|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-10-2006 02:55 PM
Yes Brian things are progressing regardless.
No, you are not allowed to question the DC agenda. What I particularly dislike is when film institutions say that by showing films in digital people in small cities will get to see more (for instance) Fellini films. You and I know that the main problem is not the prints, the problem is the other expenses related to show a film (like Amarcord) that, as sad as it is, not many people are interested to see. Instead of spending the money in the digital craze they might as well do some promotion of film culture.
I like to see films meant to be seen in 35mm or 70mm in their original medium. But this people with the "digital agenda" will tell you that it is not possible to tell the difference between the two mediums, and this reminds me of the people who say that beer without alcohol tastes the same as normal beer!!!
But I like Brian's attitude. Let's see what can be done. With so many of you related to the exhibition industry and some of you related to the film stock industry, surely at least it should be tried.
Listening to the seven magnetic track of the Cinerama sound I have realised that sound cinema has not progressed that much over the years. It is true that stereophonic sound has become widely available and this is good but they should have built up on the conception of six channels behind the screen, the sound recording of the Cinerama films was great. The use of six channels behind the screen is something that should come back.
No one can deny that everyday more cinemas are closing down and that cinema attendances are going down. This proves that the idea of poor exhibition with poor prints in small multiplexes was a very short-term solution, which is sinking and the big expense of digital will do nothing to save the exhibition field from the decline. On the other hand if digital blurs even more the difference between cinema and telly, the numbers could keep falling. Hence, this is something we can use to back the idea for quality cinema with 65/70 and (hopefully) dye transfer Technicolor.
I do not pretend that anyone pays for my “expensive” taste of good film cinematography. If there aren’t enough of us out there to pay for it, it is then obviously not viable. I just want to know if this is a viable project.
People like the IMAX experience but get tired of documentaries. Why don’t bring the visual impact of IMAX (albeit a bit diminished) with 5/70? Studios should thrill people with images in a way that when they buy the DVD release and see it at home they think it pales in comparison to cinemas. By the way, they are already advertising the release on DVD of King Kong in London (the window period is being shortened everyday more).
And I insist on the idea of drawing a plan of action.
1) How about estimating the cost of adapting cinemas to show 70mm with six channels included? I know that figures have been mentioned, but maybe an itemised list could help.
2) How about contacting someone at DTS to see if they would like the idea?
3) How about Mr Pytlak bringing some ideas?
4) How about contacting someone at Technicolor and finding out if dye transfer prints is a crazy dream or if it would be a possibility. This has never been done and I do not know if they could adapt their 35mm equipment for 70mm but there is no harm in asking, is there?
5) How about getting some cinematographers into the debate and find out their opinion.
6) A 65mm negative is certainly a good investment for the reasons mentioned of being at present the best image recording technique and hence future-proof. With such negatives it seems logical to make a bit of extra expense for excellent presentations.
Let’s hope ideas keep pouring!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-10-2006 05:23 PM
Brian, I give you 4 reasons (with 4 solutions, we have to be positive!)
(I follow the hypothesis of dye transfer prints, which is not essential but could add a lot, look at Storaro and his passion for 65mm but also for dye transfer Technicolor) If you get Kodak and Technicolor’s involvement you have two major companies, which always helps.
1) Theatres do not trust producers. In 1953 they were told to install polarised screens and dual projection for 3-D (It was abandoned in less than two years). For Cinemascope they were told to install the 4mag sound system, after a while the majority of the films were released only with optical sound. Then they were told to install big screens for 70mm/65mm screenings, the studios resorted to blow-ups and stopped producing the kind of films suited for these big screens. In the 80s many installed again the silver screen for 3-D, this time single strip, that did not last either. Now they have been told that they have to switch to digital.
Solution: Digital can still be used in smaller screens, 65mm negative would not harm digital screening. 70mm prints (dye transfer preferable) should be used for big screens. An agreement is reached between producers of film stock, studios, distributors and exhibitors of a continuity of the product for a period of at least 5 years.
2) Prints are too expensive.
Solution: If I am not mistaken dye transfer printing gets cheaper when the number of prints increases. Perhaps creating a printing lab in the USA and one in Europe and showing prints in all major cities could make this cost affordable. Also because of the stability of the dyes, perhaps film institutions could purchase prints for their archives and hence help with the cost.
