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 27)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 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 02-22-2006 11:37 AM

quote: Larry Myers
I bet the incentive is not enough for a 35mm director to say, hey lets use 65/70 5 perf instead because it's only 20% more then 35mm.

The incentive for a film maker to shoot in 65mm is giving a damn about having his movie look as good as possible.

Your comment of 65mm being "only 20% more than 35mm" is really pretty stupid. With an image area 250% larger than full frame 4/35mm, the quality gain of 5/65mm is going to be A LOT MORE than 20%.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 02-22-2006 12:00 PM

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
This seems to imply that 2K DLP does not look better or looks the same as properly projected 35mm. Since you have seen a good example of 2K DLP, how do you think it compares to 5/70mm originated on 65mm please?

It doesn't. I would say that a 70mm blow-up of something originated on 35mm looks significantly better than 2k DLP. The only 70mm originated films that I've seen in 70mm were "Far and Away" and "Vertigo" (in re-release). From my memory (and it's been a few years) both of these looked far superior to 2k DLP. Keep in mind also that aside from the inherent benefit of the format, the theatres where I saw these still had real projectionists in the booth at the time.

| IP: Logged

Kenneth Tiffany
Film Handler

Posts: 16
From: Sanford, Florida, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 02-22-2006 12:15 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Your comment of 65mm being "only 20% more than 35mm" is really pretty stupid. With an image area 250% larger than full frame 4/35mm, the quality gain of 5/65mm is going to be A LOT MORE than 20%.

I may be wrong, but I read that as only 20% higher cost to film on 70mm.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-22-2006 12:58 PM

Hey wait a minute, I am talking incentive here. An incentive is an incentive. So just what kind of incentive would it take? Kind of like cars right now. Big incentives for SUV's. The companies don't make a dime. In fact, they lose $1000's on the deal. They are hoping things come back soon but they never will. I only picked 20% because that's one hell of an incentive ($cost). Twice the film for 20% more cost. As far as area more picture. If you measure, 70mm is just twice the film as 35mm and not 250%. Actually 70mm film came first in the Kodak Number 1 Hawkeye camera. Edison wanted it cut in half for his new motion picture camera. Anyway, the $64,000 question is. What should the incentive be? That is cost incentive and not image quality incentive.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 02-22-2006 01:04 PM

quote:
70mm is just twice the film as 35mm and not 250%.

The 70mm we are debating here is 5 perf per frame vs. 35mm 4 perf per frame. Therefore, each frame is 25% taller besides the extra width.

With digital sound, you can also use the full width available which I believe would give 5 perf 70mm pretty close to the aspect ratio of scope.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-22-2006 01:11 PM

and I am talking just film!!! If you take one 500 foot 70mm roll and cut it down the middle, you get TWO 500 ft 35mm rolls. So to go from 35mm to 70mm it takes twice the amount of film. A $ 200 roll of 500 ft of 35mm film should run $400 for the same length of 70mm film.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

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

posted 02-22-2006 01:18 PM

Hasn't John Pytlak said many times here that 70mm is roughly double the cost of 35mm?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-22-2006 01:45 PM

I think it was around that, perhaps a tad less.

Regarding the current issue of "incentive," shouldn't there be an incentive on the part of a studio to make sure the movie they produce is being made in a manner where it will have an appropriately long shelf life?

You can take an old CinemaScope movie like The Bridge on the River Kwai and transfer it to any HDTV format -or maybe even 4K based video for that matter. The analog photographic elements of that movie allow that to happen. By contrast, you can't take an old videotaped TV episode of Laugh In and up-rez it to HD. The image detail isn't there to do it.

In 2062, a 100th Anniversary Edition of Lawrence of Arabia could be released on whatever video format is the new rage and LOA would probably look very good on it thanks to its very high resolution original photography.

At some point much sooner, people are going to start laughing at that "digital" buzzword like it means absolutely nothing. Maybe at that point some folks will wake up and realize the virtues of using certain analog methods.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 02-22-2006 01:51 PM

Obviously 70mm should cost 200% of 35mm; but, less obviously, look at the additional length caused by perf #5 and also the additional thickness. So, in essence, if the 200% is correct, we are already getting some form of discount.

As far as cost benefit goes: shouldn't this be figured in terms of usable cost per square inch for each frame? Louis

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 02-22-2006 03:31 PM

quote: David Stambaugh
Hasn't John Pytlak said many times here that 70mm is roughly double the cost of 35mm?

Then I do not think the studios will pay the extra money. They prefer to use 35mm and use any kinds of digital tricks to “remaster” the negative for future DVD editions. They probably think, if 35mm can be digitally blown up to be shown on a giant IMAX screen, it is good enough to be shown on any home cinema screen.

We have not yet found the convincing element for the studios, and it is a pity, I hope we will find it. I hope a film-stock company could come with a good package offer, as I mentioned before, this would ensure film supremacy for many years.

We all know how previous home technological innovations have affected cinema exhibition: TV, video, cable TV, DVD, … and now the worst of all is coming, high definition television is coming. And they are doing nothing, on the contrary they are putting the cinema look closer to the home cinema look. People who have stopped going to the pictures won’t come back, and many will stop going when they invest in high definition TV. At least when you watch DVDs at home you do not have to sit through the ads!

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-22-2006 03:41 PM

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Then I do not think the studios will pay the extra money.

Yes, that's the case it's all about the cost. It's not the cost on the set, but the cost and time in Post-Production that figures in to the final cost to shoot in 65MM to the final release 70MM print.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 02-22-2006 04:32 PM

Yes, the per-foot list price of Kodak 70mm print film is about twice that of 35mm print film. Likewise 65mm negative compared to 35mm negative.

Remember that 65mm and 70mm printing and processing are done on slower machines, and are more labor-intensive at the lab. So the price per foot at the labs may be more than double, due to the reduced efficiency and increased labor costs. You also need to factor in the cost of making the 65mm printing negative and DTS negative, which has to be prorated over the limited number of 70mm prints relative to a big 35mm release.

Evidently IMAX has a viable business case for the feature films that have been released in that format during the last few years, despite the significantly higher cost per print. Distributors value the "system" of print and exhibition quality IMAX can offer on large screens, even in commercial theatres.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 02-22-2006 04:43 PM

I don't have the figures, but 'Hamlet' managed to shoot on 65mm, and it wasn't a particularly high-budget production.

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 02-22-2006 06:27 PM

Here are the figures for Hamlet (1996)
Production budget: $18 Million
Domestic US Grosses: $4,708,156
Opening Weekend: $90,684 in 70MM in 3 theatres($30,228 average)
Widest release: 93 theatres

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-22-2006 06:28 PM

quote: John Pytlak
Evidently IMAX has a viable business case for the feature films that have been released in that format during the last few years, despite the significantly higher cost per print. Distributors value the "system" of print and exhibition quality IMAX can offer on large screens, even in commercial theatres.

... called a "successful tradeoff", of sorts. IMAX played the last trump card in their favor and this might be the "rebirth" of the 70mm special engagements.

Just have it done with the right film releases, potiental reisses, plus excellent marketing skills and techniques and IMAX could be smiling all the way to the bank with this "re-incarnation".

-Monte

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... 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.