|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-16-2006 10:45 AM
Anyone can tell the difference on the depth of field from 65/70 to anamorphic 35mm, just by looking at screenings of both types of films. Anyone can understand the light distribution issue with bigger frames, anyone can understand the problem of light going through anamorphic lenses in and out. This is why I think Mr Myers is just trying to tease everybody. It is not possible he cannot understand all these things, after so many explanations. It certainly looks that he wants to distract us from the main point of the forum. Certainly, I cannot see what Mr Myers agenda is, unless it is to have a laugh at anyone or to boycott the forum.
On the Super Dimension 70 and Maxivision fields, I have already mentioned I am aware of them. The main problem with these systems is that studios do not want any new system that it is just related to one developer, they want something in either film or digital with hardware that can be produced by different companies. It would be too risky to create another IMAX, if you know what I mean. The idea in this forum (I believe) goes more in the way of a THX certificate for cinema presentation, where existing hardware can be adapted or improved to give excellent cinema presentation. Good equipment is already there, it just needs to be used!
Just to recap a bit, what does everybody think of?
1) Write a letter to Technicolor about the feasibility of 70mm dye transfer. Do you value the pictorial quality of the colours rendered with dye transfer printing? Do you appreciate the quality of the pure blacks produced with dye transfer printing? Do you appreciate the archival quality and the stability of the colours with dye transfer printing?
2) Maybe John Pytlak can come with ideas on how to lure studios with 65mm cinematography. Also maybe Mr Pytlak can give some idea of how much more expensive a film would be if it used 65mm instead of 70mm.
3) Does anyone know how many systems can use wide lenses, like 150 degrees from D150.
4) Should we write to the American Guild of Cinematographers for their help and involvement? Many cinematographers would like to shot in 65mm.
5) What do you think about the idea of a curved screen (hopefully a multipurpose adjustable screen, which could be flat if necessary as well). I think the curve looks gorgeous for wide angle shots.
6) What do you think about the idea of creating a list of standards for prime cinema exhibition? Would it interest cinema exhibitors?
7) Many films use digital imaging for special effects nowadays, as you know. Obviously 65mm would not be really useful for a film which is going to be mainly shot with actors in front of a blue/green background, to later superimpose everything in digital (like the new Star Wars). But if the digital effects only take a 30% or less of the film, then digital scanning of a digital intermediate at 6K would be the minimum for those sequences, wouldn’t it?
8) What do you think will happen if exhibitors just use 2K digital?
9) Studios certainly need the publicity a cinema release gives a film. Otherwise there is no distinction between a proper film and a direct to video release. Do they see this?
[ 02-16-2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-16-2006 01:44 PM
quote: Larry Myers
Writing a letter like that is like writing a letter to NASCAR
As tempting as it may be, I am not going to start a new sub-debate about cars and dye transfer Technicolor, mainly because I have never been interested in cars. Anyway, I got extremely bored trying to follow your sub-standard debate on sub-standard scanning on the widescreen museum website and I fear that you are going to start talking about engines any of these days.
Well, if you took the time to read the posts, Mr Myers, instead of just annoying people, I have said from the beginning that I am just a member of the audience and that I do not pretend anyone to lose money so I can have dye transfer Technicolor prints from 65mm originated films. Also, I have no economic interest whatsoever in 70mm coming back or not, neither have I Technicolor shares. This letter to Technicolor pretends to use the knowledge of many people in this forum (not you, of course) who have got a lot of knowledge about cinema in terms of production and exhibition. Technicolor dye transfer prints are amazing and many people would like a comeback from them, not only that, as I said, the colour stays the same for many, many, many years, and if you are going to spend a lot of money in a piece of visual art as 65mm printed on 70mm you might as well do it on something that can last many years. Have you read the praising words that Mr Grover Crisp, who has done marvellous restoration work at Columbia, has to say about Technicolor dye transfer printing? You can go and read them on Technicolor’s website. Have you read Vittorio Storaro’s multiple articles on 65mm photography? I think you haven’t. I have enjoyed the marvels of 65mm on many occasions as I have enjoyed dye transfer Technicolor, and so this is first hand experience. Maybe I have got a visual impairment which makes me see much clearly 65mm originated films printed on 70mm than cropped 35mm, who knows? I am sure your book will have an answer to that. And when it comes to Technical knowledge I frankly prefer to listen to opinions from people like Mr Crisp or Mr Storaro than someone like you, fact!!!
Anyway, you really impressed me when you said:
quote: Larry Myers
That 65/70mm film is 2 or 4 or 8 times (take your pick) the resolution as 35mm 1.85 flat film.
Pure science, isn’t it Mr Myers?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler
Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 02-16-2006 02:37 PM
Actually the take your pick comment is science. Let me tell you why. Another tradeoff is time and resolution. The faster you acquire an image the lower the resolution. It's like this. The longer you look at something, the more information you get. Like looking at a mug shot to try to ID someone. If a cop only gives you 5 seconds to look at a mug shot, you might not get the best look, resolution and detail as if he gave you several minutes.
So goes resolution in printing. The faster something is printed the lower the resolution. The slower something is printed the higher the resolution.
You may ask where is all this new founded resolution going with the newest Vision type films? Before with old Eastman color, you were lucky to get 35 lp/mm so it HAD to be SLOW speed printed. Now that 100 lp/mm is common place, the printers can be turned up. You can now print several generations away from the original negative and you can use those dup negatives to run high speed printers.
The end result is, only the modern slow speed printed SHOW prints are top quality. The rest done on high speed printers are only slightly better then stuff done 20 or more years ago.
All this new founded resolution is being "used up" in making 3500 prints in two weeks.
It's really a take your pick on exactly what you get from the lab. Slow speed, medium speed or high speed.
The prints themselves out of the lab could be as low as 5 lp/mm resolution and you actually can see someting is wrong with it just by looking at it on a light table. It also could be a high of around 100 lp/mm which might be a show print with special handling at the lab. It also could be anything in the middle.
TAKE YOUR PICK
[ 02-16-2006, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-16-2006 05:42 PM
quote: Thomas Jonsson
All those figures!!! The movie-goers know nothing about it, and
they don´t care. It takes a winning concept to sell the product,
and to educate the customers in a simple, but effective way. "See
it in Super70 Hi-Def Cinema on the largest screen in town". And
it better be something really different from what they´re used to.
This is true. This is the reason I think that just projection in 70mm would not be enough. As you say, on the largest screen in town. We all are aware of the problems of distorsion in the edges and cropping in the midle a curved screen can cause. I think a compromise with a slightly curved screen would be the best since the curvature accentuates the inmersive experience and it is something different from the flat aspect of the screen television. Those wide angle shots look more impresive on a curve (a matter of taste I suppose).
quote: Larry Myers
So goes resolution in printing. The faster something is printed the lower the resolution. The slower something is printed the higher the resolution.
Thank you for your explanation Mr Myers, now I know a bit more about speed printing.
quote:
I feel that going down the road with a 70mm system like SDS-70 would restrict the viablity of any “commercial” 70mm returning as we have seen in the past, it only works at special venue Theatres and Films produced in their format, what we asking could it be a viable option for film Distbrutors to release and produce some titles on 70mm.
Ben, they claim it could be installed on multiplexes, but their main problem is, as you say and I have said, "their format". This monopoly would not help the revival of 70mm.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I guarantee you if The Matrix or Lord of the Rings Trilogy had been shot on 65mm, there would have been a rash of new 70mm projection installations across the country.
Tue, and this shows they have not learnt the leason. 70mm on its own won't save a bad film, however it can certainly enhance a good film, the question is would it enhance it enough to justify the extra expense? Hollywood thinks that the answer is not. Now, Mr Lucas is going to release Star Wars in fake 3-D and many will follow the craze. Chicken Little has had a very belated 3-D release in London and some newspapers do not even mention the 3-D version.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic