|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 03-13-2006 04:40 PM
I am back from Bradford and I am glad that you have not closed this forum. Needless to say I have experienced once more the beauty of 65/70 films.
It is curious that in Bradford I gave the same example as Steve Guttag has given in this forum about a restaurant serving pre-cooked food bought in a supermarket to its customers. This example, I believe, explains it all.
I had the chance to see Batman begins on the IMAX screen and I have to say that it was a rather unpleasant experience. Although I value the fact that they have managed to show 35mm on their screen (well, a fraction of their screen) I noticed that there was not enough information on the negative as to be blown up to such proportion. Not only that, the film has not been designed to be shown on a huge screen and hence all the fighting scenes did not look good since they were mainly done with close shoots that caused more dizziness that awe. And this is the problem with blow-ups, it is not about blowing images, it is about creating a product for the big screen, and cinematographers and film directors knew that in the 50s and 60s.
Another thing that still amazes me is the terrific use of the 6 magnetic track recordings on the 50s and 60s productions. Those engineers were genius. Also film music composers had a strong knowledge of the orchestra and how to combine the timbre of the different instruments to create a startling effect. Those films had a powerful and at the same time subtle sound design, nowadays it is more of big bangs everywhere.
It was interesting to see the 70mm trailer of Far and Away and see director Ron Howard praising 65/70 and making a point about the difference between 65/70 and 35mm and what he calls “just blow-ups.
I was disappointed and somewhat saddened to find some people attending the widescreen weekend considering 65/70 as something from the past and digital being the future. They basically reduce the discussion to a simple technological race, and this is not right, this is basically missing completely the point about what art is about. Film is a completely different texture from digital, digital captured and projected images will never look the same as film. As I said before, this is like the painters who use oil on canvas telling the painters who use watercolour that their “technology” is better.
Images captured on film can be extremely beautiful, especially when you have a large negative, you can say that you can improve on this “technology” and this has in fact happened over the years with film, but I do not think that digital is an improvement on film, since it is more of a replacement.
Preserving the film experience can indeed be a very marketable idea, since film cannot be experienced at home. I am also sure that there are film directors and directors of photography who would like to continue producing their work, or part of it, on film. As I have said before you only need some reputed film directors endorsing the film texture and its value as an artistic tool to generate interest in audiences. This is the reason why I have emphasized from the beginning that this should be something done very well, and doing it very well implies using 65mm negative. It would need proper marketing trying to keep the market of audiences who like film and good film presentation and trying to bring back audiences who have given up on cinemas. It has been mentioned that someone like Clint Eastwood would be very good to bring 65/70 back and I agree.
There are obviously many factors that may led to the artists (directors of photography and film directors) abandoning film for digital, but it is very sad that they have to do so for economic reasons.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 602
From: Southampton. England
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 03-14-2006 12:04 PM
Although I can agree what Ramon is saying, but sadly we are being for forced to expect this new Medium Digital Cinema and the only way to see it in the future will be Digital.
I too was at this year's Bradford Widscreen Film Festival and quoteing the Artistic Director.
"Our World is Changing, Film is Changing. Festivals are Changing, It is Progress and is Unstoppable"
"As the world of Film movies ever onward and upward, embracing new technology and develpments, there will come a time when the word FILM will itself become redundant as more and more Movie makers switch to Digital, and Film itself become a museum piece, what price the "Film Maker", the "Projectionist" and the concept of "Film" festival itself?.
Only time will tell...Film is Dying, if we wish to avoid dying with it then our only option is to adapt,adjust and acclimatise"
My view on this statement, would the future of these "Film/Screening festivals Fail and Die as there would no longer a "Cinema Experience" and as it proved last weekend at Bradford the "Old 70mm Film" on big screens had the largest crowd puller to this Film Festival - (A future Vision)would these people still support something that would be just Digital pictures?.....
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 03-14-2006 03:13 PM
quote: Larry Myers
Although, you would not guess this by taking a short drive around Kodak Park.
Some of those old buildings dated back to the early 1900's. Modern base making machines and sensitizing machines replaced the old low productivity ones years ago. Things like film cans, cores, packaging, labels, raw chemicals, polyester granules, etc. are now often outsourced, rather than made within Kodak. Modern inventory control has dramatically reduced the need and cost of warehouse space -- motion picture print film is often loaded directly on the trucks going to the labs right after slitting and perforating, and is being shown by theatres within days of sensitizing.
quote: Mike Blakesley
But isn't that partly (if not mostly) due to seventy bazillion prints made for some blockbuster openings?
Sure, the move to more "day in date" release patterns has helped. But the vast majority of theatres are still showing film prints, and volumes have been GROWING for years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-17-2006 08:23 PM
quote: Manny Knowles
The primary benefit for doing 35-to-70mm blowups was for discrete multichannel audio. Digital sound has given that capability to 35mm.
At the time blow-ups were introduced (1963) a viable discrete multichannel audio format did exist: 4-track mag stereo on 35mm. And the difference between 4-track 35mm and 6-track 70mm was not as great as the difference between either of those mag formats compared with optical mono. In my opinion, high-quality, discrete multichannel digital sound on 35mm simply gives studio decision makers an excuse not to spend more money than they think is needed.
As has been stated previously here by several of us -- but apparently bears repeating -- are the reasons for a blow-up.
In no particular order:
1) Improvement in image quality
2) Improvement in audio quality
3) Marquee Value
Consider:
Were films like "Dead Poets Society," "Gorillas In The Mist," "The Two Jakes," "In Country," "Manhunter," "The Money Pit," "Adventures In Babysitting," and so many others blown up solely for their sound?
James Cameron's last three feature films were released simultaneously in 35mm and 70mm even though discrete multichannel digital sound was available on some or all of those films' 35mm prints.
| 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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic