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 6)

This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 15 16

Author

Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-20-2010 05:00 PM

I realize it is too harsh and flippant to say "film is dead." In the moment I just couldn't find the right words. I think it's better to say that "film is history."

When today's version of "Hollywood" makes something which is worth preserving for more than nine months then I'm sure the technology will exist to do it. [Smile]

EDIT: Does anyone know if other, "superior" formats like Cinerama ever offered a good profit margin for the theaters? Did the theaters charge a premium to customers because of the format? How much did the theater owners worry about keeping up with the formats Hollywood was throwing at them?

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 10-21-2010 04:11 PM

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
As an analogy, who here knows of ANYONE or anyplace that can read data from the old 5 1/4 inch floppy discs?

I went to the trouble to mount a 5 1/4 floppy and found that what I had saved then was of no interest or value now.

Much like the "D-Crapema" Tony discussed earlier.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 10-21-2010 05:27 PM

i still have 5 1/4 drive in my older os2 machine along with a jazz and zip drive

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-21-2010 11:07 PM

I have a bunch of S-VHS tapes with until recently nothing to play them on!
They really don't make a S-VHS machine that will play all 400 lines anymore.
D-VHS has the same problem but digital stuff seems to change every minute so...
I will stick to film till they pry it from my cold dead hands! [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-22-2010 10:05 AM

This week I bothered to watch the 1996 Hamlet on DVD since I never bothered to see it on film (because it was not available in 70mm in Salt Lake City). Now I'm convinced that this movie was deliberately designed to kill 70mm. It would be a perfect cure for insomnia if not for Branagh's often loud over-acting. The people who made this movie declared it an "epic" before shooting the first frame. The whole thing smacks of a desperate effort to be important... and it just fails.

If I took a state-of-the-art photo of a pile of dung would that make it worth seeing?

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

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

posted 10-22-2010 03:10 PM

quote: Greg Anderson
This week I bothered to watch the 1996 Hamlet on DVD since I never bothered to see it on film (because it was not available in 70mm in Salt Lake City). Now I'm convinced that this movie was deliberately designed to kill 70mm. It would be a perfect cure for insomnia if not for Branagh's often loud over-acting. The people who made this movie declared it an "epic" before shooting the first frame. The whole thing smacks of a desperate effort to be important... and it just fails.

If I took a state-of-the-art photo of a pile of dung would that make it worth seeing?

Hamlet....lol. Meh! Budget $18 mil, gross $4.4 mil. We played in at Sherway Cinemas back in 1996....its was 35mm

quote:
I realize it is too harsh and flippant to say "film is dead." In the moment I just couldn't find the right words. I think it's better to say that "film is history."

When today's version of "Hollywood" makes something which is worth preserving for more than nine months then I'm sure the technology will exist to do it. [Smile]

I guess "dead" is too harsh.

If anyone realistically thinks that digital will fail, is not up to date on industry trends. The film method of distribution is obsolete, there is so much money to be made in other methods, eventually we will see direct download at the actual movie theatre with no shipping hard drives involved.

Very soon, the blu-ray/dvd disc will be second rate as directed internet downloading will be the preferred and number one method for home video.

So yeah, maybe "dead" was wrong, "Dying", "stage 4", "Terminal" is a better choice....films lovers should make the best of how long is left.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

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

posted 10-22-2010 03:57 PM

quote: Greg Anderson
If I took a state-of-the-art photo of a pile of dung would that make it worth seeing?

I guess it would depend on the lighting [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-22-2010 05:30 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
"Terminal" is a better choice....films lovers should make the best of how long is left.

For what it's worth, I considered myself a fairly die-hard film guy, but after four digital months I can't exactly say I miss it.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-22-2010 08:09 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
"Terminal" is a better choice....films lovers should make the best of how long is left.

That's why I still work part-time as a projectionist. Once everything is digital, I think this industry will just be too boring to work in. There is nothing tremendously special about an all-digital complex for whatever reason. Anything can be done by just about anybody, there is no cool innovation like platter arrays and all of that. Good for the industry? Perhaps. Fun? Nah.

