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 20)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 04:32 PM

[Larry Mayers] [I think todays very best DVD's are on par in quality with 1.85 35mm flat presentations at least up to about 1995/QUOTE]

I have never heard so much Tosh on this!!, how can you compare a Domestic DVD to a Cinema Industry Motion Picture like 35mm?.
A DVD on a Domestic TV or (Small Screen) may well look good.

I have seen and demo DVD on large Screens with DLP Projectors and there is no match!.

Let's go back to the Topic about 70mm Vs Dc

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 02-14-2006 04:51 PM

Ramon said:

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Let’s see if we could draw up a list of questions and then put a letter together

I'd be delighted to do so, covering your three points. Also making clear that what we're endeavouring to establish initially is pure technical feasibility ahead of then looking at the financial implications.

BTW how do people feel about the sound issue? Mag is still regarded as the best, but could you derive say, 9 channels (5 stage, 1 sub, 3 surround) from mag? Then there are striping and sounding considerations.

DTS is great, but could a fallback be introduced as per 35mm DTS / optical? (I went to a DTS-70 show once where the player dropped out).

Any potential with Dolby?

I referred to uncompressed 9-channel sound earlier. What would be the best way to deliver this? Via large drives as Monte mentioned (don't know if you were serious or not Monte but it goes into the mix anyway!). Or could the DTS XD-10 or custom variation thereof come in useful?

All this is total off-the-wall, clean-sheet, blue-sky thinking. Having everything up for grabs inevitably means discarding unworkable or uneconomic ideas in the process.

Let's keep at it.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 05:15 PM

I agree, the DVD issue is not for this thread. Although, Martin Hart sure is impressed with that DVD and he is a hard core 65/70mm guy if there ever was one. I am not sure if Ben-Hur was reduced to 35mm 2.75 flat, a small image indeed, it would look much better then that DVD.

[ 02-14-2006, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-14-2006 07:03 PM

Ben Hur had IB 4 track mag prints with a thick frameline to maintain the UltrPanavision (camera65) aspect ratio

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-14-2006 09:14 PM

quote: Ben Wales was the last to post
I think todays very best DVD's are on par in quality with 1.85 35mm flat presentations at least up to about 1995.

Standard 16mm film has significantly more resolution than the standard for DVD. Just about all of what NFL Films shoots every weekend during football season is done on many miles of Super16 film. The stuff usually looks fantastic. A 35mm film frame is a lot bigger than 16mm. Even a cropped down Super35 or Super 1.85 35mm frame has quite a bit more image area than 16mm. The ability of 4/35 to hold image detail far exceeds the capability of any HDTV format. That's one reason why organizations like NATO are pushing for 4K as the standard for digital cinema projection rather than near-HDTV quality 2K.

Sorry for bringing up those points since others called for moving the thread along -I just had to speak my peace on it.

quote: Brian Guckian
BTW how do people feel about the sound issue? Mag is still regarded as the best, but could you derive say, 9 channels (5 stage, 1 sub, 3 surround) from mag? Then there are striping and sounding considerations.

There is little, if any, reason to make mag-striped prints besides having such prints specially struck for the hardware in a very well maintained and equipped theater.

For instance, I think it would be fine to make new mag-coated 6-track Dolby SR 70mm prints of movies like Tron, Baraka or some other true 70mm film.

On the quality front, 6-track Dolby SR mag on a 35mm full coat print-master can exceed the quality of 16-bit 44.1kHz Red Book standard CDs and match or even beat 20-bit 48kHz LPCM as well. But the newest digital audio standards exceed the capabilities of mag coat SR. 24-bit audio at 96kHz or 192kHz has more capability to it than modern electronics can even deliver. The A/D and D/A stages in recording and playback have turned into quality bottlenecks, even with the very best units in existence.

When you get into launching new surround sound channel layouts, there is no point to doing mag-coat. Using a time-coded dual system approach is far more efficient, flexible and cost effective.

A 70mm Dolby SR mag print is going to be really expensive to produce. The magnetic striping process is time consuming and uses a lot of chemicals that I think OSHA is trying to ban (at least in the use of film prints). The mag stipes have to dry/cure and then the audio has to be recorded onto the tracks in real time.

In trying to squeeze more channels of audio onto mag stripes of a film print the space for the first 6 six channels will be squeezed and audio quality will be compromised.

I know some people just have to have the audio put onto the film print. But doing so places a brick wall in front of the potential for improving audio quality and adding more discrete channels of audio.

A DTS XD-10 player right out of the box can play audio in formats as high as 8-channel uncompressed 24-bit 96kHz audio. With some expansion cards, you can jump that up to 10, 12 or more channels of audio. Of course, you still have to feed all those audio channels into a cinema processor. I'm wondering if there is a way for DTS to split a 10 or 12 channel audio stream between two 6-channel cinema processors and crossovers. Or maybe some cinema products manufacturer should wake up and make some scaleable cinema processors that can add on more channels of audio and amplification.

I don't know. I'm sure there are ways to get 9, 10, 12 or more channels of audio into a theater. Tomlinson Holman has demonstrated 10.2 audio. At any rate, a next-gen surround format can be done for 70mm, IMAX, video or whatever. But it will work best as a dual system when film is involved.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 02-14-2006 09:43 PM

quote: Brian Guckian
Any potential with Dolby?

Dolby patented a method of putting Dolby Digital on 70mm. Basically, it was printed outside the perforations and the dots were elongated by 25%. Basically, the idea is that when the data passes through the reader, it will "look" exactly like 35mm Dolby Digital to the video decoder because the film is running 25% faster.

If 70mm does get another chance, a dual system makes the most sense so that you can do uncompressed, 24-bit, 96kHz on as many channels as you want. Since there wouldn't be analog backup, a redundant system (two timecodes printed, RAID array storage) should probably be implemented.

Unfortunately, unless somebody can come up with a business plan where the studios get paid to shoot in 65mm and release in 70mm so that it ends up being a net profit vs. DC, 70mm will never happen other than IMAX DMR.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 02-14-2006 10:11 PM

It would be interesting to hear from the powers that be at New Line regarding their decision to cancel their planned 70mm release of "The New World."

Naturally, I was disappointed by their decision, and was even more disappointed when I observed the film's advertisements in the Los Angeles Times newspaper where I counted nine or ten theaters in which the film was playing that is/was equipped for 70mm that could have screened it in 70mm had prints been made available. One of the venues in L.A. "The New World" played was the main auditorium of Grauman's Chinese, a great place, in my opinion, to see 70mm presentations. (When the projection booth was moved from the main floor to the balcony during the '01 renovation, I wonder if they installed new 35mm-only projectors [and DLP]?)

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 02-14-2006 11:36 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
In trying to squeeze more channels of audio onto mag stripes of a film print the space for the first 6 six channels will be squeezed and audio quality will be compromised

..due to that you need a good 2mm of a "guard band" between each track on the outboard edges of the film. Otherwise, bleeding across the tracks would occur. You reduce the area of the rec/pb heads to add more tracks, then your dynamic range will drop some - why the old 4trk cartridge tapes sounded better than the newer 8trk tapes in the 60's.

-monte

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-14-2006 11:52 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
Since there wouldn't be analog backup, a redundant system (two timecodes printed, RAID array storage) should probably be implemented.

For hard disc based audio playback, there is little need for RAID. Most desktop computer hard discs have more than enough speed to handle the playback of just about any audio format. However, it might be nice to have hot-swap capable drives.

When you get into high end computer-based audio production, where many tracks of audio are being manipulated, then a RAID setup makes very good sense.

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-15-2006 02:35 AM

quote: Larry Myers
The 70mm frames look like trash and the DVD frames are nice and clear.

Martin Hart has mentioned that he wished he had an expensive drum scanner, but for frame scans he must make do with waiting until the noon sun is right outside his window & taking a photo through the film.

If you look at the scans, you'll see he's having trouble pushing enough light through the 70mm frame, resulting in low contrast & dark picture.

DVD screencaps are easy, & apparently everyone else knows that DVD & VHS video xfers are neccessarily made from prints that are of lower contrast than exhibition prints due to the limitations of the video format.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 06:14 AM

There should not be any problem nowadays to produce extremely good sound with digital audio. It would also be important that the audio recording process made use of the extra speakers behind the screen with extra provision of microphones to capture the 5 channels behind the screen experience! A pity we no longer have the likes of Herrmann, Korngold, Rosza, North, Newman, … to make use of the sound system. North’s Cleopatra in six mag track was amazing.

I think the main problem in the past has been the lack of synchronization between producers and exhibitors. The examples have been mentioned before, like 3-D in the 50s, 4 mag tracks with Cinemascope, D-150 with only two films, three-strip Cinerama and MGM with only two films, …

The other problem has been the fact that many new technologies have been associated with a single manufacturer that has charged a lot for the use of its product and hence the product has not succeeded. I think this could be the problem with systems like Super Dimension 70 and MaxiVision 48, as good as they may be (I have not seen any demonstration of them) they rely basically on one manufacturer.

What we are trying to devise here (I believe) is a product which involves many manufacturers who would only need to fulfil certain technical requirements (basically sound and image quality). Hence projectors companies, optical companies, film stock companies, sound technology companies, screen companies, and even Technicolor (if possible!!!!). By engaging all these companies the very limited chance to get 70mm back looks a bit more possible, whereas with just a single company developing a new technology this would not be possible.

And also, as said before, a consistency in delivering the product from the studios is essential for a minimum of, let’s say, five or ten years. The problem in the 70s is that the studios decided to stop producing the product 70mm theatres needed, they did not have any product to sell and they closed (I know that I am oversimplifying on the decline of cinema exhibition but I think this was part of the problem).

Yes, many theatres are installing digital, but I am sure they can still allocate one or two auditoriums per multiplex for premium products.

Again, the engagement of all parts is extremely important, and especially cinematographers, who are the ones who could make the system shine.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 07:33 AM

I and everyone else looking at the Wide Screen site really don't care much if Martin Hart had to go to the North Pole to get a scan of that 70mm frame. The bottom line is, how does that 70mm frame look against the DVD capture? I say it just one more nail in the coffin for 70mm.

Actually, these days it's rather easy to get reasonably good scans of Hasselblad 2.25 slides and kind of cheap to. These slides are a little bigger then a typical 70mm movie frame.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 09:16 AM

I honestly believe that Mr Myers is a saboteur. He has been trying to disrupt this debate from the beginning and I fear he is kind of succeeding. All the important issues about sound and image and presentation get somewhat lost among the huge amount of “noise” Mr Myers is dropping in.

To discuss the scanning quality of pictures posted on an Internet website to justify the “death” of 70mm in this forum is preposterous. I think he knows quite well how to tease everybody and enjoys doing so. I am sure he knows that a big percentage of what he is saying is nonsense. He has said unnecessary and unfair derogative words against projectionists and broken the flow of the debate every time he has had a chance.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 09:32 AM

Yes Ramon not only here but over at another film BB as well. He comes here and does as you describe then runs over there and does it for a while, then comes back here then goes back there.
His humor quotient has run out

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 10:23 AM

Well it's really down to one last thing and that is what the eye sees in resolution. It's common knowledge at least in the printing industry as well as in image science area that the eye sees about 8 to 10 lines pairs per millimeter. A measurement much like dots per inch.

No matter how the image is formed. If the image is much less then 8 l/mm at the eye, it will look fuzzy and if it's more then 8 l/mm it will look sharp.

That 70mm image posted on the Wide Screen site is around 1 line pair per millimeter and the DVD image is about 3 lines pairs per millimeter. The page itself is over 8 lines.

If you know nothing about lp/mm measurements, it's sort of like talking cars and NOT knowing anything about MPG or MPH. A basic unit of measurement to tell you what's going on.

Resolutions of various presentations at the proper view distance

IMAX = 16 lp/mm = Strong very sharp image
70mm = 10 lp/mm = Nice sharp image to just about everyone
35mm True Scope= 10 to 8 lp/mm =Nice sharp image
35mm Super Scope = 6 to 8 lp/mm= Some look good and some don't
35mm Flat= 5 to 7 lp/mm =Some can be somewhat fuzzy
Very Recent DVD's =6 lp/mm =Looking as good as some 35mm Flat

Range

1 lp/mm-----2 lp/mm----4 lp/mm----- 8 lp/mm--16 lp/mm

Very fuzzy**Fuzzy***Somewhat Fuzzy**Sharp**Very Sharp

[ 02-15-2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... 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.