3) No one can tell the difference between a small multiplex with cropped 35mm and a big screen with 70mm/65mm and six channel sound.
Solution: If that statement was true there would be no IMAX theatres in the world.
4) Some people say that the next big thing is George Lucas's fake 3-D and so this is what studios should be investing in.
Solution: I doubt very much that serious film directors and directors of photography would like to have their films tampered by “dimensionalist”. I like stereoscopic photography very much and would not mind having proper stereoscopic films as well as 65/70mm. Studios and film exhibitors should realise that the famous “Vivre la difference” statement could help them to save the business. And so 3-D and 65/70 can co-exist happily in the same multiplex.
[ 02-12-2006, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-10-2006 05:27 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
No, you are not allowed to question the DC agenda.
If it's any consolation, I sure as hell did, in this book.
quote: pp. 227-228 in Leo's book
As things stand, the only people who are persisting with digital projection in its current form and on any significant scale are public sector arts organisations, of which several in European countries are advocating the use of DLP projection for enabling low-budget, specialist and archival re-release films to be shown in arthouse venues, when the cost of striking a 35mm print would be a significant barrier. They are operating in the usually mistaken belief that DLP will, for this market, bring the overall cost of distribution and exhibition down, while pushing the range and technical quality of material shown up.
One particular example is the British Government's film agency, the UK Film Council (UKFC).* In 2003 it announced its 'Digital Screen Network' initiative, a £15 million fund intended to equip up to 250 independent cinemas with DLP projectors. The statement which appeared on UKFC's website, characterised by emotive rhetoric such as 'freeing cinema from the tyranny of 35mm', during the following year demonstrated quite obviously that whoever had thought up the idea had very little technical knowledge; had not addressed fundamental questions of compatibility, standardisation, the cost of encoding and distributing digital media to the venues, the cost of maintenance and rapid equipment obsolescence and much else besides; had not sought the advice of any genuine technical experts (or if they did, had ignored it); and had failed to do the simple sums that would have revealed that UKFC's distribution and exhibition objectives could have been met far more cheaply and efficiently using 35mm.
* In the original manuscript I put this as FCUK, but the editor caught it... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-12-2006 11:20 AM
I think the most important task in trying to revive 5/70 projection, or even make a case for it is by making a comprehensive list of key theaters in many markets that can do justice to the format. I would list screen size, seat count, current projector and if conversion to handle 70mm (and 70mm DTS) is needed.
The folks who argue against the use of 5/70 prints always make the claim there aren't any theaters left to even show the format. Of course, this isn't true.
Anyone can list a number of theaters in New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC and a handful of other major markets that have "premiere class" theaters which have shown 70mm well in the past. That's common knowledge.
Then you have some large theaters that have shown 70mm in the past in other markets. It's a more difficult to identify those since many have closed and been replaced with 35mm-only stadium seated multiplex sites. The Northpark 1-2 theater in Dallas' Northpark Mall is a good example of a world class theater demolished to eventually make way for an average stadium seated multiplex. I'm not sure if the Dallas market has any commercial theatrical screens left that can show 70mm. That market used to have lots of such screens.
The most difficult list to compile is that of large auditoriums with very large screens in newer multiplex sites. These are theaters which really need 70mm to achieve a properly bright image. Just about all of these are currently 35mm-only, but could be converted to handle 5/70 prints without much trouble. I would say any stadium seated theater with a screen more than 60' in width would stand to make good use of 70mm.
I know of one screen in Oklahoma City that is 70 wide. I know of four auditoriums in a new 20-plex in Moore, OK that will have 80' wide screens. These theater screens are much larger than Oklahoma City area screens that actually did show 70mm in the past (the GCC Penn Square Mall 10 #1 THX screen and the largest theater at the now closed AMC Memorial Square Road 8). With a conversion in one case, and convincing Warren to install 35/70 projectors in the other case, that would allow 70mm to look better than it ever did in that market.
I'm sure there's lots of other similar cases others can list in their own regions. But the point is this: there is no shortage at all of traditional theatrical movie screens in the United States large enough to need 70mm.
| 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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic