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 2)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-27-2006 06:44 PM

quote: Greg Mueller
What happened to manners anyway?

Well Put! I have to agree that about 1% of the kids I have run into in the last 10 years actually know what the word means.... let alone their parents. PArents seem to have forgotten, lost, or mever knew the meaning of the word discipline. While at GTS I did ALOT of work around all types of schools and for the most part the kids of today really are morons that have no values what so ever. Kids out in the country seem to be better behaved but city kids.... Creeps!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-27-2006 08:54 PM

Well it's a simple calculation. Just like 2 is twice 1 and 4 is twice 2. So it's .825 by .447 for a total of .369 sq area flat presentation. Then it's .825 by .715 for a total of .560 sq area for a scope presentation. Last it's 1.913 by .866 for a total of 1.645 sq area for 70mm. So the figure is .369 to .560 then to 1.645. The image resolution increase from flat to scope is 1.5 times and from scope to 70mm is 2.9 times.

My point is, if people can't see any difference from a 1.5 times loss in resolution from scope to flat, why do you think people can tell the difference with three times the increase in resolution from scope to 70mm? Now figure that modern film resolutions are at least twice or 4 times as good today then they were in the late 50's. You can clearly see a modern scope print on Kodak Vision stock might actually be better in image quality then any older 70mm presentation.

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 01-27-2006 09:05 PM

There is more to resolution than meets the eye or the logic test in this thread.

There is way less magnification on 70mm than 35mm, do the math and this IMHO is the reason.

70mm always looks better than 35mm even when the film was shot in 35mm as almost all 70mm releases after 1965 were. I won't even try to tell you why, but it's true.

I've even had Dolby engineers tell me the blowup to 70 should look worse because of increased grain size, but it's simply not true.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-27-2006 10:17 PM

There is way less and then there is way less. Like 5 ft is way less then 20 ft. So just how much way less is 35mm film to 70mm? Well it's two times way less in the horizontal direction and only 1.2 times way less in the vertical position. You could almost duplicate 70mm by running two 35mm projectors side by side much like the old Cinerama presentations running three projectors side by side.

To say 70mm is always better begs the question on just what improvement have been done in the motion picture industry the last 30 years? Why buy a $2000 Super Cinelux when a $10 Kollmorgen will do the same job? Just about every projector in the late 50's used Kollmorgens.

I would say 70mm is never coming back much like old 4x5 speed graphics are never coming back. They are too heavy, uses too much film and are way to hard to handle. Just the facts of life and hard facts they may be.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 01-27-2006 11:03 PM

There was an extended discussion of this topic over on another forum. Looks like nothing was learned.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-27-2006 11:17 PM

quote: Larry Myers
To say 70mm is always better begs the question on just what improvement have been done in the motion picture industry the last 30 years? Why buy a $2000 Super Cinelux when a $10 Kollmorgen will do the same job? Just about every projector in the late 50's used Kollmorgens.

Why is 70mm better? Image Quality! It has a much higher capacity to store image detail than 35mm. Simple as that.

Also, the rationale that reverting to lower standards is okay and somehow negates the quality of 70mm also doesn't wash.

If capacity for image detail wasn't important then all professional portrait and landscape photographers would just use mainstream 35mm film cameras or a $300 digital camera. For some odd reason, they're still using large format film view cameras and some are spending $10K to $50K for high resolution digital backs for their view cameras.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-28-2006 12:02 AM

Larry, you might want to excuse yourself from posting further on this thread, as I've read threads from you before regarding 35mm vs. 70mm elsewhere on the internet and it was mutual among everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about. (Save yourself the embarassment here.)

I did a comparison between a 70mm Titanic and a 35mm show print of Titanic. It wasn't even freakin' in the same ballpark, and that was shot Super35!

| IP: Logged

Sam D. Chavez
Film God

Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 01-28-2006 12:42 AM

There are really only two things that have dramatically improved in projection technology, and these are lenses and audio. The Simplex XL or any number of other projectors, with the possible exception of the one that starts with a B and the one that is painted a funny green, are capable of projecting a flawless image.

There is no comparison between a Kollmorgen new from the box and either Isco or Schneider standard lenses. Simple as that.

| IP: Logged

David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 01-28-2006 12:58 AM

quote:
Imagine if we were told that "All orchestras worldwide are to be digitized to save money. Musical instruments are bulky, archaic and expensive. Digital technology will cut costs and allow wider types of music to be played".

Now think about that and how totally ludicrous it is!

That would be why the various muscian's unions are fighting tooth and nail to have the Sinfonia Virtual Orchestra contractually banned, or perhaps more honestly, to crush the company that created it. Its seen as being a tool to sack musicians. Bit like string machines of the late 70s all over again. In the hands of a competent musician cum operator, the Sinfonia is good enough to satisfy most of the people most of the time within the context of musical theatre.

Its in part the same old story: using a Sinfonia a show's producer's dont have to hire as big an orchestra (ie less money), or, on the other side of the coin, you can afford to put on productions where otherwise an adequate orchestra would be unaffordable.

Same old same old, as we say in this part of the world.

I wonder if I'll ever get to see a 70mm presentation again...

