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 49)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 46 47 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-10-2006 08:50 PM

Four?

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-10-2006 08:58 PM

Doesn't DTS recommend 2 readers for 70mm, 1 primary and 1 backup? If they're on changeovers...

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-11-2006 09:53 AM

I usually don't put in the back up reader on 70 dts and the large timecode is very robust and never had it miss a beat

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 04-11-2006 06:40 PM

Just letting everyone know we've added a Work Topics section to the 65/70mm Online Workshop homepage, as kindly hosted by Thomas Hauerslev:

http://www.in70mm.com/workshop/index.htm

In terms of contributions, what we'd like to get are articles on any of the different topics...we'll convert each heading to a weblink to the received material, as it comes in.

(Now you're almost back in action Mr. Hauberg you are very welcome to join our contributors!)

Our motto on this is "Suspend Your Disbelief" [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 04-13-2006 07:48 PM

Yup: Two projectors with two readers each. As my kind (but maybe a bit too sales-minded tech put it: Titanic with one reader is going over the Atlantic without a spare-motor... Hmm
And I first brought platters in the mid-ninetees. -No reason to chose the 70mm version even at that time, so two projectors it is !
The sad fact is, that where You guys in english-speaking territories may have a small chance to ever see (and run) a 70mm print again, we are most surely out, because of that very expensive subtitling, we need, if a film is about to do serious business in Denmark.

Per

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 04-15-2006 05:20 AM

Great point Per, we'll add it to the list!

Sounds like an ideal opportunity to apply e.g. the DTS 35mm subtitling system to 70mm...

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 05-13-2006 09:48 PM

I'm surprised to see nothing on film-tech regarding the American Cinematheque's recent 70mm festival in Los Angeles. Surely Jeff Joseph and myself weren't the only film-techers to make it to the fest, no?

To recap, the fest included a (faded) 1968 re-issue 30fps print of "Around The World In Eighty Days" + a NEW print of "The Miracle Of Todd-AO"

NEW print of "South Pacific" + original (faded) print of same

"Patton" (2001 print)

"Brainstorm"

"The Road Warrior" (not sure why this was programed)

I was there with lobby display board in tow for everything except "The Road Warrior." I'm glad I had a chance to see "South Pacific" which I had never before seen. But...remind me to never again sit through it *twice* in the same day!

It's too bad our forum stars like Larry Myers couldn't attend. I would've liked to hear his explanation as to why the new prints of "Patton" and "South Pacific" look *better* than the last few contemporary movies I've seen. [Big Grin]

New print of "Cleopatra" on May 15!!!

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 05-14-2006 11:58 AM

Since my name was brought up I thought I would make a few comments. It's all in a point of view. If we look on the other 70mm thread, some people think 70/8 perf is crap and somewhat grainy. Well if they think 70/8perf is crap, I wonder what they think of 70/5 perf?

Again, todays film is a fluid mix and match of resolution, scale , equipment, lenses, print generations and a whole cornucopia of other technical stuff.

The big issue with this thread is the modern use of 70/5 perf and why there is not more of it? Again, a whole cornucopia of reasons from film cost to view quality and anything in the middle.

There is no technical reason Pearl Harbor done on 35mm true scope with Kodak Vision stock could not look the same a South Pacific done on old 65/70 Eastman Tripack. In fact, a few SHOW PRINTS of Pearl Harbor did just that. Too bad these show prints were intermixed with high speed prints so not everyone can or will agree.

[ 05-14-2006, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 216
From: Bromolla, Sweden
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 05-14-2006 02:31 PM

Michael, what was the reason for showing a faded
print of South Pacific? Do you know?

Thomas

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 05-14-2006 03:31 PM

And what was the sound format on tne new print? DTS or mag? If DTS, possibly the reason for the faded print was to compare the sound quality?

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-15-2006 10:08 AM

The restored print of "South Pacific" was the 151 minute version. The other print was an original Road Show version that runs 171 minutes. It was a rare screening to show what was cut out of the film before it went into general release which is the 151 minute running time.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 05-15-2006 01:28 PM

quote: Frank Angel
And what was the sound format on tne new print? DTS or mag?

DTS.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 05-15-2006 01:45 PM

Is any lab in the feature film striping business anymore? [Confused]

What was the last NEWLY STRIPED 70mm print anyone has received? Branaugh's "Hamlet"?

AFAIK, the cost of properly capturing and recycling the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions is just not economically feasible for the relatively small volumes of coating.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 05-15-2006 02:02 PM

quote: John Pytlak
What was the last NEWLY STRIPED 70mm print anyone has received? Branaugh's "Hamlet"?

"Hamlet" was probably the last new contemporary first-run title to have a run of 70mm-mag prints. And a lot, too, for what was essentially an art flick.

Since "Hamlet," there were (very) small runs of the following:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Baraka
Lawrence Of Arabia
Sleeping Beauty
Tron

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 05-15-2006 03:13 PM

Control of VOC emissions from striping operations is similar to the paint and coating industry:

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/01/00777/backgr.htm

quote:
The major components of solvent-borne paints and coatings are solvents, binders, pigments, and additives. In paint, the combination of the binder and solvent is referred to as the paint "vehicle." Pigment and additives are dispersed within the vehicle (IHWRIC, p. 2). The amount of each constituent varies with the particular paint, but solvents traditionally make up about 60% of the total formulation. Typical solvents include toluene, xylene, MEK, and MIBK. Binders account for 30%, pigments for 7 to 8%, and additives for 2 to 3% (KSBEAP, p. 4). Environmental issues surrounding paints usually center around solvents and heavy metals used in the pigments. Binders and other additives can also affect the toxicity of the paint depending on the specific characteristics of the paint.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 ... 46 47 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.