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 32)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 216
From: Bromolla, Sweden
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 02-27-2006 03:33 PM

Since most European countries have their openings of american films
weeks or even months after the US premieres, the used 70mm prints
could be sold at a reasonable price. Using DTS subtitling the
prints could then be sold to a third country and so on. Could
make the print cost much cheaper for all involved.

Thomas

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 02-27-2006 04:06 PM

I recall rumors that some European exhibitors were able to arrange for 70mm prints by actually paying to have the prints made for use in their theatres. Kinopolis, and the Oslo Spektrum come to mind:

http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1996/47/id4/spektrum.htm

quote:
The Norwegian people are often said to be somewhat strange and crazy, and "You are crazy!" was 20th Century Fox first response when they were confronted with Oslo Municipal Cinemas' idea: to arrange a gigantic screening of "ID4" on a 40 (forty) meter/131 feet screen for an audience of 4500 spectators! The screen was to be installed at the Oslo Spectrum - a large combined concert hall and indoor sports arena in the very heart of Oslo, Norway.

After some negotiations and discussions with 20th Century Fox, Oslo Municipal Cinemas at last received a hesitating "Yes" to the project.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 02-28-2006 05:29 AM

quote: Scott Jentsch
So, if 70mm is so darn good (and I don't contend that it isn't), then it's up to impassioned individuals to take it upon themselves to evangelize that fact and support its use and exhibition. Resources need to be available to filmmakers, theater owners, and consumers alike to spread the word and encourage its adoption.

Are there any resources like that?

Any action should be well-planned. Avoiding mistakes is important. We have a very good forum here to discuss possible actions and get ideas from everybody. I personally do not think that the travelling 70mm show is a good idea, it could suggest the idea of some nostalgic people trying to show how great the past was, and it is much important to give an idea of present and future. If you show an old film, as brilliant as Lawrence of Arabia, some audiences will still think that the whole thing is old-fashioned because the film screened is old (as sad as it is this is reality)

As I said countless times, people go to IMAX theatres to see 45min films on the life of insects. As you all know, not all those people who go to the IMAX theatre are interested in the life of insects, they go because of the power of the images. Images can be very powerful on 65/70, you just need a filmmaker which makes good use of images, like Alfred Hitchcock to make the system shine. So, yes, it has been proved, audiences like good quality images which provide depth of field, sharp images and immersive experiences.

I think the best plan of action, and it has already been said here is to get film-stock companies, film camera and film projection companies, lenses companies, directors of photography, film directors, producers, exhibitors and distributors together in a big meeting to discuss all the possibilities. This should include lectures from Film stock companies about the advantages of the system, also from directors of photography giving their opinion on the 65/70. I am sure there are many exhibitors who would like to have a premium product like this one.

As I said the blow-up subject is a dangerous one. Only the best will do and the best is 65/70, which is much, much better than a blow-up. Of course, cinemas can show blow-ups if they need to, but let’s not get confused. A very important thing is to get the quality of 65mm negative, this is what could led to the revolution in cinema exhibition quality. If you give them the chance, studios will only blow-up from 35mm as they did in the past and this misses the point of what we are trying here, which is bringing high quality negative as well, on 65mm negative.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I'd be willing to help with the resources side of things. If someone can help with compiling good, solid information, I will host it on The BigScreen Cinema Guide and make it available to the public.

So, I'm willing to pitch in what I can. Is there anyone else who is willing to put the words here into action? Or is this just a verbal exercise that doesn't stand the proverbial snowball's chances of becoming something?

We could centrally make a compilation of things said on this thread for your magazine. We all want 65/70 back and I think we are all ready for action!

quote: Thomas Jonsson
Since most European countries have their openings of american films
weeks or even months after the US premieres, the used 70mm prints
could be sold at a reasonable price. Using DTS subtitling the
prints could then be sold to a third country and so on. Could
make the print cost much cheaper for all involved.

Thomas

Very good idea Thomas! And also different DTS discs could be used for different languages. Of course, it would be paramount to check the prints before sending them over to check they were in pristine condition.

quote:
I recall rumors that some European exhibitors were able to arrange for 70mm prints by actually paying to have the prints made for use in their theatres. Kinopolis, and the Oslo Spektrum come to mind:

Dear John, I apologise if I am a bit of a nuisance, but I really would like you to share more ideas with us.

We all have experienced the beauty of 65mm printed on 70mm. Could you please explain to us in technical terms why 65mm produces much more depth of field than 35mm? Could you please explain to us how much more resolution 65mm negative has got in comparison to 35mm and the reason for this? Could you please explain in technical terms why 65/70 produces an immersive sensation (you are in the picture) whereas blow-ups and 35mm do not. Could you explain to us if a 35mm reduction print from 65mm negative would look better than a 2K digital screening of the same negative?

