And for the record I KNOW that each frame of film is projected twice and sometimes 3 times. I didn't just get here, guys But that is still completely different than 48 individual images per second. I see a huge difference in 24-fps material on video vs 60 fields per second, even though the TV ALWAYS runs in 60i. 24fps transferred to video still looks better than anything having been originated in 60i. And please don't tell me that "it's all in the lighting".

 |  IP: Logged

At about the time that Lawrence of Arabia was restored in 1989 both Panavision and Arriflex introduced new 65mm cameras with a host of state-of-the-art and/or convenience features which had already been common on 35mm cameras. It was an open invitation to big-budget producers to revive 65mm (and I thought that they'd take the bait after just having seen Lawrence of Arabia in its full splendor). But it didn't happen because 35mm was just too standardized. Nobody wanted the hassle of 65mm, it seems. This kind of thing will never fly without full support from the likes of Cameron, Spielberg, Zemeckis, Lucas, etc. ...and we already know where Lucas is wanting to go. And Cameron? Does he still want to make movies?

For instance, if "Jurassic Park" had flopped DTS would have had a much more difficult time getting theaters equipped after that show's running.

"Star Wars" can pretty much be given credit for ushering in the 70mm "blow up age" where a good number of theaters throughout the late 1970's and 1980's bought 70mm projection gear for the brighter image and mainly for the six-track Dolby mag sound.

There was lots and lots of hype debuting CinemaScope with "The Robe" and "Oklahoma" putting the classic Todd-AO 70mm format on the map.

Now, look at the kind of movies that have been made in 70mm during the last 30 years. To be quite honest most of them are BORING! By 1970, the 70mm format was starting to gain a reputation of only being used on overly long, boring bible-epic type movies. 70mm should have been used on more popular films --like so many of the big widescreen "summer movies" we've been used to seeing since the mid 1970's when "Jaws" started the "summer film blockbuster" trend.

The Panavision Super Panaflex 65mm, the Arri 765 and the Wilcam 65mm system are among the most sophisticated camera systems ever made. They have all the bells and whistles you would find on any standard Panavision 35mm Panaflex camera. There's a myriad of fast lens systems available for these cameras. And Kodak has a lot of fast emulsions availble for the 65mm gauge. The world of 50 speed only film for 70mm has been long dead. "Far and Away" alone proved one could shoot 70mm in indoor low light settings on location. 65mm/70mm does certainly demand more care in designing camera shots, but it is absolutely not an impossible medium to deal with.

 |  IP: Logged

In the concluding paragraph, the writer states that the conversion from 35MM film to a digital format is inevitable. As I stated earlier, I disagree, and I think this article supports my theory more than his.

The other point is that I haven't read any (solid) arguments to support the notion that digital cinema is inevitable. On the other hand, there are many reasons as to why it may not take place at all (as I also mentioned ealier).

 |  IP: Logged