|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-01-2006 06:00 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
You are not considering what I have said about the risk of allowing blow-ups, this could mean not getting 65mm production back again.
Yes, I have considered your point -and I don't believe it makes any sense.
First, consider history. The drop off of 65mm film releases in 1970 did not occur due to the arrival of 35mm/70mm blowups. 35mm/70mm blowups had been around well before 1970 and have been used on films like Dr. Zhivago. The end of the classic 70mm era was brought about by a variety of other reasons.
Next, I don't think you're considering the point few if any exhibitors are going to install any 70mm projectors to just have them sit and wait for whenever a filmmaker finally gets a wild hair to shoot a movie in 65mm. It simply is not going to happen that way.
But exhibitors will concede their huge 80' screens just can't get lit up to an acceptably bright level using 35mm or video projectors. They will install 70mm to overcome that issue, but only if they are given at least some kind of supply of 70mm prints. That supply is mainly going to come from blow-up prints.
Filmmakers and producers will only consider using 65mm if there is a good number of 70mm-equipped theaters across the country capable of showing it. Attacking this brightness issue in giant-screened 35mm auditoriums is a very practical way of restoring some of that infrastructure -maybe enough to get filmmakers to consider 65mm more seriously.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
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.
There isn't any "risk" with using 35mm/70mm blowups because average people don't understand any of this stuff anyway.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
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.
I disagree with that completely.
My plan has specifics to it and I believe it would work. My plan identifies a real, tangible problem in giant screened 35mm-only theaters and gets 70mm in there to solve it. That's the only practical way to get over this chicken versus egg problem that has 70mm stuck in a coma. 70mm will remain on life support (or just quietly die) if we have to just write letters trying to get filmmakers to shoot something in 65mm when there's hardly any theaters that can show a 70mm print!
quote:
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:
I find that to be a pretty sad statement about the movie industry. Film distributors pay checkers to go into just about every theater on this continent to make sure they're playing the right movie trailers and other stuff like that.
But they can't compile a simple inventory of seat count and screen size for all the theaters in which they book their prints. Frankly I think that's pretty screwy -especially with how fanatically anal-rententive distributors and exhibitors are about other details of operation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-02-2006 06:05 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Yes, I have considered your point -and I don't believe it makes any sense.
If you look at my different posts, what I am talking is about creating a new way of cinema exhibition, one that is significantly better to what we have now. The idea is to bring back the excellence of systems as Todd-AO. We need to find something that gets the image power of IMAX and the advantages of commercial cinema with a consistent output.
quote: Bobby Henderson
First, consider history. The drop off of 65mm film releases in 1970 did not occur due to the arrival of 35mm/70mm blowups. 35mm/70mm blowups had been around well before 1970 and have been used on films like Dr. Zhivago. The end of the classic 70mm era was brought about by a variety of other reasons.
Yes, I think it did. David Lean wanted to shoot Dr Zhivago in 65mm but MGM said it was too expensive, nevertheless David Lean framed the film for 70mm release. As you know Dr Zhivago was released in many cinemas as “presented in 70mm”.
Studios decided to put the emphasis in the sound aspect, six mag, and forgot about the image quality. Money was the reason they stopped producing 65mm and also the fact they thought they could get away with blow-ups. I suppose the technical demands of 65mm filming also played a role but I suspect the main reason was money.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Next, I don't think you're considering the point few if any exhibitors are going to install any 70mm projectors to just have them sit and wait for whenever a filmmaker finally gets a wild hair to shoot a movie in 65mm. It simply is not going to happen that way.
Yes, I am considering it. This is the reason I am talking about a global agreement on product and facilities available. Many exhibitors would install 70mm if they saw how good 65mm on 70mm looks and were assured by agreement of a supply of the product. Few of them will install 70mm to just get blow-ups and the promise that then maybe filmmakers and producers will release 65mm tittles.
quote: Bobby Henderson
There isn't any "risk" with using 35mm/70mm blowups because average people don't understand any of this stuff anyway.
The majority of people who like 70mm are not particularly keen on blow-ups. Film “experts” dislike blow-ups because of the framing compromise (so you would need to place the adequate black frames as in the example given of The Untouchables). Distributors and exhibitors are going to try and make the maximum profit of the 70mm tag and hence they will advertise the blow-ups as the return of 70mm, you can see a lot of bombastic marketing for just blow-ups, audiences will not be that impressed and then when you release the real 65mm they will not be bothered. If you are going to market the 70mm brand wait until you have the right product and do not waste the name on only blow-ups.
quote:
My plan has specifics to it and I believe it would work. My plan identifies a real, tangible problem in giant screened 35mm-only theaters and gets 70mm in there to solve it. That's the only practical way to get over this chicken versus egg problem that has 70mm stuck in a coma. 70mm will remain on life support (or just quietly die) if we have to just write letters trying to get filmmakers to shoot something in 65mm when there's hardly any theaters that can show a 70mm print!
Ok, I have to respectfully say that I am not interested in your plan. The chicken versus egg problem could be solved with the mentioned agreement between exhibitors, distributors and producers. Writing letters to filmmakers will do nothing, I agree, what I am trying to say is that we should do all the hard work that no one is bothered to do, collate information, and then show it to the different parts involved.
Also you will have all the digital PR people saying that 70mm (based on blow-up presentations) is not that good and blah, blah, blah.
Blow-ups are not improvement enough for the expense they require. Good use of all the advantages that 65mm photography offers and conceiving films for the big canvas of the cinema screen and not the TV screen is what is needed to bring audiences back, not blow-ups.
Anyway, as always, I might be wrong. Blow-ups do not interest me. I will not go as far as you did and say that your plan is nonsense. As it has been said, film-stock producers could offer a better deal if studios signed a compromise to produce a minimum number of 65mm per year for a minimum number of years with 70mm prints. In that agreement we should include distributors and exhibitors. Unless they work together nothing will be achieved. Unity is what is needed and a plan of action.
Also, there is an important question we have not looked into properly and this is: Why did they stop 65mm production when they had all those magnificent cinema palaces to show the beauty of the system.
There are two possible answers I can think of:
a) The system was too expensive and it was not recovering its cost. If this is the reason I do not believe there is any chance of 65mm production coming back.
b) They thought that people would not see the difference between 65mm and blow-ups. This then would be the reason they stopped blowing up when digital sound arrived and the screen sizes diminished.
If the second answer is correct we stand a chance to bring back 65mm production, if the first one is the correct I do not think we stand a chance.
Exhibitors have invested in very expensive 2K digital projectors because they have been assured they will get the product. The same path should follow for 70mm installations with an agreement on 65mm production.
I feel passionate about 65/70 but not about blow-ups. I will follow the path of 65mm film production to encourage improvement of image quality.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-02-2006 11:09 AM
There is a number of large problems with trying to revive curved screen processes like D-150 or the original Todd-AO design.
The biggest problem is construction cost. It would be very complicated to retrofit a lot of existing theaters to be able to use such a screen. Most new auditoriums really don't have the physical depth available for it. In most cases you would have to build an entirely new auditorium for that.
The next problem is IMAX. That's the real big-screen format now. Going to a bunch of trouble to build a fancy curved screen theater that may or may not ever show anything in 70mm is a non-starter businesswise compared to IMAX. You can proclaim D-150, Todd-AO or whatever out there in the marketing but a lot of folks are just going to say, "well it ain't as big as IMAX."
That's the trouble that will be invited by insisting on such an all or nothing "radical" approach to reviving 5/70. In my opinion the only shot 70mm has at coming back to commercial theaters is by way of a gradual transition. And that transition would have to occur first in existing giant-screen theaters under-lit by 35mm. If you don't start by addressing that legitimate problem the other hopes for 70mm are going to go unrealized.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
The majority of people who like 70mm are not particularly keen on blow-ups.
Just how many people do you think really know what 70mm is in the first place? It's a pretty small number.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Ok, I have to respectfully say that I am not interested in your plan. The chicken versus egg problem could be solved with the mentioned agreement between exhibitors, distributors and producers.
At least I have a plan.
Exactly how are you going to get distributors, exhibitors and film producers on the same page? Ever heard of the term "herding cats?" That description would be very apt there.
Basically, there is very little chance of getting filmmakers to start shooting movies in 65mm, distributors to bankroll the projects and exhibitors to build brand new curved screen 70mm theaters all at the same time. That is simply asking far too much of too many separate parties that often have different motives -and doing so all at once.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Studios decided to put the emphasis in the sound aspect, six mag, and forgot about the image quality. Money was the reason they stopped producing 65mm and also the fact they thought they could get away with blow-ups.
That's wrong.
After 1970, the use of 70mm dropped off a great deal -not over the cost of 65mm. The real blame goes to the change in what movies people wanted to see.
70mm was often tied to musicals or overlong costume epic period pieces. Lots of people got sick of that. Some of those movies were pretty silly or just downright bad. On top of that, 70mm was hardly ever used on anything MODERN. Outside of 2001: A Space Odyssey can you name any 70mm movies made during that time that were contemporary? I can't. Chaning politics, the Vietnam War and other social issues brought about more grungy movies that seemed socially aware. The thing that hurt 70mm was the fact no one making those new kinds of movies was intereted in using large format film.
Credit George Lucas and Dolby for bringing 70mm back in the late 1970's. Sure, lots of 35mm movies used 70mm just to take advantage of the sound format. But it did put in a fairly large installed base of 70mm-equipped theaters that were able to show 65mm originted movies like Far and Away in full blown 70mm. Unfortunately, a lot of those 1200 or so 70mm-equipped theaters are now gone.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-02-2006 11:47 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's wrong.
After 1970, the use of 70mm dropped off a great deal -not over the cost of 65mm. The real blame goes to the change in what movies people wanted to see.
70mm was often tied to musicals or overlong costume epic period pieces. Lots of people got sick of that. Some of those movies were pretty silly or just downright bad. On top of that, 70mm was hardly ever used on anything MODERN. Outside of 2001: A Space Odyssey can you name any 70mm movies made during that time that were contemporary? I can't. Chaning politics, the Vietnam War and other social issues brought about more grungy movies that seemed socially aware. The thing that hurt 70mm was the fact no one making those new kinds of movies was intereted in using large format film.
Ok. I have thought this myself in the past, the change in audience’s taste and the grungy movies you mention influenced. I have myself always thought about the example of Easy Rider and the change in audiences taste. However, I believe the money aspect was also there as mentioned with Dr Zhivago. If David Lean could not get 65mm for a big project like Dr Zhivago, how were other filmmakers going to get 65mm for a non-epic project? So probably, it was the stupidity of the studious of linking 70mm to epics that killed 65mm. I think that probably Coppola would have used 65mm for Apocalypse Now, wouldn’t he? But would the studious have paid, no!
quote: Bobby Henderson
There is a number of large problems with trying to revive curved screen processes like D-150 or the original Todd-AO design.
The biggest problem is construction cost. It would be very complicated to retrofit a lot of existing theaters to be able to use such a screen. Most new auditoriums really don't have the physical depth available for it. In most cases you would have to build an entirely new auditorium for that.
The next problem is IMAX. That's the real big-screen format now. Going to a bunch of trouble to build a fancy curved screen theater that may or may not ever show anything in 70mm is a non-starter businesswise compared to IMAX. You can proclaim D-150, Todd-AO or whatever out there in the marketing but a lot of folks are just going to say, "well it ain't as big as IMAX."
That's the trouble that will be invited by insisting on such an all or nothing "radical" approach to reviving 5/70. In my opinion the only shot 70mm has at coming back to commercial theaters is by way of a gradual transition. And that transition would have to occur first in existing giant-screen theaters under-lit by 35mm. If you don't start by addressing that legitimate problem the other hopes for 70mm are going to go unrealized.
Ok, that’s a good point. But let’s look at possibilities, maybe a not so curved screen would be a good compromise. And wide-angle shoots really make a difference between cinema and home cinema exhibition. I do not want to be radical for the sake of it. I have said I like black and white and academy ratio with optical sound. I am just saying that you need to bring the uaohhh factor. This can be done with a better sound system, with slightly curved screens, and using the best from the past 65mm experience. 65mm will benefit cinema exhibition from the beginning, both for 70mm prints, 35mm and even digital. As Thomas Harlauslev has said, IMAX is big, it has also been said in this thread that cinemas are Widescreen/IMAX is square and this is very, very, important. Actually widescreen cinema on a huge cinema screen is a much pleasant experience for many people than the massive square IMAX screen and also cinematographers no longer shoot in square ratio. But IMAX could use this 65mm negative films as well as it has been said, with framing top and bottom.
I think producers, exhibitors and distributors will have to learn to agree together, otherwise the whole thing will collapse.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-02-2006 01:14 PM
Wouldn't the first step in this process be to convince exhibitors that their big screens need to be equipped with projectors capable of lighting those big screens? If there are projectors out there that can be retrofitted, or ordered, with the necessary equipment to show both 35mm and 70mm, that would seem to be a very good piece of information to have out there for the decision makers to know about.
If a theater with a 75ft screen has 70mm capability, they then will need to order 70mm prints for that screen. That demand would be a measure of how much real-world demand there is for 70mm prints, which should in turn create a ripple effect through the content chain. Without the demand from exhibitors, no one else in that chain has much of a reason to pay attention.
The second step, I would imagine, is to educate the content side of the equation that sourcing in 65mm is going to create benefits for everyone involved. Even if the end result is going to be digital cinema projection, 65mm at the head end is going to result in a better product, right?
I would think that having a larger (higher resolution) source to draw from would be future-proofing the investment in creating a movie. Sure, today the best digital projection is 4k, but what about 10 years from now? If I'm going to be scanning a photo, I'd much rather start with an 8x10 than a 2x3 wallet sized photo (assuming a high quality 8x10, of course). Put into film terms, I'd rather scan a 4x5 negative than something from an APS or 110 camera.
I don't see the great fault in providing for 35mm blowups to 70mm. In fact, that's part of the discussion, isn't it? How to get a large screen properly lit with a good quality image. If 35>70 blowups are a way to start that train moving, I think it's worth encouraging.
Just like Fox tried to pass off their 480p broadcasts as "HD" they didn't last long in the face of real HD 720 & 1080 broadcasts from the other networks. They are now broadcasting in 720p. I would equate that transition to a similar one that 35mm blowups would take.
Initial releases will be 35>70 blowups. But then, the hope would be that at least the larger productions would chuck a few extra bucks to shoot in 65mm (we need to quantify what this extra cost would be) and dedicate to using good post-production tools (what tools?) to make a full 70mm presentation possible. That 65mm source can be used to create 35mm prints and digital cinema files, right?
Sure, you're not going to get low-cost movies to shoot in 65mm and probably never will. But those movies can be blown up to 70mm and shown in those big houses if they need to be.
The key is to differentiate the blowups from the "purebreds" easily. It shouldn't be hard for consumers to understand or diminish the overall positive message that you want to impress people with, but there should be a way to pick out the 35>70 blowups from the 65>70 presentations.
Just as experienced HDTV viewers can pick out upconverted material from the real thing, people will figure it out on their own. But at least initially, it's only right to set expectations properly for those who care and not confuse those who don't.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-02-2006 02:10 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Ok. I have thought this myself in the past, the change in audience’s taste and the grungy movies you mention influenced. I have myself always thought about the example of Easy Rider and the change in audiences taste. However, I believe the money aspect was also there as mentioned with Dr Zhivago.
I'm not sure when the first 35mm/70mm blowups occurred, but I doubt Dr. Zhivago was the first. For a number of years after that release a good number of films were shot in 65mm. A decent number were even released in 1970, but after Ryan's Daughter activity suddently dropped off to near nothing -including 70mm blow-up activity.
The dawn of the multiplex era happened during this time as well. Numerous shoe-box sized screens built in cookie-cutter fashion replaced a great deal of palacial single screeners during that period. That factor alone probably did more to kill 65mm production than anything else.
quote: David Stambaugh
Exhibitors will be making a mistake if they don't also equip the multiplex with a small house that can also show 70mm, in addition to their largest screen.
I agree with that, at least in terms of the current situation in how most booths are equipped. A few years from now the situation may be radically different. Most auditoriums will probably have only video-based projection. You may only see 35mm projectors in larger auditoriums. With that in mind, the only thing necessary to ship to the theater would be the 70mm print. If the same movie shows on other smaller auditoriums the theater would just download the movie via satellite to their servers. Still, mainly for the sake of any "true 70mm" 65mm filmed shows, it would be good to have at least a couple or so theaters with film projector capability to show that print.
| 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
![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
!!!
Printer-friendly view of this topic