|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-13-2006 04:46 AM
Brian,
No, Dye Transfer Technicolor was never used for 70mm printing as I have mentioned before. Therefore, if it was technically feasible this would be an idea to consider, since it would be something new, never done before, and this would attract attention from both audiences and film makers. It would be a good idea to ask Technicolor about the possibilities of adapting their equipment to 70mm and the possible cost of such prints. Technicolor dye transfer is much more expensive unless you order a big number of prints. I have thought about writing to them, but they would probably think “Who is he?” Maybe we could draft such letter and send it or email it to them. Dye transfer was also used for 16mm, Super 8mm and Cinerama (only How The West Was Won, The Fabulous World of the Brothers Grimm and the reissue of This is Cinerama). I will be in Bradford for the whole widescreen weekend, see you there!
Scott,
You are right, 8-perf dye-transfer prints were never made of any Vistavision titles. The majority of VistaVision reduction prints (if not all) were printed in dye-transfer.
Bobby,
I fear I did not express myself properly. I agree absolutely with you that blow-ups are better for huge screens for the light issue you mention. My point is that if studios see that option they will give up using 65mm negative. And I think that getting back 65mm negative is very important. Yes, an option would be to advertise only the tag when 65mm and 70mm print is used.
I believe that small screens are doomed anyway. People are investing a lot of money in home cinema equipment and they will not pay to go to a small cinema. The question then is to find out if a big screen which provides experiences as Cinerama and proper 65mm did in the 50s and 60s would be a viable business. I also believe than digital is a trick from the home cinema business people. They have already managed to put the cinema sound in a home environment, now they are also planning to change the cinema image as well so it can be transferred to the home environment and hence ensuring the selling of more hardware for the home cinema users. And yes… then probably cinemas will disappear (as sad as it is).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-13-2006 05:23 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
As far as I know, 8-perf dye-transfer prints were never made of any Vistavision titles, though most were reduced to 4/35 and then printed in dye-transfer. Every piece of VV film that I have seen has been Eastman.
I can confirm that this was so, at least in the UK. I was among a party of London West End chief projectionists that Technicolor invited to their plant for the day during the early 1970s. The late Bernard Happe headed the tour which included a lecture with screenings, and a buffet lunch.
It was a wonderful experience to see coming from the dark room process, the clear film with the soundtrack, then being printed on with the YCM separates in broad daylight! Then projected x 3 times speed for picture and track quality control, perforations lightly lubricated, and the reels run onto 2” cores and packed.
We did also see the 65/70mm Eastman process. Besides horizontal 8 perf VistaVision, there was also Technicolor’s horizontal 8 perf Technirama. I think 2 perf camera Techniscope from the 1960s was still around then.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-13-2006 03:11 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
There is also the problem of the widespread use of digital intermediate. Depending on the quality of the scan for the digital intermediate film loses definition, doesn’t it? I wonder if dye transfer printing could allow the use of computers to control the dying process and therefore help with the colour grading without having to enter the digital domain.
Digital film recorders typically use red, blue and green lasers to expose the film and do so on nearly grainless ASA 0.1 stock. The Cineon Lightning 35mm Arri Laser Recorder in use at Kodak's CineSite is one of the best in the world. It takes around 2 seconds to record one 4/35 film frame. As to what printing techniques are used afterward, such as dye transfer printing, I doubt if that will help the brightness issue with 35mm on giant screens.
Although digital intermediate movies are locked into the limits of whatever resolution was used both for work and final render, that still doesn't get away from the limits of 35mm for use on giant screens. A 70mm print of a 2K DI film is still going to look better on a giant screen than any 35mm print of the same source material. The 70mm blow up print will be achieve an appropriate level of brightness and have improved steadiness.
quote: Larry Myers
In order to go forward you must know where you are now and where you want to go. You also must know where the DC people are at this time and where they are going.
2K is the defacto standard for D-Cinema, just a hair above 1080 HDTV quality. Hundreds of new Christie 2K based digital projector systems are now being installed in a number of major theater circuits.
4K seems to be where some folks talk about taking things. Sony has their 4K projector system. But very few digital intermediates are being rendered at 4K. 2K just seems good enough for most folks. CineSite has their "s2K" process which does some line doubling to simulate 4K in the recording process. But it isn't truly native 4K.
Some film recorders can do 8K and 16K levels. Those would be good for large format processes like 5/65mm. However, I think it will be a long time before those standards get much of any use outside of some short large format visual effects shots. I fear there will be a tyranny of 2K for quite some time.
quote: Larry Myers
The people in DC are highly trained with most being Electrical Engineers out of some of the top schools in the country. Many have PHd's.
Unfortunately, those are not the guys who are defining the standards. The business people, MBAs and sales droids are making the key decisions. And "good enough" is definitely in their vocabulary. The scientists and engineers are locked down in the dungeon, safely away from the public -so as not to contaminate the spin of the sales pitch. Can't afford to allow any knowledgeable tech-heads tell the truth to the public about the limits of video projectors and how they really stack up to film.
It will probably be quite a long time, probably decades, before we'll see video projectors that can match image detail levels of 5/65mm, much less even be able to achieve the light ratings of a 70mm projector.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-13-2006 05:10 PM
quote: Larry Myers
The people in DC are highly trained with most being Electrical Engineers out of some of the top schools in the country. Many have PHd's. If you have ever worked with Electrical Engineers, they kind of have an attitude they know everything about anything otherwise, they would not be Electrical Engineers. There even harder to work with then Image Scientists if you can imagine that.
Knowledge is always useful and there seems to be plenty of knowledge in this forum on both the film and the digital fields. Scientific knowledge is also paramount. However let’s not forget that the difference between digital and film worlds is also an artistic difference. Film is as different to digital as watercolour is to oil of canvas in the painting world (another visual art). It is a matter of taste, as dye transfer Technicolor is also a matter of taste, and taste (luckily) cannot simply be reduced to numbers. However, if the taste proves to be unaffordable there is nothing to do. I like academy ratio and black and white as well (remember that Fritz Lang said that Cinemascope is only useful to film snakes!!!!), but this is not possible any longer since not enough people like it to make it affordable. Producers and exhibitors could have made use of the vast artistic palette, which technologies have provided since films inception. Regrettably this has not been the case, and now it is too late. I like the photochemical process with its imperfections and the image produced by the 24 frames per second. So far I do not like digital, that does not mean that in the future if it improves I may like it. But still, I can’t stand people who just dismiss film on technological grounds and forget the artistic element.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Although digital intermediate movies are locked into the limits of whatever resolution was used both for work and final render, that still doesn't get away from the limits of 35mm for use on giant screens. A 70mm print of a 2K DI film is still going to look better on a giant screen than any 35mm print of the same source material. The 70mm blow up print will be achieve an appropriate level of brightness and have improved steadiness.
Bobby, The problem I was trying to raise here is the futility of using 65mm if it has to be scanned at 2K. I have not denied the advantage of blow-ups for big screens (except the compromise on the framing) but I rather prefer a 35mm dye transfer reduction print than a blow-up print.
On the field of giving more ideas, one of the things that impresses me about Cinerama is the wide horizontal angle coverage. In that sense it would be great if D-150 could be resurrected since a horizontal angle of 150° looks just impressive on a curved screen. Also D-150 screen system could be brought back as to allow for the showing of all film formats, perhaps with the possibility to add control of the depth of the curve to allow for flat screen position as well. This would cost a lot of money but would be great, wouldn’t it?
| 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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Actually, it is the PhDs in Physics that actually DO know everything.
Printer-friendly view of this topic