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 7)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 48 49 50

Author

Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 04:29 PM

quote: Larry Myers
I am just kind of hoping you guys are out of a job soon.

The feeling is mutual

Think they've made any advancements in motion picture projectors since the Devry was made?

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-29-2006 04:32 PM

Absolutely not! Why improve projectors when we can simply improve on the film stocks themselves and forget about everything else that affects the image.

Besides if it's "HD", then that's all that matters. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 01-29-2006 04:56 PM

Let's try to get a focus on all this (No Pun Intended).

70mm projection IS better than 35mm.

Larry does have a point: The economics simply won't justify mass releases in 70mm. I wish it weren't so but the distributors want to drive costs even further downward.

I won't even touch the "dumb guy" comment except to say in my projection days I only met one or two, and even they could put on one hell of a show.

Larry, get your butt down to Colonial Williamsburg and see "Story of a Patriot". It was recently restored and guess what, they opted to print it in 70mm.

Imagine that.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 04:56 PM

Well if you use your logic, 4x5 Speed Graphic cameras will soon be coming back. I collect cameras and I have a few of these. They were used from mid 1920's to about early to mid 1960's. You see them alot in the new movie Cinderella Man.

If you use modern film in these cameras, the resulting image blows away any other images taken with any other hand held camera to date. But yet, you don't see these cameras coming back and they never will.

Yes I am sure it's hard to keep that old VistaVision projector in repair. So why not 70mm? Pick up a nice hardly used 70mm projector for $4000 vs a new 35mm something or other for $35,000. Make sense to me.

Oh and that Vic 8 at Pittsford Plaza. It was setup for 70mm only. I understand that is very unusual for a Vic 8.

I also understand that the opening of Gone with the Wind in 1936 used a state of the art modern projector. Although, everyone complained that the image was less then ideal. It was decided to hold off showing it until 2003 in order to use the latest equipment for the best image quality.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-29-2006 05:19 PM

What's wrong with the Speed Graphic? I have one and use it regularly. Yes, the image quality does indeed blow away anything that I can do with my 35mm or 2 1/4" cameras. In my office at work, I have a 16x20" print of a photo that I took a couple of years ago with the Speed Graphic and people constantly notice the sharpness and detail of the image. They are generally surprised when I explain that I took it with an old press camera.

Sure, the newspaper guys now are mostly using digital capture because it's faster and cheaper (and the equipment is more portable) than the Speed Graphic, and these attributes are more important than absolute image quality for newspaper work (where the printing quality is usually quite poor, anyway). That doesn't invalidate large-format film as being useful for other purposes where image quality is of greater importance.

Similarly, just because the TV news guys are shooting video instead of IMAX doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons to make IMAX films.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 05:25 PM

Ben Wales said:

quote:
I belive 70mm still has a future and a good crowd puller, perhaps it could be re-launched as a new format!

I was thinking just the same thing...how about...

HIGH DEFINITION FILM ? Or...

HD-70 ?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 05:39 PM

Hey, I love Speed Graphics. I collect them. I think we should lobby Congress to pass a law that every newspaper should go back to them. Help out the Rochester economy. God help them, they really need it.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 01-29-2006 06:02 PM

quote: Larry Myers
Well if you use your logic, 4x5 Speed Graphic cameras will soon be coming back.

What do you think this is that I'm holding in my photo then? [Smile]

I don't use it that much, but then I don't use any camera much now, I just don't have the time; maybe when I retire.

The SG is still a very practical tool for certain types of work, and there are plenty of them still in use. I wonder how many of todays cameras will still be in use in sixty years time?

About three years ago I had a picture which I took with my Pacemaker printed in a local paper, so it's still just about being used as a press camera! I scanned the negative, and sent it to them electronically. I didn't tell them what it was taken with.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 01-29-2006 06:15 PM

quote: Larry Myers
Oh and that Vic 8 at Pittsford Plaza. It was setup for 70mm only. I understand that is very unusual for a Vic 8.

...interesting to hear that a Vic-8 WAS only set up for 70mm when the machine can do both formats without a hitch and was built to do both. They'd be stupid to just have one format in a house that can be easily set up or two.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 01-29-2006 06:24 PM

People didn't go to 70mm back in the 50s/60s because it was good enough or just better than 35mm...it was simply the best they had to offer.

In 2006, 70mm remains the best the cinema industry has to offer and it has never been cheaper to use and distribute. As far as mass releases...it never got beyond the 100s and normally is less than that. But as it has been pointed out...there are not enough cinemas of high enough quality in the booth to warrant a greater release of 70mm prints to begin with so all is fine.

As to 35mm of today equalling 70mm of the 60s...that still is not the case given the best of both. To help you with the math...Lets normalize 70mm to 1. That is, 70mm is the reference and a 1 being the best achievable...production through release and also presuming that there is no loss in quality at each stage (note, I'm having to lock out a lot of variables already).

