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 6)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 10:49 AM

If the Pittsford Plaza had a Century JJ then I am being mislead. About 4 years ago I purchased a Holmes 8 from a guy in Webster that worked at Pittsford Plaza. In the basement he had a almost new looking Vic 8 with lots for 70mm films. He gave me a big story on how he got the Vic 8 out of Pittsford Plaza when it closed down. I took him at his word. I have gone to many shows at the Plaza 3 but never been in the booth itself.

Anyway, this guy said every 70mm film he had was faded to red so the Vic is just lead weight. I had asked if he wanted to sell it. He said, no way that 70mm may come back some day and he wanted to be ready for it.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 01-29-2006 11:43 AM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Yet, I was wondering if "Alien" was shot in Super35

Alien was shot with anamorphic lenses not the Optical printer method that is used for Super 35. Not all blow ups of features look good on 70MM.

I think the reason it is wrong to release day and date on different formats is because you are cutting in on someones business. When a movie is released the movie theatre exhibitors should have the exclusive right to play the feature and have it the only way to see it. You must have these windows to have fair trade. Like I said before word of mouth spreads better than any advertising. People see it in the theatres. They tell their friends who may or may not go to the movie theatres. They say cool I will have to see that one. Video store gets the DVD/VHS a few months later. Wow! look what we have here. The same guy that saw the same movie in the theatre and told his same friends about the same movie now has that same movie in his hands ready to purchase or rent. You could say that could still happen with day and date but where would the fair trade be. Movie theatres would lose money because their fair trade was infringed on because they would lose return business caused by the ability to rent or purchase the feature. It's a milking process. You milk it all you can at the cinema then you milk it some more on DVD/VHS rentals and sales then you get the last bit of milk out of pay per view and television rights. Then you repeat the process. That my friends is the foundation of the industry and if you screw with it it will send things crumbling down fast.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

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

posted 01-29-2006 12:09 PM

quote: Darryl Spicer
That my friends is the foundation of the industry

That is the current foundation of the business. But the content providers (the studios) are questioning whether they're getting maximum return on their marketing dollar by spending millions to promote a movie for its theatrical run, and then turning around a few months later and running another costly marketing campaign for home video release. From their perspective, all they care about is whether "Movie X" nets them $50M in profit from the current release model, but might net $55M by switching to day-and-date. If their bottom line for any given movie is better by releasing day-and-date in theaters and on home video, then I doubt they give a rats ass about how that affects exhibitors.

Of course their day-and-date idea is still just a theory, yet to be proven, and I hope it's proven wrong. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-29-2006 12:57 PM

quote:
Actually, all first person scenes were done in 65mm Super Panavision. The rest was flat 1,54:19

My mistake. Sorry.

quote: Thomas Jonsson
I don´t think DVD´s "hitting the streets" the same time as the 35mm theatrical release will mean the death of film - or theaters for that matter. It happens more or less allready with downloads on the internet, and people still go to the theaters.

I disagree with this notion on two points:

1. Most of the people downloading movies illegally off the Internet are teenage kids that normally don't go to the movies anyway. The general public is NOT downloading movies en masse. I personally know quite a few people with dual layer DVD burners and fast broadband Internet connections who don't have the first clue on how to download movies. When I explain the process involved of downloading a movie or copying an existing DVD, they shrug and say, "that sounds too complicated and takes too much time."

2. Making DVDs of a film available at the same time as its theatrical release will make things A LOT EASIER for the people I just described. They don't have to hang out using BitTorrent or spend a bunch of time RIPping existing DVDs, running utilities to break copy protection and all that stuff. They just go to the video store, or just fire up their pay per view menu and boom. Instantly. It's done. And done for a lot less money than it takes to take the family to the movie theater.

There will be some folks who still insist on seeing movies at commercial movie theaters. However, those folks will be far too few in number to keep 95% of existing movie theaters in business. An industry-wide adoption of collasped release windows will cause most movie theaters to shut down in a pretty short amount of time.

quote: Larry Myers
So even if you think 70mm is fine wine. You can't play it everywhere and you can't get the ticket sales to cover your cost.

That's bullshit.

Brad Miller has described in the past how it really isn't a very complicated process to get a theater enabled to handle 70mm. It's certainly less complicated than installing any D-Cinema system, and it costs a whole lot less.

It has been demonstrated many times that theaters showing a movie in 70mm will have box office grosses quite a bit higher than other theaters playing the show in 35mm. The print pays for itself many times over.

If the process was a money losing option we would not have seen lots of movies in the 1980s placing 100, 200 or even more 70mm Dolby mag prints at $12,000+ per print into the North American market.

With 70mm DTS and other advances in printing, the costs of making 70mm prints could be quite a lot less. The prints could even be made faster as well. You don't have the issue of mag coating, curing and real time sounding that had to occur with mag-coated prints. DTS time code greatly simplifies the process.

IN ADDITION:

Critics against 70mm try to say, "there aren't any theaters worthy of showing a 70mm print." Again, that's bullshit.

The stadium seating theater building craze of the mid to late 1990s and a new trend of building more luxury appointed theaters has seen quite a few giant sized screens badly in need of 70mm projection getting built.

Case in point: Harkins Theatres Cine Capris at the Bricktown 16 in downtown Oklahoma City. This is an auditorium that seats around 700 and boasts a screen 30' tall by 70' wide (currently the largest indoor theatrical screen in OK). That's more than big enough for 5/70. They have a good Kinoton projector in there. But the 35mm stuff is a tad bit dim and soft looking. 70mm would improve things quite a lot.

Another case in point: UA Galaxy 9 in Garland, TX. This theater opened in 1996 with the boasts of having the largest indoor screens in Texas. The two largest auditoriums have screens more than 70' across. Again, they would benefit greatly from 70mm.

Cinemark has built a number of giant sized theatrical screens in various markets. They have a few in the Dallas area to compete with the giant screens at the Galaxy.

The theaters I describe in Oklahoma City and Dallas are not unique. You can find giant sized movie theater screens in lots of areas of the United States. And many of them outstrip the light throwing capabilities of 35mm.

5/70mm prints in those venues would make the attraction of watching a movie on an oversized screen worth it -rather than the current situation of 35mm only: a compromise.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-29-2006 01:24 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Brad Miller has described in the past how it really isn't a very complicated process to get a theater enabled to handle 70mm.

We are already doing that! There are close to 100 booths that are capable of running 70mm DTS between Utah and Wyoming. We generally install rebuilt DP-70's, Christie AW-3 platters..... DTS with Panastereo CSP-1200's.... a large number of theatres we have done only need 70mm payout heads, rollers,guidance and to have their dual gauge sprockets put back on to run 70mm. Our DTS reader mounting plate for the DP-70 allows either the 35 or 70mm readers to bolt directly in place, takes less than a minuite to change readers. About an hour per booth would be needed to get any of these up and running "wallpaper", a slow tech might take an hour and a half. BTW: Runing 35mm on a DP-70 makes good sense as 35mm to this machine is almost like running no film at all though it.... just idling so to say. All that generally wears on them are the gate bands after a couple of years.....

quote: Bobby Henderson
With 70mm DTS and other advances in printing, the costs of making 70mm prints could be quite a lot less. The prints could even be made faster as well. You don't have the issue of mag coating, curing and real time sounding that had to occur with mag-coated prints. DTS time code greatly simplifies the process.

You are very correct in this statement. Up to a couple of years ago all large format DTS prints required 2 passes though two dofferent printers... adding many thousands of dollars of extra cost to each print produced.... one pass for picture and another expensive pass just for time code on a completely seperate printing machine. I was informed by Walter Browski that DTS in fact had installed one of it's time code "printers" sucessfully onto a 70mm panel printer for "one pass" 70mm DTS prints. And that this could also be done for 8/70, or 15/70 film formats.

Anyway.... now its time to slide back over to a more important thread here at FT... The Krispy Kreame Thread....... It doesn't take math to show how crappy Krispy Kreame stuff really is...... All you need have is good taste!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 01:40 PM

Bullshit or not 70mm is really fine wine and most people don't drink fine wine nor do they care to. Don't get me wrong. I like 70mm just like the next guy. The issue is, can it be used to make money and I say not.

I know this is a mind excecise but if you could find an old 65mm camera, I see them on ebay every so often for about $15,000, load it with ASA 400 film. This is about the same resolution and grain as ASA 50 1960's Eastman Color. Place it side by side with a $100,000 35mm Panavision anamorphic camera with the latest ASA 50 Kodak Vision HD stock. Process and print both films exactly the same, you will see 35mm will beat out the 70mm every time.

That is my point of view. I would say it might also be the point of view of some technical people in the industry and that is why 70mm will never be coming back.

Sure you can load ASA 50 Vision stock in a 70mm camera and blow away the 35mm. That's not the point. The point is that you can use a 35mm anamorphic camera and get about the same quality as you did in the early 60's with a 70mm camera.

Now the only reason for a big screen is to pack more people in the theater. Something people just don't want these days.
Again my f**k up point of view but it's my point of view.

| IP: Logged

Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 602
From: Southampton. England
Registered: Jul 99

posted 01-29-2006 02:23 PM

Although 70mm (5/70) was in decline here in the UK since the 1980's, over the last few years has seen a slight increase with mainly City Screen sites installing 70mm.

Even these days with Digital Cinema comming (they tell us), I belive 70mm still has a future and a good crowd puller, prehaps it could be re-launched as a new format!, when the public get bored of Digital Cinemas and that they can stay home with their own HDTV, even if it is not the same high spec as Digital Cinema.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-29-2006 02:23 PM

quote: Larry Myers
Sure you can load ASA 50 Vision stock in a 70mm camera and blow away the 35mm. That's not the point.

YES IT IS

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 01-29-2006 02:37 PM

quote: Larry Myers
The point is that you can use a 35mm anamorphic camera and get about the same quality as you did in the early 60's with a 70mm camera.

... and the key word in this sentence is "about."

"About's" aren't a winner. "Is's" are the winner here...as with a 65mm camera.

65mm cameras doesn't distort the images on the negative as does the anamorphic cameras - even though Panavision have massively improved the glass elements from the old B@L days (why the Super35 process is gathering a good head of steam in cinematography...just the labs have to do their work in making the results come out excellent..) .

When dealing with cinematography the right way, there is no room for any 2nd place entries.

I like the pict of Ben standing next to that DP70 (AA-2 to us folks across the pond) - he knows about 70mm presentation.
-Monte

| IP: Logged

Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 02:42 PM

Bobby. I still don´t think DVD releases will be that big a problem.
Ofcourse there will be less attendance to theaters than today, but
I´m pretty sure there will still be enough people who wants to see
a good film at a movie theater. It´s not just watching a movie,
it´s a way to get entertainment with other people.

The death of movie theaters has been predicted since the invention
of radio - and it hasn´t happened yet. I´m sure they´ll be around
for many years to come. Hopefully with a 70mm boom!

Thomas

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 02:49 PM

Well if that is the issue then sure load up. Blow away 35mm Panavasion with 70mm. It's apples to apples.

In my point of view that's not the issue. The issue is you get old 70mm quality with the easy production of 35mm.

Lets face it, most 70mm features are older then 1975. Very few features were done after 1975. So if you can load up your 35mm Panavision anamorphic camera with ASA 50 Kodak Vision HD stock and get the same quality as South Pacific shot in the 50's or Sound of Music in the 60's why go 70?

On the other hand, why not use 5 perf 70 Kodak Vision HD to replace IMAX? Can't do it. They are already at the max as far as light with the format to screen ratio with the big screen. Any smaller format and you will have to issue night vision goggles. I know, I am kidding. I am just trying to get my point across.

ABOUT means around. That means plus or minus not less then. Example, you can have two sets of friends aged 28 and 29 or 31 and 32 and you might be 30. Both pairs are about the same age as you.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 01-29-2006 03:02 PM

Larry, there are screens with just as big or bigger screens than IMAX uses. Bobby cited some examples above, and believe me they could really benefit from 5/70.

Since Larry has a terrible talent for not being able to communicate clearly, let me reword his point for everyone. What he is saying is that since there are no 70mm prints in production today, he is comparing a 70mm print of a 30 year old movie up against a 2006 movie with a 35mm print that they look the same. So what he is saying is that film stocks have gotten better over the years, so why bother shooting anything higher than 35mm?

Well first Larry, DUH! You must really think everyone here is stupid. We all are well aware that there have been major advances in film stocks. Also your attitude of "good enough" isn't something that will make you very popular with true professionals.

The point to be made here is that a 70mm print struck off of any 35mm shot movie today with today's film stocks will freakin' blow away just about anything that exists...particularly a 35mm print! The goal with these guys is to do better, not just "good enough".

Thanks for reminding me of the Holmes. I had forgotten what projector it was that you had which you claimed on a different discussion that will put out "exactly the same picture quality" as anything else on the market so long as both machines in the comparison are loaded with equally high end lenses. Ya got a lot to learn kiddo! Anyone care to try and explain to him why this is since apparently I can't explain it well enough for him to understand?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 04:08 PM

No, the Holmes 8 was a piece of shit. I purchased it on ebay for $100, played around with it for a month or so and then sold it for maybe $250.

The projector I am using is a factory rebuilt very low time Devry XD 12000 HD with a Super Cinelux compact anamorphic hooked up to a ISCO 60mm Ultra Star HD lens. Projection distance is 12 ft on to a 3.5 by 10 screen with a view distance of 9 ft. Seems to work very well although I have only solar cell mono sound.

My DVD setup is a Panasonic widescreen HDTV with a Sony DVD scanner set on progressive scan with a 800 watt Sony 5.1 surround sound system. It also seems to work well.

And as far as 70mm, you can say all you want. Internet words are cheap. Only time will really tell. I am just kind of hoping you guys are out of a job soon. I also think there might be some technical people in the industry, some people I might evan have gone to school with, that also feel the same. Again time will tell.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 01-29-2006 04:13 PM

quote: Larry Myers
Devry XD 12000 HD

Ok fine, you win the prize for working in the letters HD into your posts more than anyone else, ok? [Razz]

Seriously though, the difference is minimal between those two machines and neither of them could stand up to the quality of the projected image from a Kinoton (among others) using the same lenses, light source, throw distance and screen surface.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 04:17 PM

Well that is the name. Devry XD 12000 HD.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 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.