|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 02-28-2006 05:55 PM
quote: John Pytlak
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.
Many thanks for all the info John. I used the wrong word here when referring to depth of field. What I meant is that 35mm scope films look flatter than 65mm films. Is this because of the anamorphic lens? People refer to 65mm films as being nearly 3-D, of course they are not, but this depth is what I meant when talking about the advantages of 65mm. 65mm printed on 70mm looks less "flat" that 35mm scope. Since I do not have the terminology perhaps you could help me and put the right words to what I am trying to explain. Thanks ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote: John Pytlak
With a film originated on 65mm, much closer viewing distances are possible.
Since cinemas are smaller nowadays, it seems that 65mm printed on 70mm would provide a much better view and an immersive sensation in many of nowadays screens.
quote: John Pytlak
IMHO, the added image quality of these 65mm productions often can even be seen in the DVD release.
You could certainly see this in the video release of Branagh's Hamlet.
quote: John Pytlak
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.
Excellent John, this is the $1,000,000 answer we had been strugling to find. Now we have the explanation for the x3 times information. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
quote: John Pytlak
For 70mm prints, the "pull" has to come from exhibition.
Yes, but they will say that they won't adapt their premises unless there is consistency in the offering. As I said, only the best will do and in that sense it is not only 70mm prints, it is 65mm negative. You agree on the different quality of 65/70 to 35/70 don't you John? So exhibitors have to sit down with distributors, producers and directors of photography. The aim would be to organise such a meeting.
quote: John Pytlak
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.
And David Lean. But then they will think that there are no theatres with 70mm and gave up their ideas. Someone has to end up with this lack of communication between the parts. Any ideas?
John, could Kodak organise a metting or seminar about this subject with all the major parts (producers, distributors, exhibitors, directors of photography, film directors). If Kodak gives its reputation to such initiative surely it would generate interest. An idea would be to ask a very good director of photography like Vitorio Storaro and a film director like Spielberg to film a short film that shows the advantages of 65mm printed on 70mm. And then ask them to shoot the same short at the same time using 35mm cameras. The idea would be to show the 65mm negative on a huge screen using 70mm print and the 35mm negative on the same screen using 2K digital projection (the standard nowadays). John, do you think this would be possible? Thanks once again.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-28-2006 06:54 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Yes, but they will say that they won't adapt their premises unless there is consistency in the offering. As I said, only the best will do and in that sense it is not only 70mm prints, it is 65mm negative.
This is the area where I strongly criticize theater operators on the 70mm issue. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to build a theater auditorium with a 60', 70' or even 80' wide screen and then install a projector that can only play 35mm.
How much more does a decent 35/70 "universal" film projector cost above one that can only do 4/35? I know there are a number of different models available. Since there are a number of theaters installing them for whatever reason (perhaps to be able to play revival prints, etc.) the price premium can't be all that huge. The difference is likely minor in comparison to the cost of a new digital cinema projector.
I also don't agree with the assertion that everything shown on the screen must be originated from 65mm. That kind of ultimatum is just plain counterproductive. In the best years of the classic 70mm era, not all that many films were shot in 65mm. If we saw a great rebirth of interest in 65mm/70mm production that matched the output of the 1960's, there still would be nowhere near enough 65mm originated titles to keep a theater playing 70mm prints all the time.
The simple fact is any theater with a huge screen and several hundred seats in the room needs 70mm prints of all movies it shows regardless of how they were originated.
I think movies that are shot in 65mm need to have their 70mm print bookings hyped up a great deal above those filmed in 35mm or videotaped.
quote: Lyle Romer
The issue of screen illumination has come up several time on this thread. Christie claims in their specifications that their CP2000 DLP projector can light a screen up to 75 feet wide.
In addition to the questions John Pylak asked regarding that claim, I would also like to list the Chrisite CP2000 DLP projector's lamp specifications:
CP2000H: 4.5/6.0kW Xenon arc lamp depending on screen size
(specifications claim up to 75ft/23m screen width)
CP2000i: 2.0kW/3.0kW Xenon arc lamp depending on screen size
(specifications claim up to 50ft/15m screen width)
Basically, that DLP model has a bulb max of 6,000 watts. That doesn't sound like quite enough lamp power to properly illuminate a huge 75' screen. I'm not sure I would want to even show 2K DLP on a screen that big anyway. Every pixel would be close to 1/2" X 1/2". That's large enough to plainly visible for many of the seats in the auditorium.
I've seen a good number of 35mm setups with 7,000 watt bulbs projecting to screens 70' or even 80' in width. And the 7K lamp just wasn't bright enough. Some contend you can't even get that amount of light power out of the 35mm gate and that 1K to 3K of that is just bled off as heat. Are the DLP gates and lenses bigger?
Most giant screen IMAX projectors are using liquid cooled lamps 12K to 18K in strength. A quick search revealed the Henry Ford IMAX Theater in Dearborn, MI actually uses TWO 15K lamps in its lamp house! That's 30K of power!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-28-2006 09:26 PM
Bobby,
A couple of things...DLP projectors do not have a shutter that, depending on projector model, throws away about 50% of the light. In fact, the mirrors of a DLP are pretty good about reflecting the light without significant loss. The trickiest part being splitting the light into the three primary colors without wasting it.
However, that said, with the 1.3K DLPs, one needed about 50% higher xenon size as compared to film...and that was with a more light efficient 5:4 imager. The 2K DLPs are said to be much more efficient though with better light engine designs...that I CAN believe.
As for 70mm projectors...Both Simplex and Century projectors (Strong International) are listed as "POA" which stands for "Price on Application"...which translates to "we are not saying no, but don't expect them fast and the price will be based on a 1-off basis"
Simplex 35/70s are probably easier to build since they are almost 90% the same as the current 35mm projector with spacers. The Century JJ also would be easy to build since the gear side is identical to the current Century 35mm projector.
Since only the projector head need be made now (not a penthouse) the 35/70 versions of these two projectors should be quite reasonable. If a chain were to buy any quantity of them, you'd see them back in "production" pretty fast...they just are not that different from what they are making now.
Now as for other companies...Kinoton has several 5/70 machines in their current machine line-up...including the FP75E, FP75ES, MP75E. Since they are in the "E" line, they are NOT cheap, less expensive than Video but a good chunck of change none the less. Kinoton doesn't require one to buy what they don't need so one may omit the COMMAG head (effectively the penthouse) and even the "frictions" aka reel spindles (but why would you want to? After all Reel-to-reel is the best).
Century and Simplex would definately be the less expensive way to go and in many cases one could merely change their projector head out for the 35/70 version, leaving the soundhead still wired and mounted to the console/pedestal...very fast and cheap changeoout. Kinoton would require a complete reinstallation since it a completely different projector (kinda like the AA2).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-01-2006 12:19 AM
Good stuff about the DLP projectors, Steve.
However, it still sounds to me like a 6K lamp in a Christie 3-chip 2K DLP unit is not going to be powerful enough to properly illuminate a 75' wide screen. I guess I'll believe it when I see it.
quote: Sam D. Chavez
Cost of the projector would be fairly trivial since there are plenty of used JJ's laying in the woods. There are also a number 0f 35/70 Simplex and even Ballantyne's around.
I hadn't really thought about the used equipment angle; however, I can recall new theaters opening in the Dallas area and putting in a used 70mm projector on 1 screen as a sort of "just in case" measure (Loews Keystone Park seems to be popping up in my memory regarding that issue).
How hard would it be to track down such equipment and get it ready for regular use?
Does anyone know how much work THX Theater Alignment Program is doing these days to evaluate theaters? Is anyone else doing anything along those lines? It would seem such evaluations would reveal trends about whether or not giant screened theaters are showing bright enough pictures with 35mm-only setups.
Basically, I don't think it would be very difficult for theaters to do an inventory on screen size (along with seating count) for 1st run theaters. A list could be built to identify theaters where 70mm would be highly appropriate, both in terms of screen size and seating count. That is unless such an inventory already exists. It may just be a simple matter of trading information between exhibitors and film distributors.
If I was operating a theater circuit and had a few auditoriums with giant screens, high seating counts, plush decor and more -I would certainly be doing all I could to tell distributors about those technically superior screens and lobbying hard to get the best prints I could get. If some folks in Sweden could convince Fox to supply them with 1-off 70mm DTS prints of a decent number of movies -to play in a sports stadium of all places, why would it be ridiculous at all to have 70mm prints made to play in a theater with 700 seats and a 80' wide screen? At least from my perspective such a request would be pretty reasonable.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler
Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-01-2006 07:24 AM
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."
quote: John Pytlack:
"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."
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
An image does not have to be particularly large to be immersive. If you sit close enough to the screen, you will experience a sensation im "immersiveness", even if the screen is not larger than 60 centimeters (two feet). It is all about the angle of view.
"Angle of view" was one of the key points with Cinerama and Todd-AO, when they first came out with the curved screen and extreme wide angle lenses. The "First Person Experience" which is done
so well in Cinerama, in theory, only works well from 1 single seat in the theatre, when you sit in the center of the circle of the screen. The viewer experience the action, as if the person is in the film, because the angle of view (146 degrees) is very close to human vision. If you move back in the cinema, you will not get the same sensation. You have to be close to the screen to be "in the movie". You are not in the movie with IMAX, it´s just BIG.
Another reason why 70mm looks so good, even from blow ups is, that scratches often appears smaller and image stability is better compared to sub-standard guages (35mm and below). The "computer" on top of your head does not have to "image correct" as much with 70mm, and more "RAM" in your mind is therefore available to decode image information. It´s less distractive to see 70mm, because the bit rate is considerably higher.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-01-2006 08:16 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I also don't agree with the assertion that everything shown on the screen must be originated from 65mm. That kind of ultimatum is just plain counterproductive. In the best years of the classic 70mm era, not all that many films were shot in 65mm. If we saw a great rebirth of interest in 65mm/70mm production that matched the output of the 1960's, there still would be nowhere near enough 65mm originated titles to keep a theater playing 70mm prints all the time.
I am certainly no one to give ultimatums but I know that studios, distributors and exhibitors will cheat when they can. I have already said that they stopped 65mm production because they thought they could get away with 70mm blow ups. I have already mentioned what producers, distributors, and exhibitors used to do in the 70s and 80s. They used to say presented in 70mm regardless of the negative used.
I think the main point of 70mm vs digital is a premium film presentation. A premium presentation can bring audiences back to cinemas and this premium presentation requires 65mm negative. Blow ups produced for the main screens won’t be enough and it can be counterproductive for the return of 65mm. I have seen many 70mm blow ups and they pale in comparison to 65mm productions. I am much more interested in 65mm originated film than blow-ups. I am not particularly interested in a return of blow ups, whereas I am certainly interested in a return of 65mm films. Yes, certainly, blow-ups serve big screens, but unless you clearly make a difference between them and proper 65mm originated films, you are risking killing the chance of 65mm production coming back. Not only that, some people are against some of the blow-ups of the 70s and 80s because of the compromise in the framing. Of course, blow-ups can be shown but they should not be advertised as “presented in 70mmm”, if you do that you will confuse audiences and jeopardise the return of 65mm productions. I can see all the distributors and exhibitors being greedy and using the “presented in 70mm” tag regardless of being originated in 65mm or 35mm and not making any distinction between the negative as they did not in the past. Why should they be different now? Not even the National Film Theatre states the difference in its film programmes, so how do you expect distributors and exhibitors pointing out the difference? 70mm blow-ups are certainly better but audiences would probably say, what’s all the fuss? since there isn’t such a huge leap, whereas with 65mm the difference is enormous. We have to avoid the mistakes done in the past and protect the brand of 65mm negative. Maybe something like “a 65/70 presentation”. As always, I might be wrong though.
Also this leads me to comment on the blow-up of Out of Africa I saw last year in Bradford, the print looked “flat” in comparison to the 65mm productions. I suppose this is because of the much less information a cropped 35mm frame has in comparison to the 65mm frame. This is what I was tried to convey in a previous post, the depth sensation of the 65mm negative, although I wrongly said depth of field. This different look is because of the information issue you mentioned John, isn’t it?
quote: Thomas Hauerslev
"Angle of view" was one of the key points with Cinerama and Todd-AO, when they first came out with the curved screen and extreme wide angle lenses. The "First Person Experience" which is done
quote: Thomas Hauerslev
You are not in the movie with IMAX, it´s just BIG.
Thanks for this Thomas, very illustrative indeed. This is why I was claiming for wide angle lenses. I am sure you will elaborate more in Bradford this year when you talk about D-150 lenses. Are they still available? Could they be produced?
As Thomas Jonsson said in an earlier post, you'd better give audiences something big, big and amazing if you want them back. Something like d-150, or Todd-AO, a Cinerama like experience could bring them back.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-01-2006 09:21 AM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I am not particularly interested in a return of blow ups, whereas I am certainly interested in a return of 65mm films. Yes, certainly, blow-ups serve big screens, but unless you clearly make a difference between them and proper 65mm originated films, you are risking killing the chance of 65mm production coming back.
If you try to enforce some sort of rule that 70mm prints will not be allowed unless the source image is from 65mm then that would also make necessary a rule no theater should get built ever again with a screen more than 50' or 60' in width.
There is no way any movie theater will only ever be able to show 70mm movies originated in 65mm. One of the key sticking points against a 70mm projection install is a steady supply of 70mm prints. The only way to make that supply steady is by allowing 35mm/70mm blowups.
The only way 65mm production can ever have a chance coming back into the picture is by having an infrastructure of 70mm put into place. That infrastructure is only going to get put into place if theaters have lots of 70mm prints coming into the booth. All of those prints in the beginning would have to be blow up prints.
35mm-only theaters with oversized screens represent the most urgent need for 70mm projection. If those installations can occur based on fulfilling minimum standards of brightness on giant sized screens, then there will be a good number of 70mm capable theaters in lots of key markets. This is a very practical, valid case for 70mm installation.
Such an installed base of 70mm projection would be the key thing to seed interest in shooting projects in 65mm. No director in his right mind is going to shoot a movie in 65mm without having a good number of theaters across this country to show the film in 70mm. It's not going to be enough for that director's 65mm vision to only be realized in Manhattan, Westwood and downtown Washington D.C. And likewise, no theater operator is going to go through the trouble of putting in 70mm if they're only going to get one or two 70mm prints per year, if even that many.
Exhibitors have already been through that crap before in the 1980s. If you had a 70mm capable theater in Manhattan or the Westwood part of LA, then you would probably be able to get 70mm prints on a steady basis. But lots of theaters around the country were lucky if they got anymore than a couple or so 70mm prints per year, if even that. Quite a few 70mm installations would go years on end without seeing a print.
In a nutshell, like it or not, you have to bring back 35mm/70mm blowup prints and do so on a frequent basis. That's the only thing that can lay any foundation at all for filmmakers going the next step: actually shooting a movie in 65mm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-01-2006 11:24 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
If you try to enforce some sort of rule that 70mm prints will not be allowed unless the source image is from 65mm then that would also make necessary a rule no theater should get built ever again with a screen more than 50' or 60' in width.
I have never said that Bobby. I am not banning blow-ups. I said that I am personally not interested in blow-ups. I have also pointed out the risks that blow-ups pose for the real thing 65mm/70mm.
quote: Bobby Henderson
There is no way any movie theater will only ever be able to show 70mm movies originated in 65mm. One of the key sticking points against a 70mm projection install is a steady supply of 70mm prints. The only way to make that supply steady is by allowing 35mm/70mm blowups.
You always say in this forum that we should not be negative. Yes, there is a way. As we have mentioned before by having an agreement between producers, exhibitors and distributors and probably film-stock suppliers for a minimum of years, which ensures consistency and continuity of a product. You are not considering what I have said about the risk of allowing blow-ups, this could mean not getting 65mm production back again. This is a very great risk, huge. You can always blow-up, however, you cannot go back and shoot the same film in 65mm. If you are going to create a revolution in exhibition, which is certainly needed, you might as well do it well.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The only way 65mm production can ever have a chance coming back into the picture is by having an infrastructure of 70mm put into place. That infrastructure is only going to get put into place if theaters have lots of 70mm prints coming into the booth. All of those prints in the beginning would have to be blow up prints.
Not even with blow-ups are theatres going to have a guarantee, distributors gave up in the past and might as well give up now. The only way you can have a guarantee is with an important agreement and if you are going to get that agreement do it well and get the gorgeous 65mm. Also the point of premiere presentation is to try and make films last longer in cinemas. I doubt films will last the two years on screen they used to do, but we should look at longer cinema presentation.
quote: Bobby Henderson
35mm-only theaters with oversized screens represent the most urgent need for 70mm projection. If those installations can occur based on fulfilling minimum standards of brightness on giant sized screens, then there will be a good number of 70mm capable theaters in lots of key markets. This is a very practical, valid case for 70mm installation.
Again, as I said, we risk people getting the wrong idea about 70mm and by the time you get the real thing 65mm/70mm people have already formed their minds. 70mm has been absent from the screens for a long time now. If it has to come back better do it in a way that blows every ones mind. We want people to go to the cinemas and coming out saying a big Ohhhhhhhhh.
quote: Bobby Henderson
In a nutshell, like it or not, you have to bring back 35mm/70mm blowup prints and do so on a frequent basis. That's the only thing that can lay any foundation at all for filmmakers going the next step: actually shooting a movie in 65mm.
As I said and for the reasons explained 35/70 can become a trip over instead of an intermediate step. I am for skipping this step and going for a thorough plan of action. The ideas are here, we just need to polish them and get more, and more, and more, and more people.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-01-2006 11:45 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Basically, I don't think it would be very difficult for theaters to do an inventory on screen size (along with seating count) for 1st run theaters. A list could be built to identify theaters where 70mm would be highly appropriate, both in terms of screen size and seating count. That is unless such an inventory already exists. It may just be a simple matter of trading information between exhibitors and film distributors.
We tried to do this in the early days of The BigScreen Cinema Guide, using personal observations and some input from theaters. Some remnants of that effort still remain:
http://www.bigscreen.com/Marquee.php?theater=HartfordTheaters&view=info
(scroll down to the bottom of the page)
But it was a near-impossible task and as the information became more and more outdated, I just started removing the info rather than have inaccurate data or trying to keep up with updates myself.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Does anyone know how much work THX Theater Alignment Program is doing these days to evaluate theaters? Is anyone else doing anything along those lines? It would seem such evaluations would reveal trends about whether or not giant screened theaters are showing bright enough pictures with 35mm-only setups.
I think TAP is dead. No mention of it on THX's site, a Google search doesn't reference anything beyond historical references. Plus, I haven't seen the TAP logo in the credits of a movie in a very long time.
My personal experience with TAP has been that it never realized its potential. If it were done today, maybe they would just slap a "beta" label on it, so that they could let it whither on the vine and no one would be surprised. My complaints about TAP-monitored presentations always fell on deaf ears (to my knowledge), and my application to be a TAP evaluator was never answered.
I'm a fan of THX, but this is one case where I feel someone there really dropped the ball. A half-hearted effort is worse than no effort at all, IMO, since it disappoints those who buy into its premise and then see nothing come of it. Future efforts by others to accomplish similar goals are then harder to make successful.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic