Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres (Page 13)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-07-2006 09:58 AM

quote: Larry Myers
It's really doesn't matter if you buy something or not since your not in the market.

Larry, instead of personally insulting me try to disprove the point I made in my last post.

It makes no difference if I am employed or not employed in the movie production business. I am right on the point I made in my last post and have been correct in shooting holes through a bunch of your other anti 5/70 comments. I know what I am talking about and have as much right to post my opinion in here as anyone else.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-07-2006 10:31 AM

The fact that you can adjust the amount of detail by adjusting the type of film stock used in a 35mm camera disproves your point. This was not so before 1970 or so. Then, most color negative film stocks were about the same in detail capture. So you had to use the same film in both 35mm and 70mm cameras. So it's basically pure optical math. The 70mm wins every time in this case. Not so today. With a wide selection of film stocks, directors can use those film stocks to adjust the amount of detail they may or may not want in those $100,000 35mm Panavision cameras. They can even go so far as getting the same quality performance as those "outdated" (someone elses not my words) 70mm cameras did in the mid 60's.

| IP: Logged

Matt Fields
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 545
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 02-07-2006 10:57 AM

Isn't this whole issue an economic one? Most would agree that 70 is highest quality way to produce and show a movie.

But quality, like anything else, is something you can get too much of if your not willing to pay the price.

Nothing will happen if both sides (exhibition and distribution) do not mutually benefit.

Distribution, in general, does not currently feel that the additional costs of production can be justified.

Some in exhibition see 70 as a way to combat the increase in home technology and other entertainment options out there. They think 70 would lead to increased revenues through higher attendence and/or ticket price. Perphaps those theatres could offer the studios an economic incentive (higher rent?) to intice the studios to go with 70.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-07-2006 11:16 AM

quote: Larry Myers
The fact that you can adjust the amount of detail by adjusting the type of film stock used in a 35mm camera disproves your point. This was not so before 1970 or so. Then, most color negative film stocks were about the same in detail capture. So you had to use the same film in both 35mm and 70mm cameras. So it's basically pure optical math. The 70mm wins every time in this case. Not so today.

Not so?

Are you assuming 65mm cameras have only 50 speed film in which to work? Or just a tiny number of film stock choices?

Maybe John Pytlak can weigh in on this further. But I'm pretty sure many of Kodak's best motion picture film stocks are available for 65mm. They also fill custom orders as well. If a movie production wants to shoot 65mm and use a certain kind of film stock, I know Kodak will usually work pretty hard to fill the order.

quote: Matt Fields
Distribution, in general, does not currently feel that the additional costs of production can be justified.

I don't think they see the long term investment view on that. Movies like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "2001" visually hold up well against many contemporary movies of today since they were produced in superior formats.

"LOA" will still look good on some new Ultra HiDef video format a decade or two from now because of its 65mm origination. Movies shot on standard HD video equipment won't up-rez quite so gracefully. They'll look pretty soft by comparison.

When a major movie production commonly costs upwards of $200 million to produce and then probably another $50 million or more to market, it would only make sense to "future proof" that product by using higher quality production methods. You sure don't want people seeing the thing 20 years from now and going "yuck, that doesn't look good on my 50 megapixel monitor."

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-07-2006 12:04 PM

In From mid 50's to about 1970 I think about the only film Kodak was selling for motion picture work was Eastman color. It might have been in two speeds. It's much like what was available for still photography at that time. Kodacolor 64 and maybe 200. That 200/400 had a lot of grain and may not have come out until after 1970. There was Ektacolor Pro but this stuff was mostly for white and flesh color balance such as something you would find at a wedding. Otherwise, it was the same as Kodacolor, bad.
In fact, color neg was so bad, we never used it in the U2/SR71 program. I don't think color negative film was ever used in the film life (1957 to late 1980's) of those programs. Kodachrome 10/25 worked much better although processing was a bitch. Later, Kodak came out with better slow speed E-2/4/6 slide films which worked about as well as Kodachrome.
Bottom line, both Eastman color and Kodacolor of the mid 60's were kinda bad in pickup up detail. You were lucky to get out of it a total system performance of 25 lines pairs per millimeter. Today a 100 lines is the norm. A four times improvement with todays film stocks and a four times adjustment for todays 35mm movie cameras.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-07-2006 12:39 PM

now..are we comparing still film against movie film?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-07-2006 01:15 PM

The big difference in movie film is the coatings used to keep the film from scratching as it goes through the camera. It's very easy to use movie film in a still camera. Lots of labs offer this service as they have the lab equipment to scrub off this coating.

You can use still film in a movie camera if you have the correct perfs and are willing to except some scratches.

Generally speaking, film is film and it all works the same way. You could process movie film at home but without this scrubbing equipment, you would just make a mess.

Aerial Recon Film and Motion Picture film are very closely related. That is, under low magnification it tends to look some what soft and with higher magnification, the film tends to look much sharper. It's just the other way around with still film. These are very small measurements and is all part of aim point of the final design of any film.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-07-2006 02:00 PM

quote: Larry Myers
Bottom line, both Eastman color and Kodacolor of the mid 60's were kinda bad in pickup up detail. You were lucky to get out of it a total system performance of 25 lines pairs per millimeter. Today a 100 lines is the norm. A four times improvement with todays film stocks and a four times adjustment for todays 35mm movie cameras.

All of that history does not answer the question at hand: can Kodak provide 65mm-based productions the same quality of motion picture stocks that are available to 35mm? As I said before, John Pytlak will likely be the voice of authority on that one. I am pretty sure the answer is yes.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 02-07-2006 02:14 PM

Larry should write the next Wide Screen Movies book, but this time on lenses and film gauges.

I'll bet it would have a nice followup report, just like the original WSM book has. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-07-2006 02:41 PM

Yes, today Kodak can provide any film in any format. Minimum order is around 1500 sq ft. It might be more now. So yes, you can run the best of the best negative stock in both 70/65mm and 35mm cameras.

It's a simple calculation.
**************1************1
(Focal Length x ASA speed) / Distance
********************____1____*********__1____
35mm camera = 50mm lens x 50 ASA speed / 20 Feet Distance=.050 detail value
**********************___1___*******___1____
70mm camera = 75mm lens x 50 ASA speed / 20 Feet Distance=.075 detail value

.050/.075 = 66% meaning the 70mm camera is 66% better detail then the 35mm camera. An answer I think you want.

This is a way over simplication ball park answer to a very complex algorithmic problem. I am just trying to give you an idea of how this works using the exact same film in both cameras.

[ 02-07-2006, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 02-07-2006 03:02 PM

Honestly Larry, this is what everyone has been trying to tell you for the last 13 pages! 70mm IS better, and not just for reasons of real estate.

You are the one trying to overcomplicate the discussion.

BTW, are you aware that there are OTHER forums here and OTHER threads you could participate in?

| IP: Logged

Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 216
From: Bromolla, Sweden
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 02-07-2006 03:18 PM

There must be someone on this Forum who knows someone on a
major film production company. Why not simply ask what they
think of the idea of 70mm, and get the answer right from the
horse´s mouth? It´s free to ask...

Thomas

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-07-2006 03:27 PM

..could ask Ron Howard...he shot "Far and Away" in 65mm.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-07-2006 03:43 PM

I know I should make comments on other threads but since I usually cause discontent, why mix the pot more then I have to.

I am just trying to give some reasons why things are the way they are. Why does it seem 5 perf 70 is really not all the popular but IMAX is taking off? Can we say since Kodak is selling more 70mm film then ever, 5 perf 70 is really popular and we are all mistaken?

What is the point of view for production management. How is the equipment selected? How is the tech advice given?

What I am also saying is. With just several view graphs on image quality, this is enough to convince any director to just go 35mm. I am not saying this is right. This is one of the big problems with todays top collages. They are training real smart people to present their really dumb ideas very well.

I think you have seen this in the last year or two in the evening news. How can all this be countered?

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 02-07-2006 03:53 PM

Geez Larry, why stir up so much crap on just one thread? In fact, how about you NOT post any more on this thread and spread your wisdom among other threads for a couple of weeks? You have seriously become the troll of this one. (Take note that no one else appears to agree with you here. Also note that you have been a member for over 5 years and yet 43 of your 139 posts have been right here on this very thread! Seriously, what's up?)

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 48 49 50

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.