|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-30-2006 02:08 PM
quote: Larry Myers
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.
When General Cinema (GCC) owned the Pittsford Plaza multiplex (across Monroe Avenue from the Loews Pittsford 1-2-3), they had at least one THX-certified auditorium set up for 35mm and 70mm. They played "Dick Tracy" and "Roger Rabbit" in 70mm. I recall all the projectors there were Cinemeccanica (typical of that era GCC), so I assume the 35/70mm machine was a Victoria-8. I think it is still there, after they became an independent and added more screens for a total of 9 today. Brack Bryant is now the chief projectionist there (he was at Loews Southtown), and a long-time IA member.
Yes, the Loews Pittsford 3 had a Century JJ. Lots of 70mm (and 35mm) shows there in the late 70's and the 80's when Jim Doty was manager, and Paul Hartman the chief projectionist. Played all the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series, and Alien. The Loews Pittsford 1-2 is now a women's gym, and the Pittsford 3 is a baby furniture store. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) The theatres closed due to the inefficiencies of running a 3-plex in a multiplex world, and the "stadium" seating competitors that moved into Rochester. The Loews Pittsford 3 didn't show any 70mm prints in its last years (I think "Far and Away" was the last 70mm they had).
FWIW, the Loews Pittsford 1&2 was originally a single screen, equipped for 35/70mm, and the "Premier" house in Rochester in the early 1970's. Frank Coniglio (BA of the Rochester IATSE local) ruled that booth. The twinning was an abomination.
BTW, I've written about the "Splendor of 70mm":
Splendor of 70mm Part 1
Splendor of 70mm Part 2
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler
Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 01-30-2006 09:01 PM
Well if you guys really want a comeback in 70mm, their are ways to make it happen. It's seems 65/70mm cameras are kind of cheap these days. If Kodak would get behind offering free or discounted 65/70mm camera rental and film stock and tech advice to second level independent film makers, a quanity of SHORTS could be produced to at least introduce 70mm back into the theaters.
You see this on the cable INHD-2 TV program all the time. The programing is loaded with shorts. Although, it's mostly IMAX shorts. The system will need a tricky logo such as photographed in SUPERHD-70 for the public to at least understand something is going on that's different. I am sure with the old 65/70 camera bodies with modern optics and the very best low speed Kodak Vision film slow speed printed, the image quality would be better then IMAX on a standard size movie screen.
The trouble is, Kodak is in no position to give anything away or underwrite such a venture. It does seem at least right now, that Kodak wants to go in the digital direction. Maybe it's just me but it looks like Kodak has put film on the back burner which even I think is a big mistake.
So between Kodaks new direction which may not work and GM not doing so well, the economy in Rochester really sucks at this time. If you have 3 really nice 35/70 theaters in the best part of a photo town go under, what is one to think?
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-30-2006 09:18 PM
Kodak has provided attractive incentives to producers considering 65mm production. Ask folks like Robert Harris or Ron Howard.
quote: Robert Harris
Having worked out a 35 vs. 65 budget for what was to have been David Lean's final film, the numbers are not all that far off. It worked out to (as I recall) under $500,000. Especially, with a bit of cooperation from Panavision and Kodak, which we had.
2005 was one of the best years ever for 70mm print film sales volume (mostly for IMAX films).
Rochester still is a "photo town":
The Kodak "Theater on the Ridge" has 70mm projectors, and Rochester also supports a 70mm IMAX Theatre (full daily schedule), a 70mm 8-perf Theatre (11 shows weekly), and a 60-foot screen with a Kodak Digital Cinema System.
quote: Larry Myers
The trouble is, Kodak is in no position to give anything away or underwrite such a venture. It does seem at least right now, that Kodak wants to go in the digital direction. Maybe it's just me but it looks like Kodak has put film on the back burner which even I think is a big mistake.
Kodak just announced that 53 percent of Kodak's 2005 revenue was from digital imaging -- the first year that digital provided the majority of revenue. That still leaves 47 percent from FILM -- about $6.7 BILLION. 2005 was one of the best years ever for motion picture film revenue and volume. I'm working on two multi-million dollar film R&D programs, and my colleagues are working on a few others. Doesn't seem like a "back burner" to me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-31-2006 01:51 PM
IMAX is 70mm, so it is on topic. The discussion is how large format film presentation stacks up against Digital Cinema, and whether it has a place in modern exhibition. The success IMAX has had in presenting day-in-date feature films shows that large format (70mm) presentation does offer something audiences will seek out, just as they did with 5-perf 70mm from 1955 until the early 1990's. Whether it's "format overkill" or smart marketing, the IMAX DMR process is a success.
IMHO, distributors are wary of 70mm 5-perf, not because the format hasn't proven itself, but because of the perception that many of today's large screen multiplex theatres are not properly equipped or competent to show it. For distributors, IMAX is a safer bet.
Loews Pittsford 3 is long gone, but not because 70mm wasn't successful for them during its heyday. Yet today, the Rochester Cinemark Tinseltown IMAX has great success showing feature films using 70mm 15-perf prints. The demand for quality on a huge screen is still there, and 70mm prints deliver it all day and every day of the week.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 01-31-2006 03:44 PM
It's a different business model today, but the goal of quality large format film presentation is the same. For screens over 60 feet wide, 70mm film is still the best way to fill them.
As I said, the ones that need to convince distributors to provide 70mm 5-perf prints are the exhibitors who have those large screens to fill. They need to have the equipment, and the skilled people to run it and not damage the more expensive prints. For now, IMAX has taken advantage of the need, and offered a turn-key "system". Smart.
Yeah, nothing like 65mm origination. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) But as others have said, the 35mm to 65mm/70mm blow-ups have a proven track record, ever since "Dr. Zhivago" paved the way. And modern color negative and intermediate stocks allow great quality from 35mm cameras.
| 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
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic