Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres (Page 43)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-11-2006 10:46 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
However, when they received a 70mm print it got a resurgance in business like it was a new film again ("Now in 70mm" I believe the newspaper ads ran).

Elaborating on your comment, it went something like this:

quote:

35mm release on May 25, 1977; 70mm began Dec. 16, 1977
Washington, DC: [RKO Stanley-Warner] Uptown
"Now In Dolby Stereophonic And 70mm At The Uptown Theatre"
"You Have Never Seen Anything Until You've Seen...Star Wars In 70mm With Full 6 Track Magnetic Dolby Stereophonic Sound!"

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 03-11-2006 11:08 AM

Ahh but it's really not much different, if any difference in printing aerial recon film on roller transport printers. Actually, it's harder because you don't have perfs. Some of the major aerial recon systems used 70mm. One major system that used 70mm was on the declassified KH-4. We used 70mm Kodachrome in it from time to time. The only real problem with this is it needed to be cut down to 35mm for processing. I asked why we just don't just use Eastman Color Negative. The answer was, the stuff had way high grain and low resolution. Kodachrome was much better results running around 100 lp/mm with very fine grain. With Eastman Color, you were lucky to get 30 lp/mm out of it on a good day.

We had one person assigned as resolution transfer engineer. It was his job to see to it that after the dup process, everything that was on the original was also on the dup. The process was exactly the same with 10 inch wide film. So the process is the same and the results are the same regardless of film size.

[ 03-11-2006, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 03-11-2006 11:26 AM

quote: Stephen Furley
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.

This was from a paper presented by IMAX staff at the 1993 SMPTE Conference.

quote: Jeffry L. Johnson
Taken from Appendix 1 of SMPTE Preprint No. 135-22: IMAX HD -- A High Definition Motion Picture System (1993).

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-11-2006 01:02 PM

I also thought the pixels ratings from that SMPTE paper were pretty weird.

When one considers how so many digital technology proponents are trying to come up with ways how to spin a low resolution image into being a higher rez image (things like "wobbulation" etc.) they are being inconsistent and unfair to the analog film formats. Hewlett Packard is currently selling one model of HDTV monitor as "1080p" when it really isn't -the monitor uses wobbulation to create a faux 1080p image.

The irregular, organic spacing of film grain creates a smooth spatial consistency that puts still hard-edged digital techniques like wobbulation to shame. So if all the digital fanboys want to pass wobbulation off as something that creates more native pixels then they need to treat film in the same manner.

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 03-11-2006 01:42 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
it is a special theatre

By today's standards, very special indeed. With all due respect, my comment about dust in the balcony came from buzz around the Union Hall back in the day. I was alarmed to see the local listings recently begin referring to it as "AMC LOEWS UPTOWN 1". I hope there is nothing sinister lurking in the wings.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 03-12-2006 11:20 AM

Since this topic has gone on for so long, I figure I just have to throw in a comment ....

It doesn't matter how many license plates fit in a 70mm frame, in IMHO the studios will never ever accept 70mm. They don't even want to pay for good 35mm prints. I'm sorry to say, and sad to say, any talk about reinventing 70mm for the average theater is a complete waste of time. In fact, forget ideas about improving the image or the sound at all, because the studios have already demonstrated they have no interest.

Here's my not-very-well-thought-out idea and I admit it sucks, but it's one of the few things that *might* work: Convince the studios that the existing film distribution infrastructure is cheaper than replacing it with a digital one.

How? I don't know. Hey, I told you it was not-very-well-thought out. But money is the only thing the studios are interested in, so that's the starting point.

How would I start? Back to basics: Have a clean theater and good presentation. Take good care of prints. Do those silly, but fun promotions theaters used to do in the 60's and 70's.

Next, here's where it get tough. I feel there are too many screens in the USA, by about 15%. Gotta get rid of them. A lifeboat can only hold so many people until it sinks and everyone dies. So, theaters that are dumps have to go, and the only way is an aggressive champaign 'outing' them. A controlling body like NATO would be good to organize this. Less screens mean remaining theaters can operate well. Studios will make a little less because thay can't play tough with terms, but that hopefully will be offset by increases because the public might return.

Now, don't read 'absolutes' into my statements above. I can't write all of the conditions, exceptions, etc. into this posting. But, you think things are bad now? I think it will get much worse. Sadly, hard times call for hard decisions.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 03-12-2006 12:44 PM

John; I LIKE your thoughts...let me add a few:

I think I am seeing that good theatres circuits seem to be improving and bad ones seem to be getting worse.

What about "a sliding scale" for film rental based on unbiased quality checks? Louis

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-12-2006 01:57 PM

John is right on the money....and money is what it is all about in the first place. If DVD/ppv/cable releases could garner the same profit margins as theatrical runs, the studios would be overjoyed to simply do without theatres altogether. They are not in the "theatre" business....they are in the pipeline to the audience business and if that pipeline happens to work without needing to deal with theatres as one of the outlets, it would just be a pimple on the ass that they wouldn't have to deal with.

So exhibitors had better wake up to that fact and clean up their act. Closing grind houses is an almost essential step toward a goal where theatres can offer a presentation so alluring that there will be a large enough public demand for the theatrical experience that the home theatre experience wouldn't threaten. This has ALWAYS been the case. Back in the 1970s when multiplexes began, most of them were not new builds but were single screens that were twined and then tripled and on and on until they were turning restrooms into "cinemas" -- horrid abortions that was the beginning of the "I can't stand going to the movies." syndrome. I remember writing a diatribe to BoxOffice mag lamenting the loss of decent theatres and more especially decent presentation. While exhibition has improved and the newest builds are quite impressive, the "wow" factor simply isn't there for the majority of theatres. And the proof of this is that when I was a kid, I never ever heard anyone say they hated going to the theatre. Today, that is a universal lament. The reason for this is many layered and complex, but the bottom line is, theatres haven't figured out what it is they need to do to remove that stigma, other than knashing their teeth and wrending their garments. And the thing that proves to me that they still haven't a clue about what makes their business tick is their seeming reluctance to fight digital tooth and nail. Embracing mediocrity is not going to cause an upturn in their business. It took 10 years for them to install stereo sound, and it took another 10 years of feet dragging and moaning to get $700 reverse scan red readers in place, yet putting in $100,000 projectors and junking their existing investment in film projectors seems not to even cause them to wince. Problem is, if digital does dominate the industry, it may cause crappy houses to close and maybe there will be a weeding out of marginal operations, but the down side is that whatever screens are left will be stuck using a format that is inherently inferior that what is already in place. And this is NOT the direction that will save exhibition.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-12-2006 02:24 PM

quote: John Walsh
Here's my not-very-well-thought-out idea and I admit it sucks, but it's one of the few things that *might* work: Convince the studios that the existing film distribution infrastructure is cheaper than replacing it with a digital one.

That won't work at all. John's premise's are good but he is a bit off the mark in reality land. This whole thing is all about print cost! Indeed Digital Projection WILL BE LESS EXPENSIVE for Distribution to pick up the tab on over about a 5 year period as they will only have to pick up the tab one time. Over that 5 year period there will be no more 1200.00 print orders by the thousands... costing Millions of dollars. Those "print order" monies will be diverted to pay off the cost of D-Cinema in about that 5 year period. Then all they do is stamp out 50 cent Blue Ray disks by the thousands for us to download onto our servers. By that time the D-Cinema conversion costs will all have been paid off and the Distributers will live happily ever after..... and have less expense for the remainder of Cinema or till the next conversion to what ever viewing medium takes place.

Unfortunately the reality of it all is pretty obvious.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 03-12-2006 02:53 PM

..and what's kinda obvious that the bulk of us that post in these forums are getting "old."

"OLD", in a way that we've almost seen and experienced it all - almost from the beginnings, - to the "art of presentation days and where being a projectionist was a honest trade and paid very well" - to the entry of the megaplexes, "usherBEES", high school kiddie, minumum wage operations, and now with the entry of DC - so Hollyrock can have that control once again in the area of domination of American entertainment

Thus, being and getting "old" to where we all are frustrated in what is coming upon us and seeing what the future in this business is in store for us, yet we all, deep insde, KNOW what it SHOULD be like and how it SHOULD be operated.

...and with "being old", this is bugging the crap out of all of us...and we really don't know what to do, yet we know that there is a whole lot that we can't do about it since we "oldsters" are eventually getting completely pushed out of the picture by the "new generation."

Yet with being "old", we still love the 70mm releases - either with the 65mm original process or with 35mm blowups...we can only keep this love in our hearts and try to share this with others with our tales and experiences of this "old" format - why all of the 70mm revivals floating around the world..to keep the spirit and the "old" hearts alive.

We "oldsters" know now that we have to accept IMAX and thank goodness,this format can come in trying its best to revive this love of the large format presentations of old and show DC cinemaa that large format 15/70 film presentations are what seeing the film on the big screen is all about: "Entertainment up the MAX!"

thx-Monte

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-12-2006 03:43 PM

Actually John is quite wrong...I see an increase in a rather stupid format...the IMAX DMR release. Stupid in that the IMAX DMR doesn't really use that format to its advantage but instead reduces the frame size to one that is not too much larger than 5/70. 5/70 offers all of the advantages of IMAX DMR at a fraction of the cost. The studios seem to be shelling out for IMAX...it shouldn't be THAT hard of a sell to instead go for 5/70...far less costly.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-12-2006 05:04 PM

I absolutely agree Steve! Dummest of all the dumb formats in existance and a large film waster. If they were going to do it right it would be anamorphic and use the full width of the frame, probably something near a 2.0 squeeze or there abouts. But remember you're dealing with dummies running Hollywood today, don't expect them to understand anything. FAce it though... compared to even a general 35mm release DMR is a pin head of profit.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-12-2006 05:21 PM

quote: John Walsh
I'm sorry to say, and sad to say, any talk about reinventing 70mm for the average theater is a complete waste of time.

I don't think anyone is advocating putting 70mm into "average" theaters. 2K HDTV quality video projection is going to take over there.

The theaters I mention are extremely far from average. An auditorium with several hundred seats and a giant screen 70' or 80' in width clearly needs 70mm film prints. There is a clear case for providing them with such prints. That's because presentation quality definitely suffers without such prints. 35mm and video projection aren't up to the job. Those kinds of theaters draw viewers from considerable distances. Some command premium prices (like those offering balcony seating with cash bars, food service, etc.). Frankly, any film distributor feeling such a theater is not worthy of a 70mm print is being a crazy cheapskate. 70mm projection will improve the marketability of such theaters. And that's also how you can whittle down that screen count.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-12-2006 08:40 PM

Back in the good old days in Oz, the studios owned, or had a major stake, in the chains. If they thought that a 70mm film could roadshow in their theatres, they made it. Although Cinerama and ToddAO were pioneered outside the studio system, the studios caught on quickly.

That is what is making this idea so hard to get traction. Studios are on one side and exhibitors are on the other. And the poor film makers are in the wilderness.

As a relative newcomer to this site, I can see that John Walsh is right, Monte Fulmer is right, Bobby Henderson is right, Frank Angel is right and even poor, wounded Larry Myres is right. I am probably the only one who is wrong.

Take a break. There are no points to be won here. Read back through 40+ pages and you will find more agreement than disagreement on the basic question. Get a prop ready together. Take it to Showest and talk to as many of the big guys as you possibly can.

At least you will demonstrate to them that you care.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-12-2006 11:15 PM

I did a little shooting in 70mm earlier Sunday.

Bang Bang.
[Cool]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 48 49 50

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.