my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres (Page 3)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  48  49  50

Author Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 01-28-2006 07:46 AM                 It's just my POINT OF VIEW on why 5 perf 70 mm will never be back. I got my very poor training at some of the best photo technical schools in the country. So your right, I don't know what I am talking about. The problem is, many other people involved in the technical part of the motion picture industry have that very same poor training. That fact alone means 70mm will never be back. Enough said.  |  IP: Logged Rick Raskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1100 From: Manassas Virginia Registered: Jan 2003 posted 01-28-2006 09:28 AM                     There was a time when I'd drive clear across town to see a film in 70mm over a local 35mm presentation. But, and Larry, you know this from living in Northern Virginia, the hassle of traffic these days just doesn't justify the drive. It seems that the majority of the movie going public could care less about which format a film is projected in. They just want to go to the movies. My kids think I'm crazy when I tell them I avoid certain theatres because of sloppy projection. I believe that purists, like us, are so much in the minority, and that theatre attendance would be only marginally affected if 70mm were to resurface on a regular basis. True, the occasional 70mm engagement will pack them in, but I don't think that as a norm 70mm presentations would have that much of an overall affect. At a time when studios are looking to cut costs and move to digital distribution and projection, I doubt that a case could be made to get them to agree to take on the additional costs of 70mm prints. But, one can always hope.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-28-2006 09:31 AM                        Larry Go see a 70MM presentation. Its obvious you have not. The wife and I saw a reissue of Ben Hur in 70MM in Seattle a few years back. It was run on two DP70s. Somewhere along the line, the reel after the chariot race got lost and they substituted a 35mm reel. If you want to see the difference between 35 and 70 it's the best way in the world.  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 01-28-2006 09:58 AM                 Again it's all in the point of view and my POINT OF VIEW. Viewing a movie is more like a giant math equation. The calculus takes into account the camera, the lens, the film size and film stock. Then you have, the printer speed, the print stock, the projector along with the projector lens, the screen, the view distance, the viewer and the viewers eye resolution. (example: does he or she need glasses)? So with Ben-Hur, where did the 35mm print come from and was it done correctly? We all know that just because a reel is released from the lab doesn't mean it was done correctly. One of my first jobs was to work on a recon Image Quality Equation. In other words. If you want to ID a person from 1 mile away or maybe 10 miles away, can you input the data and can the computer tell you what equipment will be needed?. The government ended up spending at least 1 million dollars and one year in time to come up with something that actually worked. I know, your tax dollars at work.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-28-2006 10:09 AM                        So your "expertise" is in static pictures not motion pictures? I just can't understand why you are still in denial when everyone over at JJ's Forum told you that you are wrong and now everyone here is telling you that you are wrong. At least you must admit that if the vast majority of people see it one way and you don't, then that's good for something. If everyone in the viewing audience (except you) says 70mm is better, then I guess if I were the manager, I wouldn't worry too much about it. You think the theater putting on a 70mm reissue would not use the best 35mm replacement reel available? You are grasping at straws.  |  IP: Logged Mike Babb Master Film Handler Posts: 250 From: Norwich UK Registered: Jul 2002 posted 01-28-2006 10:24 AM                        While you may be able to break down the technology into a math equation, the movie experience is definitely not. This debate is between people who have seen 70mm and most love it, and none will be convinced by math that their experience wasn't good, or as good as they think. Aside from that, your average booth usher who pops in to thread and start will not be able to handle 70mm if they can't handle 35mm already. I'm all for competent people in the booth but that is not the reality in the field these days and all it takes is one imcompetent person threading one time to ruin the 70mm experience from that point on. I believe that is the main selling point of d-cinema at this point, the perception (and this can only be proven over time) that the last show will be as good as the first show with minimal operator skill needed.  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-28-2006 10:38 AM                     I have an old trailer that the theater industry was using to try to "stop pay TV" because the industry felt they would be hurt by pay TV. I find it interesting that the theater industry is now trying to become pay TV by installing DC. I think that people will start thinking, why should I pay so much to watch TV at a theater, when I can just stay home and watch TV. I wonder if this is already happening. People that I talk to, think that theaters are all DC now. Maybe this is one of the reasons that attendance is down.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-28-2006 11:13 AM                     quote: Larry Myers I got my very poor training at some of the best photo technical schools in the country. So your right, I don't know what I am talking about. quote: Larry, Go see a 70MM presentation. Its obvious you have not. I'll second Greg's suspicion. Consider this: I don't have any projectionist training. My experience of handling film is strictly in the still camera variety. I'm just a big film fan. However, I have seen a lot of films projected in 70mm and in a lot of different theaters. The difference between 70mm and 35mm is very clear. The difference between true 65mm/70mm material and 35mm is astounding. It doesn't require any special training to be introduced into being able to see the difference. All you have to do is use your eyes. quote: Rick Raskin There was a time when I'd drive clear across town to see a film in 70mm over a local 35mm presentation. I've driven over 200 miles to see movies in 70mm on a good number of occaisions. I drove from Albany, GA up to Atlanta to watch a 70mm showing of "Far and Away." I drove from Lawton down to Dallas to watch "Titanic" in 70mm DTS at the GCC Northpark #1 theater. When I lived in Staten Island, I would glady suffer the 1.5 hour commute in each directon just to get to Manhattan to watch shows in 70mm at theaters like the Ziegfeld. I think there is a strong public demand for lavish movie theaters boasting high presentation value. Some circuits are trying to deliver on that. Not far from here in Moore, OK, Warren Theaters (based in Wichita, KS) is building an all-THX 20-plex with the largest theaters featuring screens more than large enough to make good use of 70mm. In fact, those screens as well as the Cine Capris screen in Bricktown are so large they actually need 70mm to deliver a properly bright image. Those rooms will also feature premium balcony seating and even a cash bar (you have to be at least 21 years of age to sit up there). Movie producers and distributors could take advantage of the high end presentation concept. But only if they care about making great movies instead of only fixating on making money. Typical American big business culture. I think that's why Europe and Asia are both kicking our tails. It now seems rare that a large American company will concentrate on the actual product. And then all the business magazines wonder why companies like Apple are so successful.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-28-2006 12:09 PM                     Larry, you clearly suffer from the fact you have not actually compared the two items (35mm and 70mm) and tried to see how to properly quantify the difference. You mearly make the assumption that it is all about image area and grain density (why modern stocks are "better"). Look at a 70mm and 35mm print from the same elements on the same projector (minimize the differences)...look at both of them sourced from 65mm camera negative, look at both sourced from 35mm negatives. Without exception, 70mm will win every time when it is projected. One has to mishandle the negatives at the printing stage to get the 35mm to look better. About the ONLY execption to this rule is a 35mm EK print compared to a 70mm blow-up...and then only in contrast...the EK print will generally have better contrast from the lack of optical process. And there is the rub...beyond the basic image area are such factors as 35mm "scope" must use an anamorphic lens on both the taking and on the projection...to not think that one will take a performance hit in resolution and contrast (both times) is just to stick ones head in the sand and think that lens technology has reached perfection. Many DPs and Directors are using Super-35 just to get away from the anamorphic artifacts and knowingly are going to increase grain. Titanic, with many night-time scenes had boulder sized grains...it would have been vastly better if shot 65mm. So back to the release prints...they are all going to go through the IP/IN and print stage...the 70mm print is going to be going with a superior element by the IN...did you take that into account in your calculations? Image stability and resolution is a cumlative thing...each stage multiplies into the final result. The 70mm print having a much greater "land" area for the gate and such to steady the picture upon projection is going to get the film stopped better for projection than that same projector running 35mm...you didn't take that into account either. What I'm saying is that you have merely looked at some factors that go into perceived image quality and then tried to make definative statements about it. That is very poor science. You should have looked emperically at the results of the various processes and had formulas and statistics that backed up those results rather than use your limited resolution information and try to (quite wrongly) pridict the net result. The statement others have made about you not knowing what you are talking about goes beyond mere opinion...you are speaking from lack of experience, and it shows. And as to people driving to see a 70mm prsentation...it still happenes...every time the AFI/Silver runs a 70mm show (in the Mid Atlantic area). 70mm has had a near perfect track record for getting MORE than its fair share of the exhibition pie....why would that be any different now? It is the best the cinema industry has to offer in 2006...it is high time that the exhibition industry look back to it rather than mere gimicks of video and 3-D. Video will be fine for the bulk of cinemas but until it can match/beat 70mm, it too is at best, 2nd rate. 70mm has never been cheaper for everyone concerned and it has always delivered. I maintain that Kodak, whom has the most at stake at film's survival has been quite foolish on many things...one of which is to not seed the studios with 65mm production. They should seed the major studios with about 5 features each (not all are going to be blockbusters). The cost long term would be near zero but the potential long-term gains by reintroducing their best format could be tremendous for all parts of their film divisions.  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 01-28-2006 01:44 PM                 On the other hand, many people tend to think it's a bunch of dumb guys working the projectors in the booth. If not, why would some managers think they can just get the popcorn guy to do the same work. From what I am hearing, the managers may have a point. The last time I looked, motion pictures are made up of a string of still frame images and they go by the general laws of physics. They do NOT go by some pie in the sky magic.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-28-2006 02:14 PM                     I swear, one of these days I am going to get Larry to bring his 35mm projector down (can't remember what kind it was, can you refresh my memory Larry?) and do a direct comparison with moving the same lens back and forth between his machine and a Kinoton so he can learn it's not ALL about the lenses. If that doesn't work, I'll have to run the same movie side by side in the screening room, one on 35mm and one on 70mm and do random changeovers during a reel.  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 01-28-2006 02:23 PM                 Actually this is how the movie BRAINSTORM was going to work. The recorded BRAINSTORM parts were going to be 70mm Show Scan and the normal day to day movie parts were going to be 35mm flat. The projection equipment would change over between 70mm and 35 flat from scene to scene. The studios put a stop to this by saying it was unworkable and way too complicated for most film handlers.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 01-28-2006 02:58 PM                     Do anybody remember when "Arachnophobia" came out in 1990? We know that what a flat print from the begining. Yet BV distributed 70mm releases of this film, which was presented in the 1.85/1 format (having the black bars on each end). I worked at a 4-plex at the time of this release and was running the 35mm of this film. Then I went to this one cinema that was playing the 70mm release of this (the same release date as we had with ours) just to see the difference and on how they did the blow-up from 35mm and how it would look being presented in 70mm. The 70mm looked a hundred times better than the 35mm release, but I really couldn't justify the need of such a release since I knew that it was a 35mm release from the beginning, outside of being a special marketing presentation to bring back some of the glitz and glamour of 70mm release prints. I also remember back in 1981 when Universal also released some "E.T" prints in 70mm as well. And once again, a flat feature blown up for a 1.85/1 presentation in 70mm. And once again, this special release did look better than the 35mm counterpart (even though presented in an auditorium that wasn't the greatest - flat screen, cheesy sound, sloped floor 300 seat auditorium..all of the good ol' early 80's designed mall cinemas...) and probably the same marketing idea: release a hot movie in 70mm to make it a special event - in which this is what drew me to want to see "E.T" over the 35mm counterpart. I have always looked forward to 70mm releases any day of the week over the 35mm counterparts. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-28-2006 03:00 PM                     Actually, Douglas Trumbull wanted to shoot all of Brainstorm in Showscan. MGM and the other money people involved shot down the idea. They made him shoot most of the movie in 'scope, with some scenes filmed in 65mm Super Panavision. The experience angered Trumbull enough that he quit the traditional film making business and concentrated on ride film experiences instead. Of course, film distributors being big on spin and not all that great on fact were more than happy to slap the "Filmed in Super Panavision" phrases on many of the ads for Brainstorm. It reminds me of those odd stack ads for Close Encounters of the Third Kind where the Super Panavision phase was wrongly used (some of the marketing folks thought that would be okay since some 70mm blowup prints were made). quote: Monte L Fullmer The 70mm looked a hundred times better than the 35mm release, but I really couldn't justify the need of such a release since I knew that it was a 35mm release from the beginning, outside of being a special marketing presentation to bring back some of the glitz and glamour of 70mm release prints. Yes, there was a lot of movies in the late 1980s featuring 70mm blow up prints even though the films had a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Some of the flat-to-70mm blowups looked really good, especially those made in a Super 1.85 process which was just catching on at the time. Perhaps the oddest of the bunch was the 50th Anniversary "Fantasia" release. This was one where you pretty much had to see the 70mm version. Not because it was somehow wider or anything like that. The image was still 1.33:1. At least it looked decent. But the 35mm prints had the image reduced down to a tiny window-boxed postage stamp inside the frame. Disney chose to do this to counter those theaters who would have probably not adjusted their projectors to show full frame 35mm. The trade-off of preventing cropping was suck-ass image quality instead. Basically you had the equivalent of giving a theater 16mm print quality on 35mm stock. I watched the 70mm print of "Fantasia" at the Gramercy Theater on 23rd Street in Manhattan (this theater has long since closed). I remember hearing a lady complain to a friend about the square shape of the image, "we should have gone to the Ziegfeld where they have that Panavision stuff."  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 01-28-2006 03:04 PM                     ..maybe Larry needs to go to an IMAX theatre and see the frame size of 15/70 and the imagery of that format - not on the screen, but a piece of the film itself. ..and put that against a frame of standard 35mm...  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  48  49  50

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.