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 19)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 02-14-2006 01:05 AM

I think this Myers guy is a troll. Does he really think that 18 pages into this thread that he'd slam dunk us with an apples-to-oranges comparison of a DVD frame (its image which has the benefit of modern-day clean-up and other digital trickery) to a 17-year-old print image that may have been struck from 20-year-old duplicate elements? Remember: those re-issues and re-printings of "Ben-Hur" were struck off of a dupe (at a time when intermediate stocks were not of very good quality) because of the decision to have its image converted from anamorphic (2.76:1) to spherical (2.21:1) and possibly to accommodate a large print run for its '69 re-issue.

| IP: Logged

Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 602
From: Southampton. England
Registered: Jul 99

posted 02-14-2006 02:24 AM

This guy Mr Myers, perhaps he should pressent the "Andy & Larry Show" [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 02-14-2006 06:21 AM

Regarding the draft letter to the Technicolor labs, I do not have enough technical knowledge to write it (and English is my third language!). I have only attended one lecture at the NFT about dye transfer printing, read the Haines’s book mentioned here and read some information on the internet. Let’s see if we could draw up a list of questions and then put a letter together.

I think there are some points we could raise to them:

1) Would it be possible to produce 70mm prints with adjustments to the equipment they designed for the re-launch of 35mm dye transfer in the 90s? In the past they produced 16mm and Super 8mm dye transfer prints, so in theory 70mm should be possible as well.

2) I am aware they incorporated computer technology to operate the dye transfer rebirth in the 90s. Would this software allow colour grading from the dying process and hence avoiding the use of digital intermediate for such purpose?

3) How many prints would be needed of a film to make this system cost effective?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 06:43 AM

I am just pointing out something I was looking at on a web site. I had nothing to do with it. I didn't do the scans. You really should take it up with Martin Hart. He did the scans.

If that poor 70mm flat print actually exists and it was actually shown at a theater, no wonder 70mm has had some problems. That is my whole point, there are lots of really poor 70mm prints out there and it doesn't help the cause. Then again, Martin Hart may have done a very poor scan job on that perfect 70mm frame and a very good scan job on the DVD. In that case, I think he should be pressured like I am to correct his mistake.

Again I had nothing to do with the Wide Screen Museum or that scan. It's just very poor 70mm PR to have that evaluation where it is.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-14-2006 09:23 AM

Larry, with people like you working for the cia, it's no wonder they botched the report on Iraq

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 10:21 AM

Well look at it from my point of view. I know nothing about film and motion pictures. I am just a regular guy going through the Wide Screen Museum and I see several images about the new DVD of Ben Hur. I see scans of the old and new DVD and I see scans of 70mm frames.

The 70mm frames look like trash and the DVD frames are nice and clear. What is a typical dumb guy to think? What are people born after 1986 to think? What about the 15 year olds that will be in their mid 20 in 10 years when DC does come of age?

The Wide Screen Museum has been around for at least 5 years maybe more. At least several 100 scans have been done over the last 5 years, are they all bad? Maybe it's just some are bad. Maybe only one is bad. The most important one of all. A 70mm frame. The one that's lined up with a DVD frame to show image ratio differences and by the way, never mind the bad quality of the 70mm frame. You guys really got to give me a break here.

OBTW: It does seem to me that botched CIA report said THERE WERE NO WMD WEAPONS. Something many people don't want to hear. This group has a lot in common with that group.

[ 02-14-2006, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 02-14-2006 11:19 AM

This is completely surreal. We are discussing about the subject of digital versus 70mm film presentation and Mr Myers is talking about the scan of a 70mm print compared to the scan of a DVD image from the same film, both of them displayed in his computer screen!!!!! The whole thing is nonsense and I think is damaging the quality of the debate and disturbing the serious issues which are being highlighted here.

I do not think anyone in this forum dislikes information, on the contrary, but the level of ridiculous information and lack of respect from Mr Myers is frankly upsetting.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-14-2006 12:22 PM

quote: Larry Myers
Well look at it from my point of view. I know nothing about film and motion pictures.

Duh

Scans
Before the digital age befell us, I and all other astrophotographers used film to shoot the night sky. Then to get them converted to a form that could be displayed on the internet they had to be scanned. During that time I had a scanner that would scan up to a 4x5 image. I was using 6x7 medium format film which is essentially 70mm. I can tell you that the variables involved in scanning are almost infinite. The presets before the scan and the manipulation of the image, post scan, can range from worthless to brilliant, revealing or not revealing details that are in the film. The scanning process is an art. The scan can be manipulated to look very bad or very good depending on the intent and talent of the person doing the scanning. That said all information in the scan IS ALREADY IN THE FILM. It is not created, just "reported".

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 12:52 PM

It does seem to me that all this 70mm business is like a religion. The prints are made in Heaven and reviewed by God himself. Then the 70mm film is sent down in cans on the wings of Angles only to be opened by blessed Film Handlers and loaded onto their Holly Projectors. Amen and God save 70mm as only God can.

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 02-14-2006 12:54 PM

I'd give Larry a break on this one. The scans he's talking about do make the DVD image look better. So, what's some bonehead who stumbles into the AWSM going to think when he sees the image? Obviously he'll conclude that digital is better. Don't forget, there is a huge segment of the population out there who has never seen 5/70 and probably could care less. What needs to happen if anyone has any expectation of seeing 5/70 make a comeback, is to always represent the format in the best quality possible. If no, then a disclaimer should be included that states that the source material was not optimal. 5/70 will make a comeback if the public demands quality and boxoffice revenue clearly shows the difference. It may only be in selected markets, but at least it would be a start.

BTW, If you are looking for WMD then look in Syria.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-14-2006 01:52 PM

The problem with Larry's Ben Hur argument is that movie was originally filmed in 65mm!!! Just a little clue: any good looking DVD of that movie was derived from 65mm source material at some point.

On scanning film, unless you have a very expensive drum scanner or another kind of extremely expensive high end film scanner (coupled with the proper knowledge to use it) any scans you make are INVALID to use as items of comparison.

Ordinary flatbed scanners, even ones costing $1000 or $2000, don't capture anywhere near the color fidelity and level of detail boasted by true high end scanners that cost tens of thousands of dollars. This fact alone makes the very zany Ben Hur comparison irrelevant.

quote: Larry Myers
It does seem to me that all this 70mm business is like a religion. The prints are made in Heaven and reviewed by God himself. Then the 70mm film is sent down in cans on the wings of Angles only to be opened by blessed Film Handlers and loaded onto their Holly Projectors. Amen and God save 70mm as only God can.

I had a pretty good laugh over that one.

To accuse the use of "religion" on defending 70mm is hilariously assinine. I would counter that YOU are the one holding to some kind of religion for trying to knock 70mm using one shaky argument after another. I, and many others, have brought up FACT after FACT after FACT -not anything "religious"- to shoot down your arguments.

The latest tactic of digging up so-so quality scans of poor quality print reproductions and making that the basis of an anti-70mm stance is pretty kooky.

Whatever happened to digging up a pristene quality piece of 65mm source material and using that as a measuring bar for how digital cinema, DVD or anything else compares. Oh. I'm sorry. That makes too much logical sense. Of course, 5/65 is going to win everytime in that comparison as well.

Many of seen would-be arguments against film like this before. All the digital cinema fanboys have been saying this kind of bullshit for years, digging up anecdotal stories of bad 35mm presentations and using that as the measuring bar for comparing digital cinema. None of those guys have the guts to compare D-Cinema against 35mm film done right. They sure won't show up to compare D-Cinema against 70mm done right.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-14-2006 02:18 PM

quote: Rick Raskin
BTW, If you are looking for WMD then look in Syria.

No doubt about that, but we're getting dangerously close to politics on that topic, so nuff said

quote: Bobby Henderson
Ordinary flatbed scanners, even ones costing $1000 or $2000, don't capture anywhere near the color fidelity and level of detail boasted by true high end scanners that cost tens of thousands of dollars. This fact alone makes the very zany Ben Hur comparison irrelevant.

Yep. The one I had listed at $10k when it was new and it has nowhere near the dynamic range of the film it was trying to reproduce. But then again (as mentioned before) the scans wound up being used for display on the internet which means low rez relative garbage. Then you got the viewer looking at his/her monitor which may or may not be set correctly for viewing

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 02:38 PM

Let me say I am NOT trying to say DVD's are better then 65/70mm. I am saying it looks like the Wide Screen Museum is presenting it that way. At least it's presenting it that way to someone who knows little about film. The vary people going to the theaters and paying their money.

FOR THE RECORD. I think DVD's are very close to 35mm 1.85 flat film presentations and NOT 65/70mm presentations. I think 65/70mm is at least 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 times (take your pick) better in image quality then 1.85 35mm flat presentations.

I am just pointing out that 70mm by mistake or not, gets a bad rap even at the Wide Screen Museum.

[ 02-14-2006, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-14-2006 03:52 PM

quote: Larry Myers
I think DVD's are very close to 35mm 1.85 flat film

Are you saying you believe a 1.85 image on 35mm film is roughly equivalent to 720 x 480 (or 720 x 400) in resolution? How do you figure?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 04:07 PM

I think that's for another topic. I just want to make sure everyone knows I an NOT saying DVD's have the same quality as 65/70mm presentations.

Two things I am saying.

I think true 2.35 scope 35mm with a modern Panavision camera and the best modern Kodak Vision stock is on par or better quality then older (pre 1980's) 65/70mm on Eastman stock.

I think todays very best DVD's are on par in quality with 1.85 35mm flat presentations at least up to about 1995.

Nothing else is inferred period.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 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.