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-28-2006 01:10 AM

I've got to disagree with you slightly there Sam. There IS a noticeable difference between different projector models. Put a Kinoton up against anything else on the market and you will see that while the projector isn't quite as important as the lensing used, it DOES make a noticeable improvement in overall sharpness of the image.

And I can say that honestly after comparing an interlocked presentation between a Simplex XL and a Kinoton in identically sized and otherwise equipped houses.

Heck, even adding a heat filter and/or water cooling to a projector without it will improve the image! [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 01-28-2006 01:21 AM

But where the lie has really started is when the people approached the exhibitors and told them that hey if you install this people will come. That's bullshit! The problem in Hollywood is hey let's make this movie, if it's shit we will make up the difference on a quick video release. To much shit not enough quality = shorter video windows and drop in attendance plain and simple. Putting in DLP and I hate to say it 70mm (Based on the types of films today) is not going to increase the attendance on the long term. The whole industry could find its self crumbling from the weight of bad decisions.

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 01-28-2006 03:42 AM

I agree with Darryl. You can strike and project as many 70mm prints you can poke a stick at but the film itself has be worth seeing. I've seen 70mm a plenty here in Melbourne, both 35 blow-up and 65 origination and of course the difference in both picture and sound is noticeable, even on the opening titles!!Don't know what Larry's on about. With in regards to sound I'm reffering to mag tracks, but that's a whole other debate...

Didn't James Cameron mention that seeing Titanic in 70 is like experiencing a different film all together. I saw it both in 35 and 70 and the latter been truly amazing. On the other hand I sat through all 20 reels of the blasted Kenneth Branagh's
"Hamlet". Gee whiz I don't care if it was shot on 65 and how good it looks... [sleep]

. But then that's my opinion. But the 70mm version has done superb business here since it was released in 1997 and it still screens here in Melbourne to this very day. Maybe a distributor or 2 needs to bite the bullet and do a trail with a few 70 prints on a select film and see how it goes. It's the only way to get the ball rolling as far as I can see and starts with both the filmmakers and exhibitors getting behind it. Having recently experienced "The Polar Express" in IMAX 3D, it's worth every penny.

| IP: Logged

Robert Burtcher
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 194
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 01-28-2006 04:24 AM

If we ever get the chance to do it, the theatre I work for has most of the equipment to show a film in 70mm. The only items we lack in our building to show a 70mm film are a 70mm DTS reader and a 70mm Christie platter ring.

It's kind of odd, though... You won't find a 35mm Kelmar media cleaner in our booth, yet somehow we have one for 70mm. Kooky. (I have been given the impression that my company, or at least local management, believes PTR rollers are good enough. I have not been specifically told as much, however.)

Knowing what little I know of my company, as well as the state of the industry on 70mm, I highly doubt we ever will get the last little bit of equipment needed to show 70mm, or even the chance to run it.

-----
This post is personal communication, and should not be misconstrued to be posted on behalf of my employer.

[ 03-12-2006, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Robert Burtcher ]

| IP: Logged

Anslem Rayburn
Master Film Handler

Posts: 476
From: Yuma, AZ, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 01-28-2006 04:50 AM

This entire idea of presentation saving the industry is false. I guarantee you that my theater has the best film presentation in town. I watch movies at my location and the competitor. I refuse to miss a movie I really want to see because the bookers at my theater couldn't secure it for us.

They (the competitor) always have scratched prints. One film I saw there had 2 entire reels (back to back) shifting color. It was actually bad enough for me to complain*. They don't care. I would never run that crap, and have actually stopped a scratched to hell used print (Kinsey) from running. I would rather explain to my guests that the print we received was not good enough for them to view. We lost a show because of it.

But guess which theater won "Best Theater" again? Not mine. Nobody in the general public cares. I'm not going to lower my standards because of it, but it matters very little when the bottom line is the most important thing.

"THEY" have foot traffic, which means higher grosses. "WE" have nothing, except the fact that you know when you come here, you will see a scratch-free performance with good sound. It's not too loud (we even turn the previews down manually), but you can hear the surrounds working, embracing you in full, rich, escape from reality.

*I don't normally complain at the other theater, since they all know me over there and assume I am just trying to be a pain when I do. This is actually the only time I complained to anyone working there, and only because it affected 35+ minutes of the film. Of course, they acted like nobody had complained before, and made me feel that I shoudld just shut-up and go back into my auditorium...

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 01-28-2006 07:05 AM

quote: Anslem Rayburn
They (the competitor) always have scratched prints.

quote: Anslem Rayburn
But guess which theater won "Best Theater" again? Not mine. Nobody in the general public cares. I'm not going to lower my standards because of it, but it matters very little when the bottom line is the most important thing.

And yet you still patronize their Theatre [Confused]

. That's part of the problem not the solution.

quote: Anslem Rayburn
One film I saw there had 2 entire reels (back to back) shifting color

Sounds more like lab error unless they run changeovers and Carbon-Arc done wrong.

There's a multiplex here mainly dealing with art product that is practically crap from one corner to another in every kind of way but they still pack the place day in day out. It's like the place to be seen and see movies. Some people are strange.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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.