|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
|
|
John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler
Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 03-09-2006 07:03 PM
Edit: Sorry while I was typing this the votes closing the thread came up and i agree but i thought leave this here anyway.
Here is a qoute from widescreenmuseum.com
quote:
20th Century Fox secured world rights to Anamorphoscope, (with the exception of France and its possessions) and Chrétien's small inventory of lenses. They immediately put them to use in Hollywood by resuming pre-production on The Robe, which had been halted while the old Chrétien lenses, were being evaluated. When the film finally went before the cameras it was simultaneously shot in the standard Academy format for release in theatres not equipped for anamorphic projection in addition to the anamorphic lenses, though the resounding popularity of both CinemaScope and The Robe made it unnecessary for the standard version ever to be shown in a theatre. The size of the original anamorphic adapters limited photography to the use of only 50mm and longer prime lenses. Fox contracted with Bausch & Lomb optical company to produce additional anamorphic adapter lenses.
It's funny how with H.Chretien's c.1927 design (a.k.a CinemaScope) and many others of that early cinema period;
Veriscope, Panoramica, Natural Vision, Magnafilm to name a few, never saw the light of day for normal production and then a few decades later a tiny little predator called Television comes along and changed history. Personally I think the industry was fine with 1.37 and 3-strip Technicolor and B&W but I suppose things have to change but then they have gone backwards again. 65 and 8/35 dumped for continued use of the 4/35 which now looks set to be dumped for Digital. The Moviemaking Gods must be crazy.
Altough I am young (24) at least I've had a chance to see some the best of 70mm (apart from 30fps Todd-AO) and original Technicolor prints of films raging from 1955-1972. My next goal is to experience "Nitrate Technicolor" and if all plans go well that won't to long a'coming.
Sadly looks like you guys are alone on the frontline of the 70mm battle with little or no reinforcements. Larry Myres is staggering around in No Mans Land, you should use him for target practice.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-10-2006 12:29 AM
Taking 70mm lens history...you you have the Super Cinephores (B&L) Kollmorgen SNAPLITES and ISCO Kiptikon lenses of the 50s/60s. B&L and Kollmorgen dropped out and ISCO developed the Ultra series of lenses in the 70s...then ISCO and Schneider split apart with Schneider bringing out the Super Cinelux designs in the 80s (damn near identical to ISCO's versions if you ask me). ISCO also modernized their Kiptikon lenses into Ultra MCs (Still available on special order with deep curve correction or flat field).
In the late 80s into the early 90s both ISCO and Schneider developed the next generation of 5/70 lenes and yet again into the late '90s still new lens designs came out for 70mm though they are primarily for special venue with 8 and 10 perf 70mm and for odd shaped screens.
Thus, even 70mm lenes of today are Vastly Superior to the 70mm lenses of the 50s and 60s...70mm's heyday.
While 35mm has indeed improved...it has made no ground on 70mm.
You can't get around the laws of physics nor the absolutes of the real world. You like to quote numbers out of a book but they are not practical numbers. They don't relate to either the projection process nor the evolution of the image from the camera through final release print.
A 65/70 film shot in the 60s will look better and run steadier on a 70mm machine today than a brand spaking new 35mm true-scope, as you like to call it, by many orders of magnitude.
You can't seem to grasp this because you look at the numbers of capturing the image and what the human eye can perceive...but those numbers only relate to a perfect piece of film that was shot in the camera...they don't take into acount how the image is degraded through the process of making a release print and then onto projection.
As the saying goes with money...it isn't what you make, it is what you keep. In terms of resolution, steadiness, color saturation and such, each step in the duplication process for a typical 35mm release print takes away from all of those. 70mm does so at a lesser rate...at least in terms of resolution and steadiness. The sooner you get the image onto large gauge film (preferably in the camera itself) the better the final result.
If you ever compared a release print to an EK print the differences are astounding...a 70mm blow up gives that EK print look to the masses. If shot in 65mm, it would look even better and stand up better in the long run.
In the late '80s DuArt did a nifty experiement on what happens to film as it goes through duplication and they presented it at an SMPTE conference in LA (which I attended)...they showed how the image changed as it was duplicated and duplicated...with the small 35mm gauge, and taking into account the manufacturing tolerences of making, slitting, perforating, projecting the film, the smaller you are the worse the final result and all of the improvements in optics and print stocks won't change that..those sorts of improvements help the camera negative most and progressively less the rest of the chain (when it comes to resolution and steadiness).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 03-10-2006 04:06 AM
quote: Larry Myers
Just trying to understand projection lingo.
FINALLY, an interest in what we do in the booth, instead of trying to figure it out from looking from the outside - like looking though a big store window and trying to understand on what goes on.
All he needs to do is "zip the lip" for a while and LISTEN what others have to say, be a bit more opened minded and patient about what the conversations of others are trying to tell him instead of trying to be the center of attention and giving us impressions that he really knows how it all works with just guesses and mathematical figures.
quote: Larry Myers
Can man make 35mm good enough that it can't be better then 70mm.
.. (.love to see Larry take that 440cid motor that's in one of his cars, and make IT better - just by using stock parts and no .040 overboring, no fancy carburetion/injection/blowers/turbocharging/exhaust scavaging performed .. nothing. )
Why try to outdo something that has proved itself very well in a direct sense? Why not try to take another avenue in achieving the same goal?
Why is it so important anywho to do such a feat in making 35mm better than 70mm when the elements of performing such a feat are simply not there.
Let it rest!
Yet, I can agree with Steve, yet I can agree with others...and, if Brad wanted this topic closed, he would have done it 39 pages ago..."It's Entertainment".
I'd vote on leaving it up to Brad on this one.
-monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 03-10-2006 02:08 PM
quote: Larry Myers
Is 35mm true scope as good as 70mm was decades ago? With Vastly Superior lenses and Vastly Superior films available today, I say the answer is YES.
If you are talking about release prints in both cases...the answer is definately no. The modern true scope film will be softer and shakier and have an appearance of less detail. Lighting style have changed radically since the 60s though so there are other factors at play.
You would need to basically use Eastman stock to shoot some sort of target film...run it through the duplication process to obtain a 70mm release version of that film. Then do the same thing with 35mm anamorphic photography (shoot the same target) and then compare the pictures on the same projector. There is no question the older 65/70 film will win pretty easily in both resolution and steadiness from the theatre point of view.
If you are talking about just the negative as viewed under a microscope, then I could see the newer scope film having the edge. It might very well even hold up as far as the first generation print (EK) (I'd say that the modern 35mm print would win that one too except in steadiness). Once the added duplications come about (we are then two generations removed, minimum from the O-neg) the modern 35mm print looses everytime.
This applies just to a static image though...all is not as clear with the other artifacts like lens-flare astigmatism and such.
As to the added bulk of 65mm photography, I can't speak to its hassle anymore than you can speak to 70mm projection vs 35mm projection. From what I understand, the 65mm cameras developed in the 80s by both Arri and Panavision significantly reduced their bulk to remove that as a major sticking point. There are other issues like the finer detail of 65mm photography and even the increased light and reduced depth of field. Clearly, many factors come into play.
A big flaw in your argument though is that you seem to hold '60s era 70mm prints as the standard that all others are to be judged. Once that perceived level of excellence, then one need no more.
What a crap way to limit oneself. By definition, that was only "state-of-the-art" for the '60s. With the vast improvements in film stock and lenses for 65/70 photography, the bar has been raised, like it or not. The quality of 35mm release prints are unsatisfactory on all but the smallest screens. The steadiness and grains are not that great. Remember to, since you like the '60s era 70mm prints as your bench mark, release prints were often struck off of the O-neg...something that is not done today to preserve the negative. You are starting in the hole there already.
quote: Rick Raskin
There are us purists who will travel great distances to see a presentation in 70mm but we are vastly in the minority. The general public can't tell the difference between crap and roses and really could care less. The film mavens are severely conscious of the bottom line and they will compromise quality for the quick buck. After all, the public won't know or care. As I said in an earlier post, my kids think I'm crazy when I seek out optimal presentation. Sorry guys, but the almighty dollar wins on this one.
Sorry for the long quote but a lot of info was in there. Rick is right and he is very wrong. That is, the new generation does not seem to be quality conscience. 70mm offers quality. The current generation seems all concerned about price AND about convienence. 35mm isn't going to help there and Video is the death knell. Why, because once you put in video, you are essentially offering the public the SAME show with less resolution (in the theatre), more hassle more cost and nowadays, more commercials. Theatres will have ZERO product to offer that the consumer doesn't already have and in better quality (it takes a whole lot less resolution to look impressive in the home versus in a big theatre...just read Larry's comments on page...well all of them).
The exhibitor's best crack at maintaining some sort of market is 70mm in this day and age. It is a show that can not be achieved in the home and it is VASTLY superior to what the public has for a choice. It more closely simulates the restaurant analogy where everyone has a kitchen but they go out. They go out for many reasons. A primary one is for a perceived improved experience. If a restaurant opened as the "Swanson Diner Restaurant" where they literally opened the box, plopped in the over (or better yet, Microwave) and served it to you in the tray...it would close immediately...people already have that at home for less cost and less hassle. This is seemingly the market plan for the modern cinema as it currently is heading.
70mm (or whatever future technology that keeps the cinema considerably above the home quality) plus the environment is what can allow theatres to survive. Advertisements hurt the industry for they take away from the perceived improvement to the show. It wont be long when advertisers look at the declining attendance in the theatres and say they are not going to pay as much (or even look at theatres as good advertising venues) and then where will some exhibitors be? Probably closed.
One last thing about 70mm and its draw on the main stream public...it has NEVER not pulled in MORE than its market share of the revenue...someone out there seems to be noticing it in numbers and I see it on the various reissues too...people still come to see Lawrence of Arabia, Hello Dolly, Patton, 2001, Ben Hur...all films that people probably HAVE in their video collection.
Too many people here dismiss the power of this format way too easily...unfortunately, so does Hollywood. Then again, Hollywood is so dumb they pay actors millions of $$$ just to act...what a waste of money. Nobody is worth that much...Doctors that save peoples lives don't make that kind of money yet somehow actors are valued by the studios in that manner. 30-million dollar actors don't make a bad movie good (like 70mm, they can make a good movie better) but nobody is worth that kind of money on a movie (or really in any field).
Better to re-evaluate the exhibition biz and make it profitable just in the showing of the movie on ticket sales alone and cut back on the "talent" and concentrate on putting out a quality product in the best manner possible in all of the forms the media is available...and in 2006, that remains 70mm (bring this back on topic).
| 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
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic