|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 216
From: Bromolla, Sweden
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-06-2006 10:16 AM
Monte. I didnīt mean CS films should stop being produced. What
I meant was to have in mind not to put all the action on the
left or right edges of the frame. After all, the cropping weīre
talking about sideways is only 5%, and thatīs within the limits
for THX.
And besides, the camera is moving quite a lot, so there canīt be
that many opportunities to "compose" exactly for the 2,35 format.
As for the talk of all those different formats, adjustable curve
of the screen and so on - thatīs OK for movie museums and likes.
Try talk producers and exhibitors into using 70mm on the largest
screens, even blow-ups would be a big improvement. Then throw in
filming in 65mm and top it with adjustable curved screens and see
what happens.
I love the idea of 65/70mm, but that simply is asking too much.
They wonīt buy it. I think Bobby Henderson is right - blow-ups
is a big improvement, and realistic. If that works, and the
crowds are coming in, producers might see the potential of 70mm
and start filming in 65mm.
Why not suggest a "test". Pick out, say, ten screens suitable
for a mind-blowing presentation and a really attractive movie.
Install the best 70mm equipment (DP70?) and first class prints.
If those screens give way much more dollars at the boxoffice
than any 35mm or DC theater, then you might have a very good
chance for the re-birth of 70mm.
Thomas
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-06-2006 11:17 AM
quote: Thomas Jonsson
I love the idea of 65/70mm, but that simply is asking too much.
So far we are only talking so there is no harm. I can think of very few screens here in London that would benefit from blow-ups and very few in Barcelona, the two cities I know. 65mm would really bring a general improvement in cinema exhibition since reduction prints and even digital screenings would benefit from it. Blow-ups would benefit very few screens here in Europe. If you add the cold response blow-ups get from directors of photography and cinema buffs (the framing thing and the misconception on just advantages for sound) you can do more harm than good to the 70mm tag. I am not against to blow-ups, I am just suggesting that perhaps it would be better to say nothing to audiences, just project the blow-up print where is needed for light reasons.
Regarding 65mm originated printed on 70mm I have seen a very interesting French short called Fannys Wedding printed on 70mm and originated on different film negatives for narrative purposes and the 65mm negative shows its beauty and perfection in a very clear way and it is also clear the difference between blow-up and 65mm originated which was very obvious to my eyes. Anyone who has seen a proper print of 65mm originated film knows that if anything is going to save cinema exhibition, this is the answer. I am toying with the idea of curved screens and wide angle lenses since this is something that can also make an important statement about the difference between home cinema and cinema exhibition. There is nothing wrong in doing some research. It is pointless to throw the towel before even starting! There are many people out there, not only in this forum who would like a return of 65mm originated.
And Mr Myers, people with technical knowledge have already proven what many of us have experienced at the pictures, and that is that 65/70 is perfect for cinema narrative, spectacular, beautiful and there is nothing at present that can beat it. We like it very much and your silliness in trying to disprove our taste is preposterous, your insulting manners discredit even more your already discredited points.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 216
From: Bromolla, Sweden
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-06-2006 12:28 PM
Ramon, I love the idea of 65/70mm. But I feel a slow start is
better than no start at all. When I first saw "Dr Zjivago" in
70mm I actually thought it was shot on 65mm film. It wasnīt until
years later I found out it was a blow-up. I went to that particular
theater to see it because it was "shown in 70mm/6-track stereo".
That was the point - the selling argument.
I beleive youīre absolutely right about curved screens, and why not
deep curved screens! All the time. If theaters could show 35mm
films on the curve in the 50īs and 60īs, there should be no
problems with todays first class Iscoīs and Schneiderīs.
When I had my theater rebuilt a couple of years ago, I decided
to go for a curved screen. Its appr. 17 x 40 feet, with a depth
of 4 feet. Works beautifully with my Isco lenses (the red with
a BlueStar anamorphic). And, whatīs most important, the custo-
mers love it. They ask if we get special prints, if itīs 70mm
and so on. People come from far away to see films here,
especially films like StarWars, Lord of the Ring etc. The image
may not be perfect (curved screens do produce distrortion), but
it does have an impact on the audience. Itīs "show".
Thomas
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-06-2006 12:51 PM
This thread started out interesting, but it's now decaying into tedium...
Nonetheless, there are some points raised since I came last that I'd like to address.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
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.
Theaters already have a product that cannot be experienced at home. However, it's not the movie. People have proven that they can get the movie now if they really want it (bootleg DVD's, downloads, etc.) or wait 121 days for it to show up at Best Buy for $14.99 (tomorrow's release of HP4).
What theaters have that people want is the movie-going experience. They want to go out, have fun, and enjoy a movie.
I wish I would have saved the comment where I first heard it, but it goes something to the effect of "Theaters shouldn't be selling the movie, they should be selling the experience."
Just like I can buy all the ingredients and cook myself a major dinner, there are times when I'd much rather leave the cooking and cleaning to someone else and go to a restaurant. In addtion to the offloading of the work, there is the prospect that the quality of the result should be better because I'm leaving it up to professionals.
How many theaters are delivering a better movie experience than I can create in my own home? That's the real competition here. Home theater technology is advancing to the point where it's not that difficult and not that expensive to get a really good quality product at home. It's the experience that matters, and as long as theaters can deliver a better total experience, there will always be business for them.
That said, how many theaters are delivering on that challenge? How many multiplexes are filled with more shoeboxes than mega-screens? I watched Final Destination 3 in a theater that probably had no more than 80 seats in it. The sound was good, but the picture was smallish (probably 20-23 ft). I bought soda and popcorn, and had to serve myself the soda. I asked for no butter "flavoring" but got it anyway and didn't feel like confronting the concession person about it.
The vertical masking incorrectly adjusted right before the movie started, and then readjusted itself to the correct position once the credits started rolling and the house lights brightened. Bringing it to the attention of the staff after the movie just resulted in being told it was fine because someone on staff came in during the credits and it looked fine.
I think wishing for 65mm origination makes for great discussion, I think it makes a lot of sense for future-proofing and archiving, and I'd love to see it happen. But even if it did, and 70mm prints were struck, you'd still have to have theaters capable of projecting it competently. Do you think that a theater that can't figure out the masking is going to be able to handle, much less care about, 70mm projection? Maybe I'm cynical, but I can't imagine it.
quote: Steve Guttag
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.
I didn't include all of Steve's comments about how each step in the filming, printing, and projection process can diminish the final product, but that text could be used as the basis statement for end-to-end digital moviemaking.
Granted, the resolution of Digital Cinema hasn't surpassed the resolution of 35mm film. But it will, and in short order. Look how far things have progressed in just the last 4-5 years. Film technology is just not making the same strides that digital technology is, and film will eventually lose the race if that scenario continues. It's already losing the race, and it still has theoretical resolution advantages, because of the other aspects of digital creation, post-processing, and projection that make the total package very attractive.
It is this total package that film projection is up against, not just resolution. 70mm can probably wipe the floor with Digital Cinema for a long time to come, but the numbers of theaters capable of projecting 70mm are small and dwindling with every passing year.
From the sounds of it, some very good DP's do not even have 65mm on their radar, and don't care to take up the good fight. While that should not stop anyone from advocating its use, it certainly diminishes the hope for a total 65/70 production path. That leaves 35/70 blowups. I agree that big screens need more light, and they need a better image to project. If a blow-up to 70mm does that, then I'm all for it. But getting equipment into theater locations that count every popcorn kernel is going to be a tough road indeed.
35mm projection is dying. Once the economics are figured out, digital projection will sweep through theaters faster than CD's killed cassette tapes and vinyl records. 70mm would probably really help the big screens, but the same theaters that are shooting a 35mm image to a 75' wide screen are probably going to do the same thing with digital cinema, regardless if it's the right thing to do.
Resolution matters, but so does illumination and image stability. The damn picture has to be in focus and it needs to sit still! I'd rather not serve my own soda, but if it means that I'll actually get the soda I wanted, I'm willing to do that, even if it means cheapening my movie experience. At least that's something I can control. But I can't go into the booth and fix jump and weave or incorrect masking, and I shouldn't have to struggle with staff that doesn't understand the situation.
Then I might as well just stay home and do it myself. Which is the real point of all this discussion, right? 70mm has the potential to deliver a better movie-going experience, but the other factors also have to be there for anything like that to really succeed, don't they?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-06-2006 05:59 PM
quote: Thomas Jonsson
When I had my theater rebuilt a couple of years ago, I decided
to go for a curved screen. Its appr. 17 x 40 feet, with a depth
of 4 feet. Works beautifully with my Isco lenses (the red with
a BlueStar anamorphic). And, whatīs most important, the custo-
mers love it. They ask if we get special prints, if itīs 70mm
and so on. People come from far away to see films here,
especially films like StarWars, Lord of the Ring etc. The image
may not be perfect (curved screens do produce distrortion), but
it does have an impact on the audience. Itīs "show".
More exhibitors should have your attitude Thomas ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Certainly the curve is a compromise. Todd-AO lenses were designed to work with the curve and in that sense the distortion is reduced. There is also the problem of the cropping in the center. But the overall result can be amazing. I saw Hello Dolly last year in Bradford on the curve and together with How The West Was Won was one of the most terrific experiences I have had at the pictures. This is what I meant about having a unique product. Cinemas no longer have these products, you cannot put the two films I have mentioned on the cage of home cinema, they cannot breath there, they need the big screen to show its full potential. Many films nowadays are designed to look good on DVD. And home cinema screens and big screens are two worlds apart. Look at directors who used widescreen at its best like Nicholas Ray or Vincent Minelli, their films deserve the big screen treatment.
At the end of the day it is a matter of personal taste. Omnimax has got a terrible problem of distortion on the sides, which I find unbearable, but Todd-AO has an excellent overall result on the curve and this helps the immersive experience.
Many years ago, when video appeared, I remember friends of mine, saying I can see this film at home when it comes out on video. People seem to reserve their money for cinema tickets only when they can get something exceptional in terms of experience.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I wish I would have saved the comment where I first heard it, but it goes something to the effect of "Theaters shouldn't be selling the movie, they should be selling the experience."
Yes, but 65/70 helps enourmously to get that experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-07-2006 01:12 AM
quote:
When I first saw "Dr Zhivago" in
70mm I actually thought it was shot on 65mm film. It wasnīt until
years later I found out it was a blow-up.
Lots of people thought this. And I think this illustrates the validy of blow-ups as an acceptable presentation method.
After having somehow survived these nearly 40 pages of discussion, I find it unfortunate that too many people (many of them right here in this group) think of 35>70mm blow-ups only in terms of being inferior to 65mm-originated presentations (a glass half-empty style of thinking). On the other hand, some folks (including myself) have a more positive view by considering blow-ups to be superior to conventional 35mm projection formats (a glass half-full scenario). I mean, once a decision is made to shoot a particular project in 35mm, then at that point why bother comparing it to 65mm; it's a given it'll never match that type of quality. But at least 35mm, when blown up to 70mm, has a chance to be given first-class treatment during the presentation stage where the resulting image can take on some of the visual characteristics of real 70mm (brightness, steadiness, etc.), plus you have an opportunity to increase the movie's perceived prestige or "marquee value" by turning it into an event. (And I have no doubt that this "marquee value" concept was a factor in many of the '70s, '80s & '90s blow-ups, rather than always being done for an improvement in sound.)
BTW, it seems everyone is quick to harp on MGM or director David Lean for deciding to shoot "Doctor Zhivago" in 35mm and settling for a blow-up, when I believe it was actually cinematographer Freddie Young who made that suggestion.
| 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
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic