Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Will 4K be the next 70mm?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Will 4K be the next 70mm? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 15 16

Author

Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 10-15-2010 03:23 AM

IMHO, 70mm was a gigantic FAIL.

Only hardcore-people in the exhibition side seem to really care about 70mm these day...I guess its kind of nostalgic more than anything.

I can't see a mom and her two kids ponying up a few extra dollars per ticket for a showing of the latest kids movie on 70mm.

35mm is still the ultimate format as it is supported by filmmakers, exhibitors and fans.

If 70mm was so important, wouldn't we see Tarantino, Eastwood, Spielberg, Cameron, Allen, etc using supporting and using the format? Actually, have any of these filmmakers actually used the format for one of their films?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-15-2010 10:06 AM

If 70mm was such a "gigantic fail" there would be no Hollywood movies being "DMR" blown up to IMAX.

There is absolutely no dispute about the technical superiority of 70mm over 35mm and especially over "digital." The 65mm/70mm process is the highest quality movie-making format currently in existence.

The real "gigantic fail" is the inability of Hollywood studios and theater chains to do their loyal customers the service of making and showing movies in the best manner possible. Instead, their standard is the business-friendly "good enough" standard.

Average people don't know their shit when it comes to making any sort of informed, educated choice on which movie presentation format is better. 70mm is the best movie presentation format. Nothing else is as good. Anyone who says otherwise is throwing bias in over terms of cost, ease of operation or just plain ignorance. In terms of image quality (sharpness, detail, brightness and contrast) 70mm beats everything else.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 10-15-2010 11:25 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
If 70mm was such a "gigantic fail" there would be no Hollywood movies being "DMR" blown up to IMAX.

IMAX is a bit of a fail as well, true IMAX (documentary)films never did all that well to become relevant and now IMAX has expanded there theatres to be included with the major chains. IMAX has resorted to using "Hollywood" movies to plug their product. Yes, the documentaries are playing in my local IMAX Cinesphere and one of them is a documentary which one of the 1997 award of for best documentary.

Hollywood blowups are just another way to charge more. When every theatre in the area has one or two IMAX presentations showing the latest film, then we can talk about success or not.
What is in right now and what is doing well is Digital 3D

quote: Bobby Henderson
There is absolutely no dispute about the technical superiority of 70mm over 35mm and especially over "digital." The 65mm/70mm process is the highest quality movie-making format currently in existence.

Meh, thats great that is superior but nobody really films with it, nobody really shows it anymore. Pretty much nobody supports it.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The real "gigantic fail" is the inability of Hollywood studios and theater chains to do their loyal customers the service of making and showing movies in the best manner possible. Instead, their standard is the business-friendly "good enough" standard.

No. Hollywood tried that, so did the theatre chains, they made movies, adverstised them and charged more a point. 70mm FAILED...plain and simple.

quote: Bobby Henderson
70mm is the best movie presentation format

Customers don't care if it is a better way of presenting a movie. You have to consider cost of making, printing and transporting the film as well.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-15-2010 01:13 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
IMAX is a bit of a fail as well, true IMAX (documentary)films never did all that well to become relevant and now IMAX has expanded there theatres to be included with the major chains. IMAX has resorted to using "Hollywood" movies to plug their product.

The content of a movie or documentary is irrelevant to the technical merits of a film or video format. I don't see anyone crowing about 35mm or digital because a certain hit movie used the process. At the same time it is pretty stupid to blame the 70mm format over a 65mm photographed movie that wasn't so good -like Ryan's Daughter or Far and Away. 70mm didn't goof up those movies. The movies would have been equally bad or even worse if they had been shot in 35mm.

quote: Tom Petrov
Meh, thats great that is superior but nobody really films with it, nobody really shows it anymore. Pretty much nobody supports it.

Nevertheless 70mm is superior. The notion that the format is poorly supported only works as a statement for how pathetic our "good enough" ethic has made us anymore.

quote: Tom Petrov
No. Hollywood tried that, so did the theatre chains, they made movies, adverstised them and charged more a point. 70mm FAILED...plain and simple.

