|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-22-2006 09:26 PM
What incentive? Answered by me very early in this thread...
Kodak should approach the head of the five families...er major studios and offer 65mm negative stock for 5 features of their choosing (5 features per major studio). One of the only stipulations is that 70mm release prints must be made available.
It is called a loss leader to: Get the studios hooked on 65mm photography for improved 70mm releases, 35mm releases and video releases (shoot on better stuff for better performance across the board and into the future), to get the theatres to have SOME 70mm releases which will improve the movie going experience. Kodak stands the most to gain by the reintroduction of 65/70 in the mainstream movie market. The winfall of such a move will not only sell film where it is presently not being sold (70mm features) but also prolong film's exisitance in movie theatres.
35mm's days are numbered and, in my opinion, mainsteam exhibition is going to look radically different in the next decade with far fewer viable screens. About the only thing you are going to be able to offer the public in the not too distant future is something akin to a 70mm roadshow performance. Video just doesn't cut it...the customers will already have that in their homes at a fraction of the cost (and at identical or superior perceived quality) with FEWER commericals at home. After all, the studios are pushing for day and date home release with the theatre.
Now here is the rub...if what I think will happen to exhibition comes true...there won't be enough potential sales in exhibition to drive R&D for vastly improved video technology (The number of potential sales is already VERY small by manufacturing standards). Exhibition will be riding on the coat-tails of Home Theatre for technology improvements.
65/70 technology, on the other hand, will take a long while for home theatre to catch, since it really doesn't have that desire at the moment (1080 in the home will knock most consumers out compared to the NTSC garbage they've be used to...plus the bandwidth issue of moving larger images versus perceieved improvement on home sized screens). Sourceing on 65mm future proofs all productions, regardless of destination better. 70mm theatrical exhibition gives exhibition the edge on the big screen that the consumer CAN'T (for the forseeable future) achieve at home.
In fact, it is the only smart direction exhibition should be looking at this point...then again there won't need to be as many screens, again in my opinion.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-23-2006 08:58 AM
quote: Don Furr
What the hell is DC going to look like on an 80' screen? Has anyone seen a digital presentation on a really W I D E screen?
I have. I saw Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith last summer in 2K DLP on all 80’ of the Cinerama Dome’s screen in Los Angeles. How did it look? Not great, but no better or worse than 35mm ‘scope that I’ve seen there. The issue is that wide a screen, in all practically, will probably have a fairly deep degree of curvature to it just to maintain adequate focus. This introduces a level of cross reflection on about the last 25 to 30% on either side, which, in addition to the limit-stretching amount of magnification going on in the first place, serves to pretty much wash out contrast.
Of course, a few weeks earlier I saw Lawrence of Arabia there in 70mm (but on not quite the full 80’ sheet). As you can imagine it looked demonstrably better, but that’s just one screen in one theatre showing a classic film that was shot in 65 for 70. You could release Date Movie, Waiting, Big Momma’s House or Friday the 13th Part 12: The Revenge of Brad Miller in Ultra Mega Super Turbo Panavision 70, give me free admission, free popcorn, free soda and have the concession girl come down and service me sexually during the trailers, and I still wouldn’t buy a ticket, even if I could, because A.) I have no desire to see any of these films regardless of what gauge they are being shown in, and B.) frankly, I have to wrack my brains to think of even a handful of commercial screens that still have 70mm capability anywhere near my home in Northern New Jersey, or near my workplace in New York City, and I'm not expecting them to retrofit anytime soon. Anybody think of that?
Of course, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about such a prospect, because I can confidently say that widespread 5/70mm releases are never ever ever ever coming back again, ever. Make yer peace.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-23-2006 09:08 AM
quote: John Pytlak
IMHO, it's not just the marketing. IMAX offers distributors a "system" where there is some expectation of better and more consistent presentation quality because of the elements that are under the control of IMAX to protect their brand reputation. Despite the many good 5-perf 70mm installations and operators that might still exist, distributors seem more wary of trusting that their very expensive 70mm print will be treated and presented well in some theatres.
