate is, why don't a small group of people on this site get together and form a project team with the specific goal of re-inventing 5-perf 70mm.(I can think of at least 6 people who could participate, including Mr. Myers!)
It can start with the formation of a formal 5-70 venue network (of which there is loose one already, it seems to me). Use Bradford as an opportunity to kick things off.
The work would involve looking at all those things that are currently impeding re-birth of the format - technical, financial and marketing.
I personally think it is a matter of re-packaging and re-positioning the format in the minds of the decision-makers. A name-change is probably essential. Anything with "film" in the title will be perceived as "old". IMAX, for example, works as a a name because it doesn't mention film. Nobody has a problem with it, and it sounds suitably futuristic.
I mentioned "HD-70" earlier, and Larry mentioned "Super HD70", which was better. Another possibility could be "Enhanced Cinema Experience", or "ECX". (Then again, that sounds a bit like THX). Another option is "High Definition Cinema", or "HD-Cinema", or "Cinema-HD". ("Cinema" implies film without actually saying so!).
These are good because there's no "70" in the title, which would prompt people to ask "what does 70 mean?", leading to the reply "70mm film" and thus turning them off.
Thing is to be positive; where there's a will there's a way. I think there could be much to be gained by associating 5-perf 70 as an extension of IMAX DMR production...if it's possible.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-31-2006 07:53 PM
quote: Brian Guckian
Just as a matter of interest, if one shot on 65mm, could both 5-70 and 15-70 (DMR) prints be derived from the negative?
Yes. However, the DMR step would not be neccesary. The only reason for DMR is to take a smaller film gauge image and attempt to create detail that isn't there. Some of the digital manipulation techniques work okay, but others don't. Read my review of The Matrix Reloaded: The IMAX Experience.
In going from 5/65 to 15/70 the only thing needed would be an optical printing step to rotate the 5/65 image 90 degrees and enlarge it slightly for the horizontal 15/70 format. This process would be a lot more simple to do than the DMR process, where the entire movie must be scanned into computer systems, manipulated and then output via laser film recorders. A 5/65 to 15/70 print would look a lot better than any DMR 4/35 to 15/70 print.
quote: Brian Guckian
I personally think it is a matter of re-packaging and re-positioning the format in the minds of the decision-makers. A name-change is probably essential. Anything with "film" in the title will be perceived as "old".
I don't agree with that.
Most people who have any idea at all in how films are made and projected generally have a positive attitude toward film. It isn't "old." It is, however, iconoclastic of the medium.
For instance, what is a better visual icon for movie-making? A loaded Panavision Panaflex film camera or a video camera? When I see video cameras I think "TV show." Sorry, but that's the real deal and it doesn't matter if the video camera is a museum piece tube camera or a brand new digital HD camera with the best CCDs money can buy.
IMAX may have a name that doesn't feature the word "film" in it, or list a film gauge. However, many IMAX theaters I have visited were designed to have the projection booth visible to the public. They could see those "old" film projectors. Those theaters also had comparison displays showing the size of a 15/70 film strip versus that of a 4/35 film strip. Film is very much on display and is central to an IMAX theater concept.
quote: Brian Guckian
These are good because there's no "70" in the title, which would prompt people to ask "what does 70 mean?", leading to the reply "70mm film" and thus turning them off.
Again, I don't really agree. The 5/70 format was pretty successful through its "blow up" age of the 1970s and 1980s. Those big 70mm logos did do a pretty good job of selling the format, even if the public didn't know exactly what it did.
And adding some "HD" stuff to the alphabet soup isn't going to help things. If anything, the "HD" term makes me think "VIDEO". As far as I'm concerned, little if anything video originated can be shown to a much higher degree than what can already be obtained in a well equipped living room.
I think the 70mm term is fine. Perhaps the logos could be retooled. The only way an average viewer is really going to understand the difference between 70mm and 35mm is if they're shown the difference physically. The film strip displays do a pretty good job of that. Most IMAX theaters also educate viewers about the difference of that format. That's something most 5/70 theaters never did. They would just fire up the show without any mention of how that differed from 35.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-01-2006 12:41 PM
quote: Monte L Fullmer
If so, and the digital cameras can be improved with a massive pixel rate capture, then the need to using 65mm can then be used just for the diehards and the IMAX people who want to continue using film since the editing factor with digital can be trimmed considerably when making the final negatives for film and the DVD's for the digital projectors - who themselves had better be improved to match these newly revamped digital cameras.
Actually, there are some pretty terrible limitations when it comes to future improvements on digital video camera CCDs.
You can only get so much light onto so large a CCD chip. Pack in too many pixels and you're cutting the amount of light going to each pixel.
Most consumer camcorders have a single CCD only 1/6" to 1/4" in size, if even that. Many "prosumer" video cameras use 1/3" CCDs. When you get up to 1/2" or 2/3" size CCDs, the cost of the camera gets really high. Basically, you must have a great lens pack and a pretty large, expensive CCD to get great color and light levels on your video.
I think it is going to be pretty difficult for electronics companies to scale the resolution of video cameras well above the 1080 HD level.
Not only do you have the issue of getting enough light on each pixel in a CCD imager (which makes it necessary for CCDs to get large in professional use), but there won't be enough of a market to justify the cost of making a CCD with enough pixels to equal 35mm, much less try to content with 65mm. Limitations in broadcast TV formats and consumer video formats impose a performance ceiling against developing video cameras with greater than 1080HD native resolution. In short, not enough money will be there to justify the cost of development.
Other avenues will push the need to make better than 1080HD quality video delivery systems and push the need to shoot films with higher quality imagery. Whether 65mm film is icky for it being analog film -it is by far the very best choice as an originating format for any ultra high resolution motion picture delivery system, whether it is film based or video based projection.
quote: Mike Heenan
Since most films are scanned for the DI at only 2K, how good would say a 70mm print look anyways? Seems like it'd be a waste, to film in 65mm, scan down to 2K and then output to 70mm .
Like I said, the DMR step in 5/70 to 15/70 would be totally unneccesary. No digital intermediate step would be required at all. Just a straight analog optical printer transfer. And the image quality would be well above what any 2K or 4K DI system could achieve.
quote: John Walsh
The only problem I see with reinventing 70mm film, is that the studios don't *want* film. They want digital projection because they can control the content, and the theaters, much easier.
The "can control" part of that is purely an illusion.
They're taking the fragile existence of commercial theaters for granted, foolishly believing they'll survive any move made by distributors -such as collapsing release windows to boost DVD sales and cut marketing costs.
They think by delivering movies in digital form that will cut down on piracy. I think it will facilitate even more efficient, widespread forms of piracy.
Finally, in converting everything over to VIDEO some of the magic of film will be gone -enough that lots of people will view a movie screen more as just a TV screen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
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