The only thing I would find really cool is a theater without any staff at all, period. Crap would be bought at pre-stocked vending machines, you'd buy a cup and fill it yourself. Online ticketing or machines at the theater to purchase them, etc. The only reason I can think of to have any staff would be to clean auditoriums. There is no other reason for other staff or managers, etc. They are useless.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 10-22-2010 09:53 PM

In twenty years, people will look back on this period (probably from about 2005-2015) as being a golden age for moving image formats. Right now, film is still readily available (and if Lucas or Spielberg wanted to release something in 70mm, I guarantee that AMC and Regal would be installing it and also refurbishing existing 70mm equipment in olrder theatres). Both super-8 and 15/70 Imax are in worldwide daily use. Meanwhile, video projection (from both analog and digital formats) and D-cinema are now at the point that the quality is no longer embarrassing, and can even be quite good. Heck, even a $1k HD handycam from Best Buy is good enough to produce a watchable image for a cinema-size screen under the right conditions.

A few years from now, we will never again have this many readily accessible ways to photograph and exhibit moving images for mainstream features. Sure, film will be with us for forever (even if it's made in someone's basement and developed in a bathtub), but it will eventually be a specialty format, and not a conveniently available product.

What does this have to do with anything? Not much, but I really wish that this golden age of formats could also be a golden age for quality movies, but that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment.

In any case, I do feel strongly that older films (say, pre-mid-2000s) that were originally photographed and intended to be exhibited on film should be shown on film, and that distributors have an ethical responsibility to maintain quality prints in circulation of these titles. Newer titles, of course, may have been intended to be exhibited in any of a variety of formats, and the director's wishes should dictate the exhibition format whenever possible.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

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

posted 10-22-2010 10:11 PM

quote: Scott Norwood
distributors have an ethical responsibility

ROTFLMFAO

"Distributors" and "ethics", two words that are hilarious together [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

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

posted 10-23-2010 03:13 AM

quote: Scott Norwood
In twenty years, people will look back on this period (probably from about 2005-2015) as being a golden age for moving image formats.

20 years from now, people will look back at this era as the digital revolution. Films are being made and increasingly shown on digital format. The movie chains are marketing digital as well.

quote:
Right now, film is still readily available [/QUOTE

Film is still readily available because the film network is just so massive. It has been the same for 100 years. However, every time a new multiplex opens up, digital takes over.

[QUOTE] (and if Lucas or Spielberg wanted to release something in 70mm, I guarantee that AMC and Regal would be installing it and also refurbishing existing 70mm equipment nt and developed in a bathtub),

See the fact is that George Lucas and Spielberg are not endorsing 70mm. Lucas in fact supports digital, Speilberg is slow to adopt. I don't think Lucas or Spielberg have ever shot in 70mm, perhaps someone can verify this.

What is important to note is that filmakers like Lucas and Cameron have gone digital. I believe Tim Burton has as well.

quote:
I do feel strongly that older films (say, pre-mid-2000s) that were originally photographed and intended to be exhibited on film should be shown on film,

I kind of agree with this, but after seeing "Hereafter" which was shot on film and shown to me on digital (not sure what k it really was, I think it was 4k tho) I kind prefer digital.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 10-23-2010 03:11 PM

Tom Hamlet did play the Odeon York Toronto Sherway did not get a print even though it had 3 "70mm equiped" screens due mainly to management refusing to guarantee no print damage during the lockout that happened then

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

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

posted 10-23-2010 03:28 PM

quote: Gordon McLeod
Tom Hamlet did play the Odeon York Toronto Sherway did not get a print even though it had 3 "70mm equiped" screens due mainly to management refusing to guarantee no print damage during the lockout that happened then

Gord.

Sherway did get a print. Its was 35mm, I built the print myself which ran in Cinema #5 (or Cinema #7 after the renovation to 13 screens) and the sound was SDDS. It came in four cans (4reels each) if I remember correctly. We had an intermission for Hamlet

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 10-23-2010 04:55 PM

i meant a 70mm print i am familiar with sherway all too well did many a THX recert there in its early days

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 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.