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.
IMAX always shows good quality in terms of presentation because it has got product to show. The problem with “conventional” cinemas is that they do not have the continuity of product that IMAX has got. It would be necessary to ensure that there is a continuous product. These premium cinemas should only show premium images, otherwise the public perception of good presentation disappears. It is important to make them stand out and in that sense a brand name, a tag, a certificate, or whatever is necessary, should be used to make people aware of a premium presentation and to market the product. And this is the reason I said that a no compromise attitude should be adopted, everything shown on 70mm should be originated in 65mm. Quality has to be kept consistently if exhibitors want to increase the tickets sold.
I like IMAX 3-D but I am not that keen on OMNIMAX (too distorted) and IMAX 2-D. The problem of IMAX 2-D is that once you have seen IMAX 3-D, it does not look as impressive and for conventional cinema narrative it does not work, the square frame of the IMAX screen does not fit with the wider conventional cinema screen (those close-up become monsters!!!). Not only that, for conventional cinema the IMAX screen is too close to the eyes and instead of immersive experience it becomes intrusive experience. This is my perception though. I much prefer a slightly curved screen with 65/70 for conventional cinema. Also, as it has been said, there are not many IMAX screens around.
Exhibitors would probably invest in staff and equipment if they were promised a continuity of product. It is a vicious circle. An agreement with all the implied parts is the only solution. Please remember that all those 70mm movie palaces of the 60s did not have anything but blow-ups to show in the 80s and 90s, and although blow-ups are better than 35mm they are very, very far from 65/70.
quote: Steve Guttag
Kodak should approach the head of the five families...er major studios and offer 65mm negative stock for 5 features of their choosing (5 features per major studio). One of the only stipulations is that 70mm release prints must be made available.
Yes, absolutely. However, if Kodak is going to make a good offer they should have a say on the 5 features as well. They should be candidates to do well at the box office with elements that could show off the beauty of 65mm. As interesting as Hamlet can be, it was not a good choice to reintroduce 65mm (the images are beautiful though!). The request for 70mm prints is essential.
quote: Steve Guttag
Kodak stands the most to gain by the reintroduction of 65/70 in the mainstream movie market. The winfall of such a move will not only sell film where it is presently not being sold (70mm features) but also prolong film's exisitance in movie theatres.
Yes, I agree with this and it surprises me that nothing has happened yet. Surely Kodak knows more than us about selling their product. I cannot give any opinion since I do not have any information on Kodak and their marketing of 65mm. I suppose the problem with Kodak nowadays is that they have to promote their digital product as well, and promoting the excellence of 65/70 could affect the marketing of their digital department. I am just guessing, I do not know.
quote: Steve Guttag
35mm's days are numbered and, in my opinion, mainsteam exhibition is going to look radically different in the next decade with far fewer viable screens. About the only thing you are going to be able to offer the public in the not too distant future is something akin to a 70mm roadshow performance. Video just doesn't cut it...the customers will already have that in their homes at a fraction of the cost (and at identical or superior perceived quality) with FEWER commericals at home. After all, the studios are pushing for day and date home release with the theatre.
Yes, I agree with this as well. You just need to look at the past to prove your point. I like square images and black and white and in many occasions they suit the narrative of the film very well (film history is full of examples), however, when television appeared in black and white and with square frame people decided that since they were getting this at home they would not pay more to see it at the pictures. So colour was widely used for films, then colour television appeared and cinemas had to use a wider screen, 3-D, stereophonic sound,… to show something different. Now we have widescreen television in high definition and digital sound at home. The new technological improvements in cinema did not appear as a narrative or artistic necessity, they appeared to fight TV. TV will never be able to offer what I call “the Cinerama” experience and this is why I have emphasized so much on the wide angle shots, they just do not fit televisions, they only look good on big screens (actually on big screens they look terrific). Of course, you won’t have the whole film with wide-angles (that was the problem of Cinerama) but having a 20% of them would be enough for people to say Ohhh… and put some subjective camera rollercoaster to give that immersive experience television cannot give and people will say Ohhh again. Producers, distributors and exhibitors need to realise that they need something different to sell, otherwise no one will buy and they will be out of business.
I like very much what Bobby said about the analog beasts!!! This should be used for marketing purposes.
[ 02-23-2006, 12:01 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 02-23-2006 11:24 AM
quote: John Pytlak
How do you fairly choose which 25 features get 65mm film for the price of 35mm film? If you were a producer already using lots of 65mm color negative for IMAX or other large venue productions, wouldn't you expect a similar "deal"?
These should be pictures which have got a well reputed film director, good strong cast and other elements that can show the beauty of film, as I said, a film mainly shot against a blue screen is not the kind of type that would benefit. This is just an example, but imagine a film like The English Patient in 65/70, it would have been gorgeous. There are many films that could benefit from this, mainly epic big productions with strong production values. Commercial films are always going to use more 65mm negative than an IMAX film (although IMAX 3-D uses double!). I understand the problem with IMAX though. You (Kodak) are the ones who can come with ideas, maybe I am talking nonsense but maybe you could have a deal with the studious based on the improved box office results because of 70mm presentations. If films recover more money because of the 70mm the studios pay the full price, if the 70mm presentation does not bring more money they pay a discounted price. You could justify the incentive on the number of films, you may say that you want a minimum of, let’s say, 50 per year, to give a discounted price. This is very difficult and I am not going to find a solution, but maybe talking and discussing we find a solution.
As I said in previous posts, people go to see documentaries about plants to an IMAX theatre paying a high admission ticket just because of the power of images, if you take this power of images, put a big and strong cast, a good film director and a good plot, good soundtrack in a system that blows away any home cinema system, in a good commercial film, it seems logical that the audience will increase.
If 65/70 is well promoted it should increase the audiences numbers and this would benefit Kodak and the studios and the exhibitors and the distributors. Kodak should sit with the studious and agree on an important deal for, let’s say, five years.
Here we are not talking about filming Far and Away and because people did not like the film stop producing 65mm and then show 70mm again some years later in few cinemas with a film so-not commercial as Hamlet. We are talking about a consistent product, we are talking about the comeback of good cinemas and good presentation with the glamour of years gone. It can be done, we are getting ideas, now we need to get the people who could do it.
You are an enthusiast of 65/70 Mr Pytlak and I am sure you have more colleagues in Kodak that are enthusiasts about it, please think, think, think.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 02-23-2006 11:55 AM
On the outside; see some samples here
In about 1929 there were several experimental wide film systems, using 65, 70 and other gauges. All of these were short-lived. When the idea was revived for Todd-AO it was decided to use 65mm negative film, in which the perforations were the same distance from the edge of the strip as they are on 35mm; think of taking a 35mm strip, slitting it in half, and then inserting an extra 30mm of film in the centre. For release prints 70mm film was used, but with the perforations at the same spacing as on the 65mm stock. An extra 2.5mm was added on each edge, outside the perforations. There were four magnetic stripes, two on each side, a wide one carrying two tracks outside the perforations, and a narrow one carrying a single track inside them; six tracks in all. 'Modern', i.e. not the 1929 stuff, 70mm film never carried a conventional analogue optical track. The extra width outside the perforations on 70mm stock was retained by both CDS and DTS 70mm digital systems, although thety did not actually use it for anything.
The use of 65mm prints with separate interlocked sound must have been considered, as the DP-70 projector was designed for 35, 65 or 70mm film. Some test material was printed on 65mm, a sample is shown on the site I linked to above, and a reel of 65mm material was run at the Bradford widescreen weekend last year.
| 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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic