|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-04-2006 12:18 PM
You all seem to just miss Larry's point, Larry just misses the rest.
70mm film does NOT have more resolution (his point) it just is not magnified (everyone elses point). That is, if the current state of the art can resolve say 100 lines/mm (just a round number for an example), then it matters not how much of the film you use, that is the resolution of the film. Larry's examples are stupid since one will compose a shot based on what they want to see in the frame, not how big the frame is...that is, whether composed for Scope or for 70mm, aside from the depth of field, the images will look nearly identical in terms of what subjects are in the frame. However, the 65mm negative will have more detail since it has more storage space for the same information...thus the effective resolution is higher for the 65mm source
As such, if some one is holding say a news paper and you snap a CinemaScope picture of the person holding the newspaper and then do the same with 65mm camera, if you want to read the detail on that newspaper, the 65mm negative will be notably clearer. Larry has even noted this as a potential detraction for 65mm photography since when the detail will be in focus, one has to ensure that it is correct detail (anyone that has worked on sets for live-stage knows that you only put in the level of detail to "sell" it to the audience, not to the level that if one were on stage they would notice that the detail is not there).
Larry's arguments start to fall apart before the image leaves the camera and is processed. All forms of perforating film result in some amount of skew (perforations are not in perfect alignment), in the camera, 65mm will magnify this problem less as well since any such skew represents a smaller fraction of the overall image area.
At each step, through the process of making the release print (duplication, opticals, digitization...etc) the original image can only loose detail or have fake detail added. 65/70 has more area to store the same information that the 35/35 process has, the 65/70 process will have a more faithful reproduction of the original camera negative at EACH step. However, the losses don't stop there...any slippage of the film in say a contact print, or mis-registration in a step-printing is magnified MORE on 35mm since, all being equal, such slippage or mis registration constitutes more of the total image.
The final step in any film's process is the actual projection of the film. This is by far the hardest step. The film must but run at the proper speed unlike when it is being duplicated. The film must be exposed 2-3 times with the film swelling towards the light source, advanced at a great rate of acceleration, stopped just in time for it to be exposed to the light source again. Given the same size screen and throw, the 70mm version will have less radiant engergy placed on the film per square inch and the magnification will be substantially less. That alone will give the 70mm image a substantial edge. However, 70mm generally has more contact area on its runners than 35mm and as such can stop the film better in the gate than 35mm (on the same projector) further giving 70mm an edge in picture steadiness, which contributes to overall resolution.
Therefore, you could shoot the same image (still) with resolution targets with the same lens and same film with just the difference being the film size and the 65/70 WILL be substantially steadier and sharper than the 35/35 version of it. Yes, even using Larry's license plate example (where 70mm has more plates since it is using the same lens), the 70mm will have more resolution, not because there are more grains/mm, but because the film is actually steadier in the camera, in the duplicater and in the projector than the 35mm version.
This is another reason why a 1960s 65/70 feature WILL compare very favorably to a modern CinemaScope film with the best stocks in terms of detail (and will be notably steadier than the CinemaScope version). Because the image steadiness degredation is a multiplying factor, the loss is not linear but parabolic.
It is simple math and it is a fact. The only point in the "blow up" process where you take a hit is in the optical part where it is converted from a 35mm to 65mm. How bad the loss is dependant on the equipment used. Normally it seems to show up in reduced contrast. If the enlargement process is done poorly one can notice a softening of the image since it is indeed out of focus on the film. Even with 35mm origination, for all but "EK" prints, the greatest potential for the highest projected resolution is 70mm (between 35 and 70mm (or digital for that matter).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-04-2006 01:44 PM
Thanks Steve, I had already understood this from Mr Pytlak's explanations but your explanation helps me to understand it even more. It is good to see the amount of data that has appeared on the latest posts.
By the way, John and everybody, if you can go and see the new print of Hello Dolly, go, it is amazing! Not only shows how good 65mm origination is but also how important is to conceive a film from the very beginning as to be a 65/70 feature. This is why I insist so much in 65mm and to make the maxium use of all its adavantages. This is what really can bring people back to theatres, the conception from the beginning of a very cinematic experience. Lord Jim, although a very bleak film, has got some amazing photography in 65mm. And, as it has been mentioned in this forum, Playtime is another beatiful example of 65mm origination. Jacques Tati did not want the film to be released in 35mm in the USA but he lost the battle. Playtime can only be understood in 70mm and if you ever see the marvelous restored print you will understand why.
I really wish 65mm comes back and as far as possible there is no use of digital intermediate (apart from the sfx scenes of course).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-04-2006 08:17 PM
OK... Here's a brief report from having attended last week's ASC events. First, if anyone is curious to see some of the folks who were present at the events, please visit the From Script To DVD website where we have posted a Photo Gallery. You might find that many of the folks who have worked on a number of your favorite films were present. (One of the cinematographers featured in the gallery was the DP of a well-known 65mm-originated movie. Let's see who can be first to spot him!)
Spoke to a few DPs at the event. In general, most DPs say they'd be interested in an opportunity to shoot a project in 65mm. But in my estimation, no one really seems interested in pushing to make it happen. Most seem content with the current production pipeline and cite the expense issue and size of the equipment as a turn-off. I was disappointed that Emmanuel Lubezki was not present; I had numerous question for him re "The New World," which I think can be described as the most recent attempt to revive 70mm.
Regarding blow-ups, Bill & I spoke with Stephen Burum, ASC about his films, a few of which were blown up to 70. I was disappointed, but not too surprised, to hear him, as others have on past occasions, reiterate the industry-wide attitude that films were blown up to 70 just for the improved sound quality and now that we have digital sound 70 isn't needed. When pressed, Burum did opine that he feels there is a subtle improvement in picture quality blowing up, but also pointed out that his experience working on "Apocalypse Now" (second unit) and seeing the finished film in 70mm blow-up form led him to desire having his scope blow-ups retain their 2.35:1 ratio. (His films printed in this fashion were "The Untouchables," "Casualties Of War" and "Hoffa.") He even described how he had designed a logo to emphasize and distinguish these "original ratio" blow-ups from standard, slightly-cropped blow-ups. Apparently, the labs and studios were uninterested in utilizing the logo to promote their product. (Kinda reminds me of Dolby and the studios and exhibitors never desiring to distinguish the single-surround "42" format from the split-surround "43" format.)
(Anyone detect the irony in Burum's "Apocalypse Now" commentary considering all the fussing that film's cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, AIC, ASC has made regarding his 2.00:1 preference?)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 03-05-2006 09:43 AM
Format: NTSC
Pixels (Horizontal): 437
Pixels (Vertical): 483
Total Pixels (HxV): 0.2 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 350
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 338
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 0.1 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 30
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 11
Percentage of IMAX HD: 0.3%
Format: HDTV
Pixels (Horizontal): 1030
Pixels (Vertical): 1035
Total Pixels (HxV): 1.1 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 1030
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 686
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 0.7 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 30
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 64
Percentage of IMAX HD: 2.0%
Format: 35 mm / 4 perf
Film Dimensions, Horizontal (mm): 20.1
Film Dimensions, Vertical (mm): 15.2
Film Dimensions, Area (mm^2): 306
Pixels (Horizontal): 3216
Pixels (Vertical): 2432
Total Pixels (HxV): 7.8 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 1608
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 1216
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 2.0 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 24
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 141
Percentage of IMAX HD: 4.5%
Format: 70 mm / 5 perf [Showscan]
Film Dimensions, Horizontal (mm): 48.6
Film Dimensions, Vertical (mm): 22.1
Film Dimensions, Area (mm^2): 1074
Pixels (Horizontal): 7776
Pixels (Vertical): 3536
Total Pixels (HxV): 27.5 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 3888
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 1768
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 6.9 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 60
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 1237
Percentage of IMAX HD: 39.8%
Format: 70 mm / 8 perf
Film Dimensions, Horizontal (mm): 48.6
Film Dimensions, Vertical (mm): 36.3
Film Dimensions, Area (mm^2): 1764
Pixels (Horizontal): 7776
Pixels (Vertical): 5808
Total Pixels (HxV): 45.2 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 3888
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 2904
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 11.3 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 24
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 813
Percentage of IMAX HD: 26.1%
Format: 70 mm / 8 perf
Film Dimensions, Horizontal (mm): 48.6
Film Dimensions, Vertical (mm): 36.3
Film Dimensions, Area (mm^2): 1764
Pixels (Horizontal): 7776
Pixels (Vertical): 5808
Total Pixels (HxV): 45.2 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 3888
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 2904
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 11.3 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 30
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 1016
Percentage of IMAX HD: 32.7%
Format: 70 mm / 15 perf IMAX(R)
Film Dimensions, Horizontal (mm): 69.6
Film Dimensions, Vertical (mm): 48.5
Film Dimensions, Area (mm^2): 3376
Pixels (Horizontal): 11136
Pixels (Vertical): 7760
Total Pixels (HxV): 86.4 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 5568
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 3880
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 21.6 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 24
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 1555
Percentage of IMAX HD: 50%
Format: 70 mm / 15 perf IMAX(R) HD
Film Dimensions, Horizontal (mm): 69.6
Film Dimensions, Vertical (mm): 48.5
Film Dimensions, Area (mm^2): 3376
Pixels (Horizontal): 11136
Pixels (Vertical): 7760
Total Pixels (HxV): 86.4 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 5568
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 3880
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 21.6 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 48
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 3111
Percentage of IMAX HD: 100%
Taken from Appendix 1 of SMPTE Preprint No. 135-22: IMAX HD -- A High Definition Motion Picture System (1993).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 03-05-2006 03:48 PM
quote: Thomas Jonsson
If films are to be shot with blow-ups to 70mm in mind, why not
simply consider the cropping when filming?
..and take away the basis of filming in anamporphic - the wide grandeur picture?
Initial filming were done in full frame without the soundtrack area and presented in a 2.66/1 ratio with the sound coming from separate magnetic dubbers - which I've heard that "the Robe" - the first feature filmed in the new anamorphic process by FOX for the roadshow releases - used this special ratio.
Then, for inital theatre release, was the reduction of 2.55/1 due to the addition of the thin inner mag tracks for channels 2(center) and 4(surround) and the larger outer tracks for 2(left) and 3 (right), but still no optical track was printed on the stock.
But, most cinemas couldn't afford the magnetic setup, thus another reduction took place with 2.35/1 by adding the optical track and placing the center channel magnetic track in this space as well.
Thus cinemas who had no magnetic units, would have to turn the faders up to compensate the reduction of the optical track area that was halfway covered by the magnetic track.
Cinerama, coming out in 1952 really had an impact on the initial releases of wide screen presentations. Fox wanted the widescreen look, but using only one machine. Thus CinemaScope was their version of Cinerama..nicknamed "a poor man's Cinerama".
..a process that almost all of the existing theatres could adapt to without too much complication - outside of either bringing the screen out from the narrow width stage and placing that screen in front of the stage within new screen framework, or if stage was wide enough to simply add the wider screen and introduce adjustable maskings for both lens formats.
But, the big challenge was to construct new theatres that can accomodate the two formats in a complete form.
It was a wide screen war in the 50's - who can come out with the system that can sell and endure.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 03-05-2006 04:46 PM
quote: Jeffry L. Johnson
Relative Projected Image Areas
1057.3 IMAX
634.2 Cinerama (2.895)
625.0 Cinerama (2.853)
334.9 65-mm Negative and 70-mm Positive
220.2 Technirama Negative AR 2.35:1
194.9 VistaVision Negative AR 1.85:1
124.2 35-mm Full Aperture Negative
121.2 35-mm CinemaScope AR 2.35:1
100.0 35-mm Academy Standard AR 1.37:1
95.1 35-mm TV Transmitted Area
83.0 35-mm Wide-Screen AR 1.66:1
74.3 35-mm Wide-Screen AR 1.85:1
60.2 Techniscope Negative AR 2.35:1
21.8 16-mm Standard
20.5 16-mm TV Transmitted Area
15.4 9.5-mm
6.6 Super-8
4.4 8-mm
They missed out the 55.625mm 8-perf negative format of Cinemascope-55. Looking up the frame sizes of this and 35mm Academy in the Widescreen Museum, converting to milimetres to make life easier, and doing the calculation I make is about 451; about one third larger than 65mm Todd-AO. A lot of people don't realise how much bigger 55mm was than 65mm. Has anybody got the figures for 8-70?
quote:
Format: 35 mm / 4 perf
Film Dimensions, Horizontal (mm): 20.1
Film Dimensions, Vertical (mm): 15.2
Film Dimensions, Area (mm^2): 306
Pixels (Horizontal): 3216
Pixels (Vertical): 2432
Total Pixels (HxV): 7.8 M
Viewable Pixels (Horizontal): 1608
Viewable Pixels (Vertical): 1216
Total Viewable Pixels (HxV): 2.0 M
Field/Frame rate/sec: 24
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec): 141
Percentage of IMAX HD: 4.5%
Where do the SMPTE get these figures from? Film doesn't have pixels, and film grain cannot be directly compared to them. Pixels have a regular shape shape and spacing, with hard edges. Film grains are irregular, and can overlap. What type of film are they talking about. Why not quote a figure significantly higher, or lower, than this? It seems to me that a wide range of figures could be equally valid, or invalid.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-05-2006 05:53 PM
quote: Michael Coate
In general, most DPs say they'd be interested in an opportunity to shoot a project in 65mm. But in my estimation, no one really seems interested in pushing to make it happen.
I suppose they do not want to take on the responsibility of promoting the extra expense of 65mm since if the film did poorly they would get the blame for the extra expense (an unfair blame of course). They have a job to think of and I suppose they have to accommodate to what studios say. But I bet that if studios said they were commencing 65mm productions there would be a cue of cinematographers and film directors willing to get a project in 65mm. It is too much a responsibility for a film director or a cinematographer, but if the idea gets rolling, I bet they would be enthusiastic.
quote: Michael Coate
Regarding blow-ups, Bill & I spoke with Stephen Burum, ASC about his films, a few of which were blown up to 70. I was disappointed, but not too surprised, to hear him, as others have on past occasions, reiterate the industry-wide attitude that films were blown up to 70 just for the improved sound quality and now that we have digital sound 70 isn't needed. When pressed, Burum did opine that he feels there is a subtle improvement in picture quality blowing up, but also pointed out that his experience working on "Apocalypse Now" (second unit) and seeing the finished film in 70mm blow-up form led him to desire having his scope blow-ups retain their 2.35:1 ratio.
It does not surprise me, cinematographers will always want to preserve a unique framing for their films, which is legitimate and understandable. I have already said I detest the non-sense of several framings for a film. Also it raises the aspect that blow-ups, apart from the advantage they have on very big screens, would receive a rather cold reception, and this is the worst that could happen to any rebirth of 70mm.
quote: Monte L Fullmer
..and take away the basis of filming in anamporphic - the wide grandeur picture?
You have a very good point here, many people like the wider screen. Probably the use of anamorphic 65mm like Camera 65 would solve the problem. Not all films require the widest of the screens and both systems could be used. I read a very interesting article on www.in70mm.com about a cinema, which had the perfect screen, with masking for all formats and also with control of the depth of the curve. This leads me to the subject of retrofitting. Thomas Hauerslev mentioned something very interesting about the first person experience you get with Cinerama and Todd-AO, and part of this experience comes with a curved screen. How much would it cost to retrofit big cinemas to allow for a big screen, with all the masking for all possible formats and control of the depth of the curve?
Yes, retrofitting is probably costly, but this goes with the idea of brining a premiere cinema/film presentation, which is miles away from any home cinema experience. If audiences notice that some cinemas are adapting to offer something unique, maybe this will raise awareness and expectation. What do you think?
| 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
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic