|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 03-07-2006 10:20 AM
quote: Scott Jentsch
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.
I firmly believe major "destination" movie theaters should have absolutely no trouble at all on delivering on that experience. To clarify my point further about where 70mm should play -it should not be for just any movie theater. Ultimately video projection is going to be the norm in most movie theaters and actual film projection will only be found in the largest theaters. The really big "destination" movie theater sites need 70mm in those huge, cavernous rooms they have been building lately.
Now, if a movie theater company can't get qualified people or train people to be qualified to handle 70mm or even 35mm for a 700 seat room with a 80' X 35' screen, then they have some much deeper problems in their entire business model. Shit, running 70mm isn't exactly like performing heart surgery! I refuse to give any major movie theater site with giant rooms any slack at all for being unable to handle 70mm. That's a pathetic cop out. If they can't currently handle such operation, they need to find a way -or consider doing something else for a living!
quote: Scott Jentsch
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.
Actually I don't call what's happened between 1999 and 2005 exactly progress. The technology merely went from a puny 1280 X 1024 pixel specification common to any 17" computer monitor to a 2K specification not much larger than a standard "1080p" HDTV monitor.
Basically, I think it's going to be a long time before 4K becomes the de facto standard. I think it will be an even longer amount of time before video processes can ever get into the neighborhood of 70mm.
The computing and electronics companies won't have much of any incentive to develop imager chips that extend well above the 2K level for a long time. That's because they want to sell the same imager parts in consumer electronics. And even that area has been frustratingly slow in some regards. HDTV has been around for about a decade, but only now are some HDTV sets actually hitting the full 1920 X 1080 pixel specification -but nearly all of those sets have no capability to input a 1080p signal. When you dig into the features and specifications of just about any HDTV set in existence there's all sorts of compromise and cut backs happening all over the place.
Business people rather than scientists and engineers are driving the development more than ever. And they want to do as little has humanly possible and sell as much of the old shit as they can. There's more profit in that. The fact 2K has remained the standard for CGI and digital intermediate work is valid evidence of this foot dragging. 4K is very feasible. Computing technology is more than powerful enough to handle that and do so at faster speeds than 2K was being produced just a few years ago. But 2K is "good enough" and more profitable for all those greedy suits. Screw raising the quality bar.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-07-2006 11:18 AM
OK, so let's recap, shall we?
I'm going to throw up some points, and let's see where we stand on them so that we can get some clarity to the situation. I'm bound to mess some of this up, so I need help filling in the blanks and correcting the errors.
Problem: It's difficult to project a high quality image to a very large screen.
This is primarily due to
1) illumination challenges in bulbs used in 35mm projectors shooting through 35mm film
2) 35mm film does not have enough color saturation when projected so large.
Question: How large of a screen are we talking about?
In the TAP guidelines (I. Film Presentation, B. Viewing Conditions and Image Quality, 1. Screen illumination), screen luminance should be 16fL +/- 2fL at the center, and not less than 75% and not more than 90% at edges of the screen (5% in from each edge). No portion of the screen should be less than 10fL. It references ANSI/SMPTE 196M-1995 and SMPTE RP98-1995
What size of screen and/or what wattage of bulb creates this scenario? What are the conditions that should make a cinema consider installing a 70mm projector (assuming the prints were available)?
Solution: Install a 70mm projector and run 70mm prints.
Why:
The larger print area provides a larger image source to be projected, therefore providing more clarity and it allows more light to be projected through the film, which increases screen brightness.
How much does it cost?
According to a post by Louis Bornwasser on 1/27/2006, the increased cost would be approximately $4,100 ($2,000 for the head, $1,100 for the lens, and $1,000 for platter and roller changes).
What about running 35mm prints?
Some projectors are capable of running both 35mm and 70mm.
Questions: What projectors? What's required to do this? Are some projectors "70mm-ready"? How hard is it to switch between handling the two formats?
There hasn't been a 70mm film made in years!
While the best case scenario is that a film is made in 65mm from the start, there are real gains to be had by taking a 35mm source and blowing it up to 70mm. The duplication process for 70mm produces a much more stable and higher quality result, than the duplication process for 35mm. The sooner a 35mm film is converted to 70mm, the better.
Because of this, 35mm blown-up to 70mm will still look better than 35mm projected onto a large screen.
The ideal condition, of course, is for filmmakers to create in 65mm to begin with. This provides a large negative that can be used for a variety of end results, whether that end result is a 70mm presentation, a 35mm presentation, or 2K/4K digital cinema presentation.
Having a high quality source to work with will ensure that the best results can be had now, and especially as digital cinema resolutions continue to increase in the future. The need for high quality source material will only become more important.
What movies have been created in 65mm?
Needed: a link to a list of movies created in 65mm
What movies have been created in 35mm and then presented in 70mm (blow-ups)?
Needed: a link to a list of 35mm movies blown-up to 70mm
What theaters are currently capable of presenting 70mm?
Needed: a link to a list of 70mm-equipped theaters
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 03-07-2006 01:42 PM
I'm gonna chime in on the positive side of the blow-up factor: Yes, the 70 releases of the 35mm normal releases do look very good - like the first three Star Wars, the three Indiana Jones movies,,,"E.T.", just to name a few.
I knew that these were originally shot in anamorphic, or Super35, but the lab's magical tricks in doing an excellent duping process for these blow-up releases was excellent in my book.
Who cares about the flipping numbers, the eye proves it all.
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 03-07-2006 02:51 PM
My questions aren't an attempt to get out the measuring stick, per se, but rather an attempt to collect facts that can be used for a persuasive document that provides real information to interested parties. I don't particularly care how many 35mm movies have been produced, because it doesn't pertain to what I'm looking for.
Maybe I should provide examples for more clarity:
65mm origination/70mm presentation:
http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?OFM:65%20mm
35mm origination/70mm presentation (aka blow-up):
http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PFM:70%20mm
(this link is only for 70mm print format, not 35mm origination and 70mm print format)
A search on IMDb Pro reports that 300 movies were shot in 35mm and presented in 70mm. However, that includes IMAX DMR movies, which probably don't count, right?
On a tangential note, can a DMR-equipped theater play a standard 70mm film?
The last blow-up appears to be Pearl Harbor in 2001, which was the one-time print for the Tokyo Dome, Japan. The last wide release looks to be Armageddon in 1998.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I firmly believe major "destination" movie theaters should have absolutely no trouble at all on delivering on that experience. To clarify my point further about where 70mm should play -it should not be for just any movie theater. Ultimately video projection is going to be the norm in most movie theaters and actual film projection will only be found in the largest theaters. The really big "destination" movie theater sites need 70mm in those huge, cavernous rooms they have been building lately.
Bobby,
I agree with you in that I think that if there is any chance that 70mm presentations could be done again, it would be in those large auditoriums that need the benefits that 70mm can provide.
I've been in the Marcus Westown Ultrascreen many times, and the 75' screen must be too big for their setup. I don't know if it's a throw-distance issue, a lens issue, or what, but the picture quality is poor. Poor contrast, jump, and weave. It might be poor focus as well, but it's hard to know when the picture is jumping around so much that watching text on the screen makes you want to grab the Dramamine.
Even though it's the biggest screen in SE Wisconsin, I'll not go back because of repeated problems observed over the course of a couple of years. (Last time I was there was for Sahara in April 2005)
They're building a replacement for that location a few blocks away, so perhaps they'll correct whatever is wrong with that setup. I'd love to see them install a 70mm projector there, but I can't imagine it, even though they probably have a few sitting around from other locations in the area.
With a source of facts like I'm trying to collect (with the help of fine folks here), there is a source of information that can be referenced in discussions and by the curious.
It's a long shot, but I think it's worth trying. It may tilting at windmills, but I don't mind putting in the time to create the info if it means that there is real information out there for both people in the industry and movie fans alike to read.
| 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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic