|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-02-2006 05:06 PM
quote: John Pytlak
Much as I would like to encourage 65mm production for feature films again
John, what are the likely oposition arguments for not using 65mm from the studios? What could you do in Kodak to encourage 65mm production? Could seminars be organised for directors of photography? Could examples of restored prints be shown to exhibitors? Could a deal be struck for purchase of 35mm and 70mm negative which satisfies both Kodak and the studios?
quote: John Pytlak
(e.g., anamorphic origination, avoid underexposing the film, use 4K post-production, etc.).
John: Is digital production avoidable when there are no digital effects to insert? Don’t you think that digital post-production interferes with the “film look”? I have nothing against people wanting to get other looks, but how about cinematographers who want to keep the film look, is this possible nowadays? And, what would be the minimum scan resolution to do justice to 65mm negative?
quote: Scott Jentsch
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.
This is a very interesting point. Actually the numbers itself could be used. Nowadays everybody likes to use “versions” one could be the big screen experience version 35.70 and the other the big screen experience version 65.70 . ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: Bobby Henderson
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.
Palatial single screeners are the most valuable and most expensive piece of cinema hardware, and the saddest thing of all is that we cannot recover them. When Lawrence of Arabia was re-released in 70mm in Barcelona in the 80s it was in one of those magnificent cinemas. The print was shown in V.O. with subtitles (unheard of for a big cinema in Barcelona) and the shows were fully booked. I remember taking many friends of mine who were marvelled at the beauty of the image, the big slightly curved screen, the curtains, … The lights started to dim with the curtains closed, then only some lights beneath the curtains were left on and the intro music started, after the intro music finished the curtains opened!!!! That was showmanship, what a presentation, those were the times when screens would be framed for 35mm presentation as to use the biggest area for the 70mm presentations. If they had provided more 65mm films those cinemas would have survived.
quote: Larry Myers
So if you have 4 viewers on a 8 ft wide screen or 800 viewers on a 80 foot wide screen, it will matter not to the viewer. It might be a bid deal for the theater owner as far as ticket sales but the viewer could care less.
I personally could not care less about this theory, which obviously does not apply to my perception of screens. Shoeboxes multiplexes ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif) are crap, killjoys, and have done a lot of damage to cinema exhibition. It was a short-term solution. They have got no future at all and they might as well demolish them. Now when the video projectors are installed they have got even less sense. Why pay £8 for one of those small, badly decorated and full of popcorn mini screeners to get a video projection when you can get a video projection at home without the popcorn?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-03-2006 06:29 AM
Larry, you have been so rude in the past and you continue being that way that sometimes I cannot help but use your sarcastic tone.
You have been proven wrong in the past. I do not know the intricacies of many technical aspects of film but it seems that you apply the principles wrong, like with the frame space of a 65mm negative which stores three times more information and hence the increase in image quality. And let’s not mention the comparison of the Ben-Hur scans!!!
Also you do not mention anything about film presentation. Regardless of the small screen size, the majority of shoeboxes cinemas are to film exhibition what fast food chains are to food, execrable! Granted, some of the old cinema palaces had bad seats as well but the good ones were amazing. Going to the pictures was a thrill, an event. Whoever is over 35 years old has experienced this thrill. These big palaces gave more thrill than any IMAX presentation. Also they used to have magnificent displays outside the cinema advertising the film. It was a completely different thing.
Your rudeness and disregard for film projectionist has got no justification.
I am not a film projectionist, but I would certainly trust much more film projectionist than you. The majority of them know very much about film projection, as it is obvious from their statements on this website. Not only that, this is their job, and the good ones are going to know about it, aren’t they?
I still do not know what is your point and doubt if anyone will. It has been proven that 65/70 is much, much, much, much better that 2k digital projection and that 35mm projection. So what is your point now? What is your objective?
I am just a member of the audience who used to enjoy going to the pictures and I am giving my input. I am not a technician and I may be wrong. Not only that, obviously, not everybody will feel the cinema experience as I do, this is just normal. Have you ever gone to the pictures with your friends and find out that you do not agree where to sit, front, middle, rear? We are all different individuals and I do not know if your book mentions that. But I have been going to the pictures for 39 years and I know many people who go to the pictures as well.
For some bizarre reason I was able to spot pan and scan on telly (one of the biggest abominations of this world) at a tender age. Not only that, I used to be able to spot if a film shown on TV had been filmed in Metrocolor, Colour by DeLuxe, three-strip Technicolor or the extremely ugly Eastman colour that was used in Spain during the 60s and 70s.
The “experts” who deal with the business of cinema exhibition must have done something wrong, because this is an extremely failing business. It has been going down for many years, and it does not look this is going to stop with the arrival of high definition television.
Films last so little nowadays that sometimes it is not possible to see them in your vicinity. Also the majority of local multiplexes show the same films, which are usually very bad films.
Somehow I understand the digital phenomena. Businesses are going so bad for film exhibition in theatres that they might as well try and save as much as possible.
People certainly go to the pubs to see sport events, they will not go to the pictures for it. DC promoters have also mentioned that they will broadcast music concerts, I doubt anyone will go to that. I like music very much and if I want to listen to a concert I go there, especially if it is a classical music concert, since you do not get the digital intermediate in between, acoustic straight to your ear! If it is a Jazz concert, either I go there and enjoy the real thing or buy a DVD and watch it at home as many times as I want. If people do not go to theatres to see pictures they will even go less to see telly, the proposal of alternative material is just preposterous.
I have also seen some nice blow-ups, the nicest one being Pathfinder, a very beautiful film with amazing photography. The print I saw was done at the Technicolor labs and it was very nice. However, I doubt blow-ups will really solve the problem of cinema exhibition, since they will only be used for the big screens and the quality of the negative remains the same. Basically I do not think there is change enough for distributors to consider it. Anyway, I have exposed my points and I won’t repeat myself. This is the reason why I am insisting on something revolutionary, for cinemas to subsist they need a unique product, something that cannot be experienced at home. This is why I insist on the Cinerama experience. Cinemas have not had an exclusive product for many years, this is the reason they are doing so bad. They have nothing to sell.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 03-03-2006 10:56 AM
OK, here goes nothing:
Dimensions are in inches unless otherwise stated.
The 'scope projector aperture is 0.838x0.700 (0.5866 sq inches)
The flat projector aperture is 0.825x0.466 (0.3675 sq inches)
The 70mm projector aperture is 1.912x0.87 (1.66344 sq inches)
If 70mm was 1:2.4 (possible with digital sound) it would be 2.088x0.87 (1.81656 sq inches)
70mm in 1:1.85 is 1.6095x.87 (1.400265 sq inches)
Therefore, GIVEN THE SAME FILM TECHNOLOGY AND SAME FRAME COMPOSITION:
For the flat, 1:1.85 ratio, 70mm has 3.81 times the image area of 35mm which means it has 3.81 times the resolution and will let 3.81 times as much light through.
For 'scope 1:2.4 ratio (with digital sound 70mm can show the full width), 70mm has 3.1 times the image area of 35mm true 'scope which means it has 3.1 times the resolution and will let 3.1 times as much light through.
If you want to go with the standard 70mm 1:2.2 ratio, 70mm has 2.84 times the image are of 35mm true 'scope which means it has 2.84 times the resolution and will let 2.84 times as much light through.
In conclusion, given equivalent film technology and frame composition, it is abundantly clear that for any aspect ratio 70mm film will have significantly more image detail on the release print and have significantly greater light efficiency than 35mm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 03-03-2006 11:19 AM
John, you are correct (of course!). I can recall so many memorable 70mm presentations, practically all of them blowups too. For many years, the Edwards Big Newport ran 70mm almost exclusively, one engagement after another, and they were often great filmgoing experiences. "Amadeus", Star Wars trilogy, Star Treks 2 and 3, and on and on. They shrewdly installed 70mm in the 2nd and 3rd houses too, which were much smaller, just so they could have that 70mm logo as a draw, and of course, so they could move prints around if necessary, based on what was selling the most tickets, and not have to drop the 70mm presentation.
I'm very pessimistic about the prospects for a 70mm revival (no matter how the prints are originated). But damn, it would be a helluva good thing for movie theaters if they could bring back that magic. Cuz 70mm brings magic to the screen more often than not.
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
| 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