Many thanks for your help. Also, perhaps you could help with names of people or companies who could be interested in taking this project ahead.

[ 02-28-2006, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-28-2006 06:55 AM

I will give my two cents on why.

Actually the 65/70mm system is easer to produce in a photographic sense then say a blowup from Super35 to 70mm. The reason is that the resolution of light coming into the lens with the 65/70 system is around 2000 lines pairs per millimeters. The lens when set at f-8 will reduce that down to about 250 lines pairs per millimeter. Old Eastman color captures about 35 lines off that lens. Most slow speed modern films will capture much more at about 100 lines. All that is needed now is to contact that 65mm negative onto a 70mm print stock. Contact printing does a good job in transferring an image

So generally speaking, film only captures from 2 to 5% of the original scene.

Blowups have the same problem. Take a 100 lp/mm Super35 image on Vision stock. You need to blow it up two times to 70mm. If you go by the same camera photographic process, five percent of 100 isn't much. So the copy lenses must be very high quality. Much better then a camera lens. It must be fully corrected and must do at least 1500 lp/mm or better. These are very expensive costing in the range of $200,000 to $500,000.

These kind of lenses are used to make microchips. A microchip is made by first doing a 10 ft by 10 ft line drawing. Then photograph that drawing using a copy camera and reduce it down to a 5x5 inch negative. That 5x5 inch negative is then photographed again down to a 2mm x2mm image to be burned in on a waffer.

All the detail of that original 10 ft by 10 ft line drawing is retained on that small 2mm by 2mm image thanks to very high quality $500,000 copy lenses.

Presto you have computers.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 02-28-2006 07:48 AM

Just to recap on Scott's post again;

quote: Scott Jentsch
I'd be willing to help with the resources side of things. If someone can help with compiling good, solid information, I will host it on The BigScreen Cinema Guide and make it available to the public.

So, I'm willing to pitch in what I can. Is there anyone else who is willing to put the words here into action? Or is this just a verbal exercise that doesn't stand the proverbial snowball's chances of becoming something?

Many thanks for that concrete offer of help Scott, it will be taken up!

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 02-28-2006 07:58 AM

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Could you please explain to us in technical terms why 65mm produces much more depth of field than 35mm?

Actually, at the same f/stop, a larger format (like 65mm) actually has LESS depth of field. One of the issues cinematographers constantly DISLIKE about digital cameras with small CCDs is that they have too much depth of field, so you can't use shallow focus to direct the audience's attention.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Could you please explain to us how much more resolution 65mm negative has got in comparison to 35mm and the reason for this?

In simple terms, the film itself has the same resolution, there's just more of it in a larger format. If you have three times the frame size, you have three times the information.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Could you please explain in technical terms why 65/70 produces an immersive sensation (you are in the picture) whereas blow-ups and 35mm do not.

The much sharper image of a large format like 65mm allows you to sit closer, allowing a more immersive experience. With a smaller format, there is less sharpness and more graininess, so most people prefer to sit further away from the screen, making for a less immersive experience. I find that I can enjoy a well-photographed 35mm film as close as about 2 image heights from the screen before the graininess starts to be noticeable. With a film originated on 65mm, much closer viewing distances are possible.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Could you explain to us if a 35mm reduction print from 65mm negative would look better than a 2K digital screening of the same negative?

Almost all cinematographers agree that a 2K digital image falls short of a 4K scan, or a well done 35mm print. That's why the Digital Cinema specifications include 4K presentation. A 35mm reduction print made from a 65mm negative has excellent image quality --- compare 35mm prints of movies shot with 65mm film like "West Side Story", "The Sound of Music", "My Fair Lady", "Hello Dolly", "Patton", etc. to their 35-mm originated contemporaries, and you will see the difference. IMHO, the added image quality of these 65mm productions often can even be seen in the DVD release.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Many thanks for your help. Also, perhaps you could help with names of people or companies who could be interested in taking this project ahead.

For 70mm prints, the "pull" has to come from exhibition. Theatres with huge screens need to convince distributors that the added cost of providing a 70mm print for large auditoriums with screens over 60 feet wide is a worthwhile investment. They need to assure that they have well-maintained equipment and skilled operators that will not damage that expensive print. And they need to have 70mm capability on some of their smaller screens, so they can move that 70mm print to a smaller house as the picture plays out its engagement.

The decision to originate in 65mm is driven by the filmmaker, usually the director and cinematographer. They need to convince the production company that the added cost for film, processing and post-production will result in superior image quality that helps make the film more successful. Examples of visionary showmen that come to mind are Michael Todd, Robert Wise, Darryl Zanuck, Stanley Kubrick, Ron Howard, etc.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

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

posted 02-28-2006 08:04 AM

In the 1950's Fox (in relation to Cinemascope) determined that the "best seat" is 1.5 times the width of scope.

Some new theatres have this behind the rear row. Louis

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 02-28-2006 08:44 AM

quote: Louis Bornwasser
In the 1950's Fox (in relation to Cinemascope) determined that the "best seat" is 1.5 times the width of scope.

For the original CinemaScope aspect ratio of 2.55:1, that works out to 1.5 x 2.55 = 3.825 times the image height. Fortunately, the much finer grain and better sharpness of modern 35mm films allow a much closer seating distance today. As I said, I find 2 times the image height is about as close as I want to sit for a 35mm presentation.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-28-2006 10:38 AM

Yes 70mm has 3 times more information but NOT three times the resolution. An example of this. Say you photograph a group of licence plates all lined up in many rows. If a 35mm frame has 10 of these plates, the 70mm frame will have 30 plates to read.

Now think of resolution. Now you have a judgment on if you can actually read those plates. If you can't read the 10 plates on 35mm film, you will not be able to read 30 plates on the 70mm film. So even if you have more information it's just more of the same information.

Now say it just a magnification factor. That is the 35mm frame has 10 plates and the 70mm frame still has those same 10 plates. Only now, the plates are bigger in scale. If the image/film resolution is the same in both 35mm and 70mm, then the plates in the 70mm will be clearer by 1.5 times. So it's 3 times the area but only 1.5 times the resolution. This would be the same as moving from 20 feet to read a licence plate to moving 5 feet closer to read it.

Again only three inputs to detail.

FOCAL LENGTH
FILM TYPE/LENS TYPE
DISTANCE

The bottom line is human vision has a very small input/output. It doesn's take much less then 8 lp/mm for the eye to start to detect fuzzy images. On the other hand, anything much over 10 lp/mm is lost in sharpness noise.

It's just like 20/20 vision. Move back to 30 ft and all the eye chart rows start to drop out and are unreadable. Move in to 15 ft and you can read all the rows on the complete chart.

Same with screen view distance and screen height. One times screen height is very close and the eye is not very forgiving. More the 3 time screen height and everything looks sharp. A very small band indeed.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 02-28-2006 12:43 PM

quote: Larry Myers
Say you photograph a group of licence plates all lined up in many rows. If a 35mm frame has 10 of these plates, the 70mm frame will have 30 plates to read.

But usually, the image would be composed to have the same 10 license plates across it, regardless of the format. So the 10 plates would be much more readable when using 65mm negative, since you have moved in, and the image of each plate on the film is larger.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-28-2006 01:34 PM

That is correct.

Two possible ways we can look at the systems. One, that both the 35mm and the 70mm cameras have the same focal length lens. In that case, you get more licence plates with the 70mm camera. The image detail would be the same but you get more coverage. I think Bat Wispers might have been done this way with both a 35mm camera and 70mm camera having the same focal length lens or close to the same focal length lens.

The second way is that the 35mm camera has a 40mm lens and the 70mm camera has a 60mm lens. That way, the image with both cameras would be the same size and both would have exactly the same number of plates. If the film is the same and the distance is the same, then the scale is 1.5 times larger so the image quality or detail will be 1.5 times greater with the 70mm camera.

The first way is for coverage and the second way is for detail.

[ 02-28-2006, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-28-2006 02:57 PM

quote: John Pytlak
For 70mm prints, the "pull" has to come from exhibition. Theatres with huge screens need to convince distributors that the added cost of providing a 70mm print for large auditoriums with screens over 60 feet wide is a worthwhile investment. They need to assure that they have well-maintained equipment and skilled operators that will not damage that expensive print. And they need to have 70mm capability on some of their smaller screens, so they can move that 70mm print to a smaller house as the picture plays out its engagement

This almost the same point I made in one of my ealier posting on this subject, to convince the Studios and Distributors, the 70mm screens will have to be perfect in both Technical and Personnel and giving the right Customer Experience.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-28-2006 03:23 PM

So, what does Larry think about the new 5.7Hemi against the older 392 and the 426 Hemis?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 02-28-2006 03:50 PM

Actually I have two Challenger RT's. A 1970 440/4 Convertible and a 1971 440 hardtop. Not Hemis but they run nicely none the less. Same issue with these cars. Nothing beats a $200,000 1971 426 Hemi Cuda but then again at 4000 lbs these really never went much faster then 13.4 second 1/4 at 103mph stock. A new 2006 $40,000 400hp 3000 lbs stripper Corvette if there is such a thing as a stripper, does low 12's all day long. The 71 is for sale if anyone is interested.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-28-2006 04:05 PM

..but no Chargers (not that POS 2006 one), Daytonas, or Vipers in your collection?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ... 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.