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 30)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ... 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 02-24-2006 08:33 PM

You will never get Kodak to give away film although, free cameras is another story. Kodak has a history of giving away cameras to sell film. In the end, I think that is where it's at. The free rental of camera equipment just might point a production crew toward 65/70mm.

Then again, I don't think Kodak is in any financial position to give away anything even if it was designed to sell more film.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-24-2006 09:22 PM

You would have to talk to companies like Panavision and Arri for free camera rentals.

When studios are paying actors like Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler $30 million or more to star in a movie with more than $100 in the budget, it seems a little odd the relatively small cost of camera type and film type would be such a sticking point.

quote: David Stambaugh
Actually, why wouldn't 70mm on a 35' screen in a smallish theater look absolutely spectacular? Would there be issues with the optics or something that would limit the resolution in such a screening situation?

It depends on the nature of the print. Once has to concede the fact 35mm high speed printing is better today than it was in the 1980s. I saw lots of 70mm blowups back then (even saw The Untouchables in 70mm at Loews New York Twin). In those days, 70mm prints were not made at high speed. They weren't as sharp in detail as a natively photographed 65mm movie, but the color quality was typically very good and there was hardly any noticeable grain. The 70mm Dolby SR print of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade shown on the big Loews Astor Plaza screen had richer quality color than the 35mm 'scope counterpart I watched on a 2nd viewing at a UA theater in Staten Island. Super35 blowups to 70mm yield an even bigger visual quality difference.

However, in recent years 35mm 'scope prints have become quite a bit better. I didn't watch Moulin Rouge on the biggest screen. But that true 'scope movie had some pretty damned good cinematography and the 35mm print was pretty rich with color.

But still, those differences are pretty subtle compared to the difference of a movie originally shot in 65mm. I think just about anyone would know the difference between real 65mm material versus 35mm blown up to 70mm once they see the amazing difference.

However, I don't think very many people will spot the difference between a 35mm/70mm blowup and a standard 35mm print if both are shown on an average size to small size screen (especially with today's better quality 35mm prints). That, and the combination of low seat count, doesn't make a good case for booking 70mm DTS blowup prints of 35mm originated films into small to average size auditoriums.

Unfortunately, my feeling is most auditoriums with 400 or fewer seats are going to get converted to video projection. Still, there is no debate about the fact 70mm prints are needed all the time for huge theater screens. It doesn't matter whether the print is a blowup from 35mm or directly duped from 65mm. Those theaters just need the larger gauge regardless.

My hope is that maybe, perhaps in the long run, future technical discussions might be between 4K video projection versus 70mm (with 70mm naturally trouncing the video competition). 35mm will probably be gone, at least in terms of a projection medium.

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 02-24-2006 10:14 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I doubt if the print was the problem.

There are two likely culprits for the issues you described. 1.: the theater is running operations on the cheap, turning down lamp power and their projection equipment might be crap in the first place. Not all film projectors and lens packages are created equal. 2.: the theater might have had good equipment but was showing the movie on a screen far too large for 35mm projection.

I am sure it was the prints. Among many films I saw there in the same auditorium others always looked a lot better. For example "Lord of The Rings 3" and "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" looked dazzling on that same screen. Had it being in 70mm they would had to supply you with sunglasses. The Cinema also played host to many years for the Melbourne International Film Festival and many films looked and sounded great. At those Matrix and Harry Potter screenings, I dare say some of the trailers in 1.85 looked brighter and sharper. I know when a cinema has poor standards and this place was not one them. The screen in question was somewhere around 60-65ft wide.

And of course 35 on a 80ft screen looks stupid, i'm not dissputing that. Point I was making was that a film has to be worth seeing in the first place. And these days to me less and less new release films are worth seeing at all... 70mm or not. It will be interesting to see with the quality of current films whether a full roll out of 5/70 or DC will bring more people in.
Bringing back 5/70 is a step in the right direction but it ain't the only factor in having a great night at the movies, There are other issues to address as well. Can you really gurantee that prsentation will be at it's best with 70mm. Many Theatres get it wrong with 35, who's to say they will get it right with 70? A lot of venues have lame average sound, will it be better with 70?
And what about the ads and trailers. I suppose they will have to be digital if the main show is in 70. Will they go back to doing trailers in 70 as they have done in the past?

Got a petition to bring back 5/70 into Cinemas, I'll sign it with passion. I don't need to be convinced I know it's better.
On the same token how about getting better original scripts and Directors with better visions, then the one's that just churn them out and get paid quite a bit of loot to do so. Throw in 70mm and you may just have something to look forward to. I have to admit I have not being to a multiplex since mid august last year and that's strange for someone like me who used to go 2-4 times a week. Even the art house cinemas have been dissapointing. The only screenings I have attended are "2001: A Space Odyssey" in Oct (in 70mm 6-track [thumbsup]

) and The Polar Express in IMAX-3D. Lack of good films and poor presentation have kept me away equally. Whether I go see the films or not though I hope that 70 does make it's way back but it's up to the powers that be.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-24-2006 10:41 PM

quote: John Koutsoumis
Point I was making was that a film has to be worth seeing in the first place. And these days to me less and less new release films are worth seeing at all... 70mm or not.

I agree with that point completely. If the endless parade of horror show remakes had any doubt of ending (after The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Fog, When A Stranger Calls, etc.) new remakes like The Hills Have Eyes are hitting screens. My eyes rolled when seeing the teaser for The Omen, due for release on 6.6.06 no less.

There's tons of other remakes doubtlessly appropriate for straight-to-video release. The Shaggy D.A. might normally be a good "RIP" indicator for Tim Allen's acting career, but the film company will probably make 3 sequels of it even if the first movie sucks ass.

I don't even know what to think about a Miami Vice blow up from TV.

Still, there are decent movies getting made in between all the remakes and sequels and big screen versions of TV shows. The customers just need to do their homework and choose their movies more carefully. And in some respect, we're getting the movies we deserve. There's apparently enough of us dumbasses out there paying to see the kind of crap we complain about from Hollywood for the studios to keep making even more of it.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-25-2006 02:09 AM

..course, with all of this "Hollyrock" whoopla is that they'e gearing these recent releases for, once again, the DVD market and those HiDef screens - both projection and LCD - which are TONS smaller than any physical projected movie screen out there - except in those private screening rooms, even which doesn't take up the whole back yard of being 70ft wide.

Outside of Fox's 'Grandeur' experimental 70 in the silent era, movie screens weren't really that big, and the throw was just a narrow beam of light being the booths were so far away.. in the silent and entering and in the throughout the sound era - even entering into the Dolby Stereo and touching the era of the digital-before the craze of the megaplex and huge screens.

But, with the exception of the Radio City Music hall - with that 100 x 60ft screen and a throw of 185ft (drive-in projection) to get the excellent foot lamberts from those old Peerless Hy-Candescent 13.6mm rotator condensor arcs that they used to have that were beind a battery (5, if I remember the count) of 35/70 XL machines, (which the lamps have been long since gone with the last condensor lens breaking and none were available) and now having xenon consoles (which I don't know the make or model), movie screens were a basic size of between 12 to 16 ft tall and, if constructed right, up to 36 feet long for true anamorphic presentations, which made 35mm presentations look very good.

When the screens got bigger, the 35mm presentations begin to suffer being that the throws are just too close and the demand for huge amounts of light is beyond any logical means for the film size.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-25-2006 03:35 AM

quote: John Koutsoumis
Got a petition to bring back 5/70 into Cinemas, I'll sign it with passion. I don't need to be convinced I know it's better.

A good place to start this campaign is at Film Festivals (World Wide) certainly at 70mm Screenings and gather support within the Industry.

As has been stated on this topic, 5/70mm would be the ideal "Movie Experience" on a Large Screen and would be better value on Printing costs than Imax DMR Prints.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 02-25-2006 03:35 AM

quote: David Stambaugh
Speaking of Untouchables in 70mm: Anyone who saw it probably remembers that one crane shot of the city street which looked absolutely incredibly sharp and detailed. It almost looked like that few seconds of film was from a 65mm negative.

Yep...I have great memories of seeing this one in 70mm. I saw it twice (Cinedome in Orange, CA and the National in Westwood Village, CA). What I remember most was wishing for the movie to hurry up and get over. Not because I thought it sucked (I didn't; I liked the movie a lot). I wanted it to get over so I could rush out and buy the soundtrack album. I knew I had to get that soundtrack right there during the opening credits with that fantastic Ennio Morricone score and rich audio quality! (In fact, I bought the soundtrack on both LP and on CD even though I did not yet have a CD player!)

One of the things contributing to the image quality on "The Untouchables" (aside from starting out with a nicely-exposed anamorphic negative) was, as Steve mentioned a few posts ago, was the manner in which it was enlarged to 70. By preserving the full 2.35:1 (2.39:1, 2.40:1, whatever) image -- instead of cropping it to fit the slightly narrower 70mm frame -- and printing a bit of black at the top and bottom, the original image was being enlarged in the blow-up process a lesser amount than other anamorphic and certainly spherical productions.

It would be interesting to screen it today to see if our memory of its look holds up.

| IP: Logged

David Kilderry
Master Film Handler

Posts: 355
From: Melbourne Australia
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 02-25-2006 06:27 AM

The local film exchange junked the Melbourne 70mm print of Untouchables last week. It did have thick frame lines, even though I saw the show in 70 at the time I was not aware of this fact.

We had a 70mm theatre here in this state, the Shepparton Capri, that ran 70mm on a screen about 25ft wide. I never saw 70mm on it but it must have sparkled.

David

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-25-2006 07:31 AM

Well OK no free cameras but how about free image quality and resolution.

Again, the films today are at least twice the image quality and resolution as old Eastman. That means a typical 35mm scope original negative has twice the detail or about the same detail as a Cinemascope 55 image done in the 50's. A Cinemascope 55 frame is exactly twice the size as a 35mm scope frame. Twice meaning twice high and twice wide. Since resolution is measurable, a 35mm scope image at 70 lines per millimeter has exactly the same detail as a Cinemascope 55 image at 35 lines per millimeter. About the resolution limit of old Eastman Color.

The new Vision stock doing 70 lp/mm resolution allows you to do several things.

Make a group of 3rd or 5th gen dup negatives to run on high speed printers dumping out 3500 copies in a week or so.

It also allows you to spend a week running 2 or 3 second generation show prints on a slow speed printer for those special viewings. If the screen is small enough and the few select viewers are close enough and the equipment is state of the art, it will look like 70mm.

It's all in the numbers but you guys knew that all along.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 02-25-2006 11:29 AM

Larry,
Are you trying to tell us that it has taken thirty sometimes contentious pages for you to clarify that what you're really talking about when you claim current-day 35mm is as good as 70mm from a few decades ago is that you're referring to "show prints" used only in special situations? Not exactly an effective communicator, are you?!

I will essentially agree with you re the show print comment. The last presentation I attended where I thought I was seeing a show print of an anamorphically-originated movie and commenting to myself that at times it looked very much like 70mm was "Pearl Harbor." Saw it at the now-demolished Century Plaza in Los Angeles. Too bad the movie wasn't as good as it looked!

Ever hear of the expression: "A rising tide lifts all ships"? Think about it... Industry technology guru Rob Hummel, who authored sections of the ASC Manual, uses this term to good effect throughout the ASC Manual's chapter on film formats. And I believe it applies significantly to this at times outrageous thread. I also think it highlights the central difference between your "position" and that of the majority of film-techers, particularly those who have posted here. My point: 35mm has significantly improved over the years, but the quality differential between 35mm and 70mm still exists.

[ 02-26-2006, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-25-2006 12:55 PM

Yes, I Pearl Harbor show print is a very good example of a 35mm print looking every bit as good as a 70mm print. As far as these 30 pages, yes I have tried to explain this every which way.

and even one more time.

John Pytlak said it himself. Kodak puts a lot of money in R&D of film. I take it he means at least 50 years of R&D. That 50 years of R&D has made vast improvements in the film and processing.

One very big improvement is the increase of resolution numbers and the reduction in RMS grain numbers. The films today ASA for ASA are at least twice as good in resolution with half as much grain.

