|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-12-2006 03:16 PM
I am attending the Widescreen Weekend Ben. See you there?
Bobby, as I have already mentioned, I believe that in the end blow-ups did more harm than benefit to 70mm. The normal cinemagoer does not enter the details of film originated in 65mm or 35mm, he/she only sees the 70mm tag, therefore the “wrong” thought that 70mm was only useful for 6mag tracks. The difference between just blow-ups and 65mm originated is huge (as you say). With the blow-ups you do not get the depth of field, the clarity and the immersive sensation that only 65mm can provide. I think exhibitors should be very strict with it, if they allow blow-ups, studios will stop paying for the extra expense of 65mm as they did in the past and we will all lose. I am for a no compromise position. I might be wrong though!
A comeback should be very well-planned for it to stay, otherwise it will not take off or it will fade away soon. And we have not even entered the debate of curved or flat screen!!! It is not about a film now and then, it is about a different way of producing and presenting films and therefore a compromise from all affected parts should exist to give this project a minimum of continuity.
Again, as mentioned, a certificate for the theatre and the print shown is paramount, anything that does not fulfil the criteria should not go under the banner and so it is not only (under my point of view) prints in 70mm, it has to be 65mm negative as well. I wished it could be dye transfer, not only because many people like me (audience) and film directors and directors of photography like it, but also because the prints (which are very expensive) could be archived and hence be an argument against those who say that only digital can last for many years. Positive colour fades, now less than before, but it does. If there is a comeback it should be a big one, one that blows the home cinema experience away, as it used to happen 30 years ago. Producers need to understand that they need to keep cinemas as something different for their own benefit, they need to keep the prestige of cinema as something different to television.
I want films where the cast look like little ants on an I-Pod or a widescreen television!!!!!
And Brian, here you have another problem with a solution.
Problem: How are audiences going to know about better prints and better cinemas when cinema listings nowadays include more than 15 films per multiplex? Exhibitors may think, why bother?
Solution: By creating a proprietary system with quality control and a separate listing on newspapers and entertainment magazines, as IMAX listings are separate in some countries. By making clear this is a different kind of “show” altogether people would have a choice.
And please, do not charge more for admittance. At £9 per ticket in London people do not want to pay more. For auditoriums of 500 seats it is much better to keep the price and get more audience than put prices up and get less. If people make the option of seeing 70mm this should increase the revenue.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-12-2006 11:49 PM
quote:
Bobby, as I have already mentioned, I believe that in the end blow-ups did more harm than benefit to 70mm. The normal cinemagoer does not enter the details of film originated in 65mm or 35mm, he/she only sees the 70mm tag, therefore the “wrong” thought that 70mm was only useful for 6mag tracks. The difference between just blow-ups and 65mm originated is huge (as you say). With the blow-ups you do not get the depth of field, the clarity and the immersive sensation that only 65mm can provide. I think exhibitors should be very strict with it, if they allow blow-ups, studios will stop paying for the extra expense of 65mm as they did in the past and we will all lose. I am for a no compromise position. I might be wrong though!
In this case, I think you are mistaken.
Basically it's like this: there is no way to get enough projector light through a 4/35 film frame to properly light some of the oversized screens being installed in the most significant mulitplex theaters. We're talking screen sizes that are nearly as big as some IMAX theater screens.
I have seen lots of attempts over the years to use 35mm on giant sized screens, and all come up short. Harkin's Cine Capris in the Bricktown neighborhood of Oklahoma City is just the latest example I've seen. Decent looking 35mm image, but noticeably dim and even soft looking. Harkins didn't skimp on the equipment either. They have a very good Kinoton projector in that booth. The problem is the geometric scale of the screen.
Now it may be a simple matter of only advertising the big "70MM" tag (or whatever new term would be used) when true 65mm origination is used. But these theaters need 70mm prints 100% of the time, whether the prints are advertised or not.
Concerning terminology to use in advertising for true 65mm/70mm, I think using the origination format is probably the best approach. Panavision is a very powerful brand name. Arri is carrying more weight as well. If viewers see something like "Presented in Super Panavision 70" that would mean something more than the generic 70mm term used in the blow up era. Perhaps that term could be updated to something like "Panavision HD-70."
At this point, digital cinema is not a practical alternative either for these huge screens. I'm not aware of any D-Cinema video projector having the light power to properly light a 70' wide screen, much less the necessary image resolution.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-13-2006 04:07 AM
millimeters are too small. how about calling it "7cm"?
bay area theaters i know of that can, in theory, run 70mm:
berkeley: the california, screen 1 (not for long)
oakland: the piedmont, screen 1; the grand lake, screens 1-3.
san francisco: the castro (and they do run it); any others??
san rafael: rafael film center, screen 1(?)
i don't think 35mm ib will happen again, let alone 70mm ib for the first time, but man, that would be something to see.
i got mighty excited when i heard the new world might be made in 70mm. it sure deserved to be. it's a crying shame that didn't happen, and around here it tended to wind up on the crappier screens to boot.
it would be great if something came of this film-tech push for a 70mm revival. i wish i could contribute to it meaningfully, but i don't think i can. unfortunately, "powers that be" seem more interested in dc. ugh.
carl
| 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
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) Fortunately that theater about to be shut down in a couple of months when the new AMC Northpark opens.
Printer-friendly view of this topic