Bullshit. Hollywood and the theater chains did an incompetent job in trying to market 70mm to the public. I have followed and studied how Hollywood and theaters have goofed up this stuff for a long time. Both groups suck at explaining anything technical or even just better to the general public. The only group that sucks even more than this is the press. They can't get their facts and figures straight is articles or ads. It's a good thing these bozos aren't working in another technology industry such as computers. We would probably still be dinking by with early 1990s era CPUs because they're "good enough."

quote: Tom Petrov
Customers don't care if it is a better way of presenting a movie. You have to consider cost of making, printing and transporting the film as well.

Again, bullshit. First, the customers don't even know the difference. The vast majority have never seen real 65mm/70mm material before. That totally disqualifies this notion that audiences somehow prefer 35mm over 70mm. That's absolutely crazy.

As to cost, give me a break! That's hypocrisy. Hollywood and the exhibition industry are spending a fortune on video projection and 3D systems that don't work very well at all. And they're still shelling out a lot of money for IMAX 3D dual 15/70 prints to blow up a HDTV camera photographed movie when the same money could have bought 6 5-perf 70mm prints.

Yeah, a 70mm print isn't cheap, but with no need to do mag striping anymore they don't have to cost a hell of a lot more than a 35mm print. A 70mm projector is less expensive than a digital projector, but can properly illuminate a much larger screen than either 35mm or digital can manage.

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 10-15-2010 02:47 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The vast majority have never seen real 65mm/70mm material before.

And therein lies the problem.

My Kids (adults now) could care less about the mode.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-15-2010 02:52 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Yeah, a 70mm print isn't cheap, but with no need to do mag striping anymore they don't have to cost a hell of a lot more than a 35mm print.

And compared to the cost of a $100million movie it is inconsequential. It never ceases to amaze me that studios will spend (squander) millions of dollars to get a film on the screen, but start cutting corners when it comes to what it looks like on the screen.

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 10-15-2010 08:31 PM

How could 70mm 6-track Dolby Stereo compete with Digital soundtracks on 35mm and the demise of theater palaces with truly huge screens?
The brilliant idea was 70mm blow ups only benefit the audience in the multi channel sound department and now we have digital sound on film!Thats all we need! NOT [Mad]

True 70mm and blow ups had the bean counters foolishly deciding its fate!In the 90s the direction was quantity over quality and 70mm was WRONGLY retired!

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 10-15-2010 09:04 PM

Absolutely agree that 70mm was killed by the very people who should have supported it.
I used to wonder how many people thought “Presented on the giant 70mm screen!” meant that the image would be about 3 inches wide. That promotional line for was to acknowledge the substitution of blow-ups for 65mm origination.
Any good marketer will tell you that names are better than numbers, so 70 was not the hook that Super Panavision or Todd AO were.
The promotion of Big Screen to cover all formats almost killed 2.35 full-width presentation. Common width screens and Digital Cinema could deliver the final blow.
The 2.35 full-width format is not promoted any more. It is sometimes difficult to find out what format was chosen until you look at the print.
Full-frame, full-width presentation could be a winner for cinemas as most home formats letterbox or crop these productions.
However, it needs a name. Although not accurate, CinemaScope would do. I heard that Fox doesn’t own it anymore. Cinemavision would be just as good.
Be that as it may, 70mm is still the best.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 10-16-2010 11:01 AM

quote: Tom Petrov
If 70mm was so important, wouldn't we see Tarantino, Eastwood, Spielberg, Cameron, Allen, etc using supporting and using the format? Actually, have any of these filmmakers actually used the format for one of their films?

Allen using 65mm! This is one of the funniest posts ever. Allen does not even use stereo and if I am not mistaken he has only filmed two pictures in anamorphic. Nevertheless he makes nice use of black and white, when he is allowed to use it by the producers (see how producers have a lot to say about formats). Anyways, Woody’s films do not need 70mm

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-16-2010 01:58 PM

quote: Victor Liorentas
How could 70mm 6-track Dolby Stereo compete with Digital soundtracks on 35mm and the demise of theater palaces with truly huge screens?

Back in the early 1990s most existing theaters were of the 1970-1990 shoe box multiplex design. In that environment many 70mm-equipped theaters were indeed equipped that way mainly for the surround sound side of things. When 35mm digital came along 70mm became irrelevant in many of those places. 70mm was really most useful in the biggest flagship theaters in the biggest cities.

Then stadium seated theaters came along in 1995 and laid waste to both 70's-80's era shoebox multiplex theaters and the big flagship theaters. Virtually all of these new stadium seated theaters were equipped 35mm-only. Lately they've been switching to digital projection.

More than a few of these new stadium seated theaters have featured at least 1 or more auditoriums boasting giant sized screens -screens too damned big for 35mm or digital to handle. This is an area where 70mm is very necessary, yet has been ignored for more than a decade. The UA Galaxy theater in metro Dallas opened in 1996 with huge banners boasting "the biggest screens in Texas!" Cinemark copied the approach in some of its theaters. Harkins has its "Cine Capris" screens. Warren Theaters got into the act. None of these screens has been able to deliver fully satisfactory image quality using 35mm and digital methods. They need to be using 70mm at least until something as good or better can be developed.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 10-17-2010 01:13 AM

Does anyone know the actual cost to produce a 70mm theatrical print?

I heard $14,000 for one print, and that info came from my T2 Special Edition Laserdisc, I am going off memory so I would have to check the actual disc as it has been many, many years.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 10-17-2010 05:17 AM

quote: Tom Petrov
Does anyone know the actual cost to produce a 70mm theatrical print?

I heard $14,000 for one print, and that info came from my T2 Special Edition Laserdisc, I am going off memory so I would have to check the actual disc as it has been many, many years.

As Bobby says, 15/70 prints are much more expensive and yet they seem to be profitable since they seem to be releasing more and more films on this format these days. There are also all the costs associated to blowing up the films. Films like Inception would have looked much better if they had not been downgraded from their larger negative to 35mm and if they had been shown on widescreen screens, instead of the IMAX screen. Some people who have seen 4k from 65mm material (from the 60s) say it looks very good. I prefer film but it would be good if 4K could be much better than 2K. It would be great if Samsara could be shown on 70mm with DTS in selected theatres. I wonder if they could do optical prints for IMAX 15/70 without all the digital manipulation inherent to DMR.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 10-17-2010 10:54 AM

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
As Bobby says, 15/70 prints are much more expensive and yet they seem to be profitable since they seem to be releasing more and more films on this format these days.

"A 70mm Imax print can cost from $22,000 per print for a 2-D film to $45,000 per print for a 3-D title. According to Gelfond,"
big screen IMAX

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-17-2010 11:02 AM

The $14,000 figure on those prints of Terminator 2: Judgment Day were correct. However, that figure was the price of 70mm Dolby SR magnetic striped prints. The mag stripe process added a great deal of cost to a print for the extra steps involved. The mag coated print had to be sounded in real time.

70mm prints are no longer mag coated. The audio is either DTS via time code or one of the IMAX audio processes. That should deliver a significant cost reduction. At the right volumes 5-perf 70mm prints shouldn't cost more than 2 to 3 times the cost of a 35mm print.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 10-17-2010 06:55 PM

I wouldn't say 70mm was a gigantic fail... mostly because I'm not up-to-speed with the new, hip, incorrect grammar. Furthermore, I wouldn't call 70mm a failure either. I would compare 70mm to the laserdisc format. For a time it was the best you could get but then the easier-to-use format came along and almost instantly won the battle. (I'm talking about exhibition, I suppose, since there was never much of a question that shooting in 65mm died many years before 70mm printing went away.)

We are quite an eccentric bunch here. In other discussions, we have defended LP records as superior to CDs... but only if you put a ton of effort and skill and some top-of-the-line equipment into the equation. Still, it seems the members of this forum really get excited about the effort, skill and equipment.

Meanwhile, we've mostly accepted the idea that our 20-megapixel DSLR experiences are far superior to shooting stills with 35mm film. That's why it's a bit puzzling to see that the same advocates for DSLR cameras are so pessimistic about the potential future of digital motion picture technology.

As for me, I've experienced 8K with 22.2-channel surround sound at 60 frames per second. You lose the outdated aesthetic of that 24 fps flicker and all I can say about that is good riddance. It's like looking through a giant window and seeing a live event... crystal clear and rock steady. I try to imagine what it would have been like if the dream sequences in Inception were shot that way while the other scenes could have been shot the way we all saw them. The audiences who don't know the nuts-and-bolts of cinematography would have found the digital stuff breathtaking and the "normal" stuff unremarkable. You could call the format "Stinky Diapervision" and audiences would still ask for more.

Film is dead.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 15 16

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.