The studio SPENDS this on the ability to make high speed prints. A high speed 5th generation print from modern film stock is about the same resolution as much older Eastman color printed directly from the negative on slow speed printers.

All one needs to do for a 70mm lookalike show print from 35mm true scope is order a slow speed print directly from the negative. If not from the original neg then from a direct 2nd generation dup negative.

Many trailers are done this way. Newsweek ran a special feature on this about a year or so ago. It was called bait and switch of trailers. Some trailers were made up of special takes or second takes, sent to a earmarked small lab for special processing by highly trained teams using slow speed printers. I have a few Pearl Harbor trailers that look like they were taken directly of the negative and have that 70mm quality about them.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-25-2006 04:54 PM

quote: Michael Coate
What I remember most was wishing for the movie to hurry up and get over. Not because I thought it sucked (I didn't; I liked the movie a lot). I wanted it to get over so I could rush out and buy the soundtrack album.

Yep, I remember being struck immediately with how good the music score to The Untouchables sounded. It sounded excellent on the Loews New York Twin sound system. I, too, bought the soundtrack CD just a day or two after seeing the show. Still have the CD too:

quote: Larry Myers
Yes, I Pearl Harbor show print is a very good example of a 35mm print looking every bit as good as a 70mm print. As far as these 30 pages, yes I have tried to explain this every which way.

You need to clarify your statement to get the point across. You're comparing a new 35mm print from a new movie versus a 70mm print from an old movie. Honestly, that is a very apples to oranges thing.

Michael's expression "a rising tide lifts all ships" is appropo to this discussion. Why not compare a new 70mm print of 65mm material using the NEWEST FILM STOCKS?. Put any 35mm print made today up against that and it will get its ass mercilessly kicked. Newly photographed 65mm material on new 70mm print film will beat ANYTHING on 35mm.

quote: Larry Myers
I have a few Pearl Harbor trailers that look like they were taken directly of the negative and have that 70mm quality about them.

They dont have any new 65mm/70mm quality about them.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 02-25-2006 06:36 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
You can have every Film-Tech member participate in such a thread, but we would all be preaching to the choir. It makes little difference to have some kind of "workgroup discussion" here. The topic of 70mm has been raised and discussed many times previous to this thread.

Ok, may the workgroup should not be here, but I hope that if there is any kind of iniciative, all the knowledge and experience shown in this thread will be put to good use by all of you supporters of 65/70.

quote: Steve Guttag
As to what to take away from...for such an endevor, just about anywhere from within Kodak, its film future is truely at stake whether they see it or not. Yes, I would ratchet back on R&D briefly to invest in such a venture to sell the product.

Somehow it looks like if Kodak has given up on film presentation, thinks that studios will never again use 65mm and does not even bother puting the case forward for 65mm and just thinks in holding onto 35mm as much as possible. Kodak should go to the filming of the next Bond film and give 65mm negative for the filming of the chase scenes, which should also be shot in 35mm, print the 65mm onto 70mm and scan the 35mm to be shown 2K digital. Then show both of them to a preview audience on a huge slightly curved screen and ask the audience which ones did they like better.

quote: David Stambaugh
Why the hell not??!! That means 70mm would never come to Eugene

Even if they do not produce 70mm for Eugene you can always set up the system and organise 70mm festivals, better than nothing. Although, ideally, everybody should be able to show 70mm. Hopefully if 70mm comes back and is succesfull more exhibitors will join the trend.

quote: Ben Wales
A good place to start this campaign is at Film Festivals (World Wide) certainly at 70mm Screenings and gather support within the Industry.

Kodak could sponsor a new print of a classic 65mm negative film like Cleopatra or Ryan's Daughter and show it in film festivals to show how good the system is.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-25-2006 06:55 PM

I am not sure if anyone has ever used the latest 65mm Vision stock in a 5 perf system. I am sure Bobby your right, it would be the best of the best and be on par with IMAX. Maybe that's the issue. No one wants to take on IMAX.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 02-25-2006 07:27 PM

IMAX photography (15/65) and theatrical 5/65 both use the same kind of film. IMAX just uses three times as much of it.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ... 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.