So, a 65mm production that is printed to 70mm yields a 1

A 35mm CinemaScope production starts out with a .342 resolution of 70mm...all things being equal (using projection apertures). Now we make a print from the negatives...the 70mm print will still be a 1 but the 35mm print from the 35mm negative drops to a .117 for the 35mm positive print compared to the 70mm print. But it doesn't stop there...you have to take into account the "hit" for the anamorphic lens. Lose about 20% for the taking of the negative and then again for the projection so your final result is .0750 that of the 70mm release or about a 13 fold improvement by the time you get a release print. Add in the whole IN/IP process and the 35mm release print gets even WORSE as compared to the 70mm version.

The case for 70mm release prints is quite evident from the above...the sooner you get even 35mm source material to the 65/70mm process, the more you retain the original image. There will be a hit for the enlargement process but the degredation of the image by retaining it in 35mm vs 70mm outweighs that as lens technology has also improved.

As for Williamsburg...I was involved on their recent renovations...the source negative was indeed VistaVision and there was serious consideration as to projecting it in VistaVision again...however, the cost of the special projectors and maintaining them (remember, the film originally was projected in VistaVision too) was deemed too excessive versus the current 70mm system which they still use (Century JJs, by the way and they are kept up too). The lenses were indeed upgraded to modern Schneider's Super Cinelux 70 and the lamphouses were also upped to 6KW as the screen gain was lowered to achieve a better and more uniform contrast.

Living in Hernden, VA, you will be happy to know that the Library of Congress is going to be opening a facility in Culpepper, VA where 70mm machines will be installed (in addition to 16 and 35mm projection).

No matter how you cut it, 70mm is our best format at the moment and the costs associated with it are rather minimal today...easily recouped with 70mm releases in select venues. The superior negative will also help the quality of all the other formats printed from it...including digital.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-29-2006 06:58 PM

quote: Larry Myers
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...

I can see you're trying to infer 65mm/70mm is somehow a primitive format. It most certainly is NOT. The 65mm Super Panaflex and Arri765 models are both as sophisticated as the best 35mm motion picture cameras.

quote:
The issue is, can (70mm) be used to make money and I say not.

70mm has been used successful to make quite a bit of money. You say "not." As others have noted, you don't know what you're talking about. You're also laughably presumptive to assume you know what the general public will or will not like.

I say Hollywood can make a lot of money from 70mm, provided if they put forth any effort. Right now they seem more interested in killing their business and shrinking it into a tiny movies made for TV cottage industry. The glory of all things digital will allow that to happen.

quote: Thomas Jonsson
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.

A lot of movie theater circuits are barely profitable as it is. Many chains have been in and out of bankruptcy. The math is very clear. Day-and-date DVD releases will push most commercial theaters over the edge into liquidation.

quote: Rick Raskin
Larry does have a point: The economics simply won't justify mass releases in 70mm. I wish it weren't so but the distributors want to drive costs even further downward.

I don't think anyone has suggested using 70mm for all prints of a wide release. Most auditoriums do just fine with 35mm. Still, any auditorium will see a very noticeable difference when showing a 70mm print of something originated on 65mm stock. At the very least the big theaters with oversized screens need to be using 70mm prints whether they're blown up from 35mm or originated on 65mm.

quote: Steve Guttag
As to 35mm of today equalling 70mm of the 60s...that still is not the case given the best of both.

Sheesh. All one has to do is watch a good print of "Lawrence of Arabia" (shot on 65mm in the early 1960s). It has sharper, more high resolution image detail than any current movie shot on 35mm. Or better yet, check out a more modern movie like Baraka (shot using Todd-AO cameras, but using more modern film stocks). That movie had some astounding imagery, right from the opening shots of the jagged Himilayan Mountains.

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 10:04 PM

This was a very interesting Vic-8 designed to only be used for 70mm. It had no secondary sprockets to load 35mm. I might be wrong, but I don't ever remember Plaza 3 showing anything but 70mm up until it closed. Of course, it all had to be blowups but it was 70mm none the less. Maybe someone from ROCHESTER knows when Plaza 3 closed. I bet it's been more then 5 years now.

So there you have it. A 70mm only theater in the very best UPSCALE part of a PHOTO town "CLOSED". If you can't sell 70mm there, where can you sell it? May 70mm rest in peace. So can you see why I may have my point of view?

[ 01-29-2006, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 01-29-2006 10:06 PM

The Webster also could show 70mm with a AA2
The vic 8 upper and lower feed sprockets were only made as dual sprockets
The intermitent was available as a dual 35/70 or 35 only
never saw one that was 70mm only

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

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

posted 01-29-2006 11:14 PM

My thinking is it was a custom design to prevent any mistakes. A mistake such as a damaged 70mm print with 35mm sprocket marks down the middle. This would result in the theater being shut down until a new hard to get print could be had.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-30-2006 12:49 AM

Clearly you have never worked with a dual gauge machine. That kind of damage would be pretty much impossible.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 50 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 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.