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 21)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-15-2006 12:13 PM

quote: Larry Myers
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.

That is a really stupid comment, especially in light of what everyone else has written since the looney DVD vs. 70mm idea was even posed. Did you even read what anyone else has read?

Just a little clue: those images you see on Martin Hart's website are not 70mm frames. They're just low resolution representations of 70mm frames.

quote: Larry Myers
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.

Um, Larry, exactly from where are you pulling these figures? Out of your ass?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 12:25 PM

The figures are a standard and you can read all about it in the SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering ISBN 0-471-81880-1.

Again if you know nothing about this then it like a car expert that knows nothing about MPG or MPH. It's just like saying my Corvette is just amazingly fast. I ask how fast can it go. You come back and say "I said amazingly fast." I say no, I want to know how fast can it go in MPH. You say "what is MPH." Look who's pulling stuff out their ass.

So what is the problem? You think the numbers are wrong. Then what are the right figures? You think the measurements are different. Then what is that measurement? I know, you don't really know what is wrong or right. It's just anything I say must be wrong, well, because I said it.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-15-2006 12:44 PM

I still contend you're pulling this stuff out of your ass. The figures still look invented out of thin air rather than actually being attributable to any published book.

For one thing, DVD imagery is not measured in "line pairs." DVD video is stored within an absolute number of pixels (720 X 480 in the NTSC version).

Also, film stock is film stock. The main difference is size. A 5/70 film frame has 250% more image area than a 4/35 frame. Using the same film stocks it can store more than twice the level of detail. Yet you seem to try to claim they're both nearly the same, and that DVD is nearly equal. Is that to say HDTV is better than 35mm or 70mm?
[Roll Eyes]

As to the film types you list with line pair measurements, you conveniently say:

quote: Larry Myers
Resolutions of various presentations at the proper view distance.

How about some specifics, please? Like, how far back is the viewing distance? And how big is the test screen for comparing each format? Also other factors like image brightness, ambient lighting conditions, etc. would also be helpful.

With all of those variables (read: blanks) filled in, your case that DVD is as good as 70mm won't seem quite as convincing to you anymore. I don't think it was convincing to any of the rest of this thread's participants in the first place.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 01:19 PM

Actually is very easy to measure DVD's in lp/mm simply by imaging an resolution target and reading it. Again you really need to read the book. It's the SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering ISBN 0-471-81880-1.

View distances generally will be 2.5 times screen height. With IMAX it's a little closer and with DVD's, it's a little more distance.

Most Govt standards call for about 12 footcandles to read a book at a work place. Screen brightness would be somewhere around that. I think about 20 FC falling on the screen would be perfect. Now that I could be wrong on.

Why does it seem it's alway, "hey your wrong" with you but I never get what is right. Please, lets hear what is right.

It's alway wrong wrong wrong, but what's right, right, right. We all want to learn.

And I don't ever remember saying DVD's were as good as 70mm. I thought I had cleared that up but I guess not.

Let me say it again!

I think 35mm True Scope on modern Vision Stock is about as good as old 65/70mm on old Eastman Stock.

I think the NEWEST DVD's are about the same quality as many 35mm 1.85 flat presentation made before 1995.

That 65/70mm film is 2 or 4 or 8 times (take your pick) the resolution as 35mm 1.85 flat film.

That's it period

Film stock is not film stock. First you have new Vision stock and then very old Eastman stock or then just plain old Eastman stock. Then you have ASA 50 stock then ASA 100 stock and even ASA 400 stock. A real mix and match.

SPSE Handbook page 380

Eye Spec:

Aperture f-1.7
Focal Length 17mm
Sensitivity Range .0001 FC Starlight to 10,000 FC Summer Sun
Resolution 10 lp/mm Maximum at retina
Max Sensitivity Equal to Royal X Pan Film at ASA 8180

FC= Foot Candles

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-15-2006 02:16 PM

quote: Larry Myers
I think 35mm True Scope on modern Vision Stock is about as good as old 65/70mm on old Eastman Stock.

I think the NEWEST DVD's are about the same quality as many 35mm 1.85 flat presentation made before 1995.

....love this one key word here...."think"

..is this word, in these two statements, showing that the statements above are NOT factual and absolute statements, but just guesses?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 02:36 PM

Yes, my word think is my POINT OF VIEW. I could be wrong, I could be right. I have many reasons why I have that position and that position can be supported from my SPSE handbook.

If any one is interested, I can take you through point by point and give the page number of the SPSE handbook that supports my position.

So the first item of question is what is the eye doing? That's on page 380. Shall I list the eye specifications again or will my previous post do it?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-15-2006 03:32 PM

No, the previous post is suffice.

But as for the "true scope" thingey against the "65/70mm" thingey, on must take into being is that "scope", not matter what stock it being shot on is, in actuality a distorted image whereas the 65mm is a normal image that is not distorted.

Just that the newer stock came out to best compensate for the distortion - and it helps with better optics for the anamorphic attachments to aid in the compensation results.

Like us poor souls that have to wear glasses, especially with progressive lenses - big time distortion factors there. We see okey, but not as well as we used to before we had to face the usage of corrective glasses.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 04:07 PM

It's a matter of understanding magnification. Magnification factors in both directions. If I magnify an 1 inch sq image two times, I get a 2 inch sq image. So a 2 inch sq image is twice the size as an 1 inch sq image. So even though the 2 inch image has 4 times the area, it is only twice the size. Resolution is controlled by magnification/size and light is controlled by area.

The difference between the Horizontal size is 2x times magnification from 35mm to 65/70 but only 1/4x times mag in the vertical. So vertical magnification is really in the noise as far as resolution is concerned.

Now add the fact the 100 is twice the number as 50. All that is needed to make 35mm true scope as good as OLDER 65/70mm is to use a film that has twice the resolution as before. A real easy step with the newest Kodak Vision stock that will do 100 lp/mm on a bad day when up against old and/or older Eastman color that was lucky to do 35 l/mm on a good day.

A 2 inch sq image that is 50 lp/mm with a 100 mm lens is exactly the same detail as an image that is 1 inch sq at 100 lp/mm with a 50mm lens. Both have exactly the same coverage.

So a 50mm lens at 100 lp/mm has the exact same detail as a 100mm lens at 50 lp/mm.

A Panavision 35mm true scope modern results (100 lp/mm) actually mean higher resolution in the vertical and about the same resolution in the horizontal then older 65/70mm cameras.

Bottom line here is using 35mm True Scope in a modern 35mm Panavision camera and with the very newest Kodak Vision stock all slow speed printed will look damn good. In fact, very damn good.

| IP: Logged

Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-15-2006 04:38 PM

Ramon/Brian: Is it worth while for us to compose a list of 70mm equipped Cinemas in the UK as a starter?.

I am working on a list of places I know or visted that can still screen 70mm.

As for Sound, although the 6 Track Mag (in my opinion) was the best sound you could have for Cinema sound, but is too costly in the 21st century to produce and with the advancement in Digital sound is the future.

I was involved with a two screen 70mm venue and screened a 30min 70mm print in DTS and can only could recall only minor Sound problem with the DTS system and I was quite impressed with their 5 screen channel mix on some of the recent restoration prints.

May be one option as a back-up, could be a Digital Hard Drive Audio with a SMPTE Timecode on the print, like the DTS Timecode or a re-designed CDS Digital sound system.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 02-15-2006 06:55 PM

I am old enough to remember the thrill of my first sight of CinemaScope and the first stereophonic sound. Then those fabulous date movies in Todd AO. These EVENTS were why I got into this crazy show business in the first place. We really need that buzz now.
Keep working on the 70mm circuit idea. Remember that the rest of the world would like to join in.
In parallel, consider what can be done in 35mm right now. Many film makers are allergic to anamorphic which is why cropped 35 and Super 35 exist. Hey, is there a market for 4x3 tvs with ply panels nailed over top and bottom of the screen as Widescreen tvs?
Could 35mm negs be supplied with 16mm perfs to get the full scope width? That would satisfy the anti-anamorphic brigade, and a 3-pref pull-down would satisfy the accountants.
A premium format could use the negs at full 1.33 height anamorphic. Still more economical than 65mm.
I believe that there is a move to Super 8 perfs on Super 16 for full width 1.85.
Then make it law for projectionists to use FilmGuard and we have a start.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 02-15-2006 09:46 PM

Larry is comparing apple to oranges regarding magnification
the large frame size of 70mm will produce a sharper image when projected to the same size as a 35mm scope image because it requires less magnification to produce the same size projected image which is what happens in a theatre

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-16-2006 03:09 AM

..his two favourite fruit....a FRUIT cocktail...(lol)..

quote: Ron Curran
Could 35mm negs be supplied with 16mm perfs to get the full scope width?

..Nope. Film is too big for that size of sprocket holes to maintain even tension, and the sprocket's teeth could easily rip though due to the coverage area would be massively reduced along with the doubled gate tension of that of the regular 16mm gate and trap assemblies.

quote: Ron Curran
... and a 3-pref pull-down would satisfy the accountants.

Nope again..this would drastically reduce the resolution quality of the image due to the massive reduction of grains exposed if a 3-perf pulldown was used. - might as well shoot in 16mm if this procedure was used..

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 02-16-2006 06:17 AM

Ben, certainly it is a good idea to get a list of 70mm equipped cinemas. And also talk to more projectionists and get their input and ideas, the more people that get involved the best. As Brian rightly pointed out this is a holistic approach. If it is just the niche of connoisseurs who know about it, it won’t move out from there.

I know we are not taking about a massive revolutionary business that it is going to make millionaires overnight, I would be satisfied if this proved to be an economic viable project. Investors nowadays do not generally know the business they are investing in, they just want to get their money back as soon as possible and this is one of the reasons the craftsmanship of years ago has disappeared. This is also the reason why I have gone to many cinemas where the ads are shown in “full screen” with bombastic digital sound and the film is shown on a cropped and smaller screen (due to the fact that many screens are designed for the 1:1.85 aspect ratio. Many years ago, ads were shown with dimmed light on (as to say they were not the important thing!), then 1:1.85 films would be shown with lights off, scope films on even a bigger screen on the sides, and 70mm prints on a bigger screen on the sides and top and bottom. This was common sense! Now there isn’t common sense and the way the film product is served in some cinemas would be the same as getting burned food in a restaurant.

I have seen the restored/new prints of: Playtime, My Fair Lady, Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, 2001, The Agony and the Ecstasy, The Sound of Music, Dr Dolittle, Hello Dolly, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World and Lord Jim. I know I do not need to convince nearly anyone but the difference on a big screen (preferably slightly curved) with 35mm is amazing.

Whoever has experienced the tingling sensation you get with IMAX with the type of rollercoaster, aerial images, knows that 65/70 can produce that sensation as well, whereas 35mm or blow-ups can’t. And this is something it is not possible to get at home either.

My point is that 65/70 projected on a slightly curved and big screen, with some wide angle shots on it, is such a gorgeous and immersive experience that, at present, nothing beats it. It is also a unique product, since it can only be shown and experienced in cinemas. The main problem is that there has not been any continuity of product in the past and these big cinemas with huge screens are no suited at all to show an inferior product like cropped 35mm or 2k digital. It would be like serving fast food in a very expensive restaurant with nice plates and nice cutlery and surroundings.

This is the reason I come back to the holistic appoint Brian has mentioned. It is a huge task, and this is probably the reason it has never been done. It has never been done in the past also because of economic interests and companies fighting each other to get the big slice (as it usually happens). This is why dye transfer Technicolor was murdered. And this is the reason why they are bringing the unfitted 2K to cinemas. Maybe if we devise a project which sounds interesting to cinema exhibitors associations, exhibitors, producers, and film directors and cinematographers, maybe then something can be done.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-16-2006 08:03 AM

Regarding Gordon McLeod's comments about apples and oranges of magnification. It matters none with magnification. A two times magnification of an apple is exactly the same as two times magnification of an orange.

Two times magnification happens several ways.

One way is simply move closer. If you move from 50 ft to 25 ft everything is magnified two times.

Second way is focal length. If you change a lens from 50mm to 100mm you magnify everything by two times.

Another third way that very few people know about is to simply change film. If you go from 50 lp/mm film to 100 lp/mm film you get twice the detail which allows you to magnify the film twice. Just like moving closer or changing focal length.

So total image detail is controlled by three factors

Distance
Focal Length
Film resolution.

That it. Film size is not in the math and is not a factor.

A 65/70mm camera with a 100mm lens and 50 lp/mm film(a good day with Old Eastman Color)a has exactly the same detail as a 35mm scope camera with a 50mm lens and 100 lp/mm film. (a bad day with the newest Vision stock)

It's kinda a law of Physics.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-16-2006 09:22 AM

quote: Larry Myers
A 65/70mm camera with a 100mm lens and 50 lp/mm film(a good day with Old Eastman Color)a has exactly the same detail as a 35mm scope camera with a 50mm lens and 100 lp/mm film. (a bad day with the newest Vision stock)

Yea but the most modern scope camera lenses won't have 1/4 the depth of field that the 65mm camera lens has at the same T-stop. This is why many perfer to use Super 35 and spherical lenses. I can think of at least one very critical reason why scopes don't have the depth of field....
Now go use your law of physics to explain it..... [Big Grin]

Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 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.