|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-30-2010 04:09 PM
Oh Tom, Tom Tom...I don't quite know what to make of you.
You post an item like
quote: Tom Petrov
IMHO, 70mm was a gigantic FAIL.
And I'm thinkin'..."is he just plain retarded, or is he stupid just plain ignorant or perhaps he is just trying to get some people to flame"
It has to be one of them because it isn't a matter of "opinion," humble or otherwise... the 5/70 process was a gigantic success by most any measure. I differentiate 5/70 from 8/70 or 15/70 as they go for different markets and only 8/70 could remotely be called a fail though it did serve its place for a period of time. In fact 8/70 could have done better had the studios embraced it a bit more and not pull back on it like they did...but I digress.
The 5/70 format...coming out in 1954 has had over a 50-year run and is still a current format for both taking and projecting though certainly not like in its heyday nor in projecting like in its reincarnation of the 80s/90s as a projection format, primarily.
Just about (though not quite all) every major projector manufacturer had a 70mm projector in their line up and they are still available new to this day. Both Arri and Panavision have 65mm available for production. The film is still available as is processing.
The success of 70mm releases (either from 65mm origination or as 35mm blow ups) is documented. A typical 70mm take is 5 times that of its 35mm competitor...historically. Even when a theatre shows some tired old 70mm title, like Lawrence of Arabia, people continue to line up for it...even in this day and age.
On the technical side, it advanced the motion picture experience in almost all respects and took almost nothing away. It remains, to this day, the best origination format as well as presentation format in terms of resolution, color, contrast, longevity. To put it in perspective, 65/70 has almost 16-times the current 2K DCP image in terms of resolution. And there in lies one of its problems with "modern" film makers.
If you are going to shoot in 65mm...you have to think about it for EVERY stage in your production. All of your special effects, all of your scenery all of your make up...EVERYTHING has to have that resolution in mind...or it will show. The increase in time and money to have EVERYTHING in the work flow has a compounding affect.
Then there is the photography itself...a DP that is used to composing for 35mm or even Video will have to change everything when shooting on 65mm. It takes more light to light up that bigger aperture...all of your depth of fields change as all of your lenses are different. It isn't a simple matter of choosing the 65mm camera today...everything in the production changes with that one decision.
As such, any director that would otherwise want to shoot in 65mm will face a mountain from the studio and production on it due to the ramifications. I remember talking to Ron Howard after a screening of Backdraft about his then upcoming production of Far and Away and complimenting him on choosing to shoot in 65mmm (the screening of Backdraft was in 70mm)...he made some remark about with the star power (Tom Cruise) and his success, he was able to force the issue. Note, Ron Howard was already a pretty darn successful director before Backdraft! Some speculate that had Far and Away been a better story that 70mm would have had a rebirth. And it wasn't that Far and Away was a flop...it just wasn't the next Star Wars...it wasn't the format's fault...it never is...It has always been about the story. The technicalities are there to help tell the story; not to replace it.
As a release format 70mm always delivered and has never really been properly replaced. It was, mistakenly, thought that 70mm allowed only superior sound...when in fact, it allowed larger screens to have brighter, steadier pictures...even with 35mm origination. No, 70mm from 35mm won't look like 65mm origination but it will get rid of projection specific problems like steady pictures and getting the light to the screen. When hasn't 70mm not delivered as a release format? No matter which picture, the 70mm theatres took far more of their share than the 35mm theatres did on the same title.
As for the current crop of directors...what makes you think they are as good as the people of yesteryear? James Cameron can't even figure out how to shoot in CinemaScope and instead ponies up grain ridden Super-35 (and now digital) images. Mind you, he is the best at Super-35 that I have seen but if he learned to shoot in 65mm, it would be that much better. I really don't think the current crop can cut it with 65mm. Mostly from a lack of desire to improve the picture versus putting that effort into some non-special effect.
But back on topic...70mm a fail...not in any sense...it might have run its course due to whatever reason (I hope not) but its success story is well documented, it is your comment that fails.
As for 4K being the next 70mm...that would be impossible. 4K is the next 35mm. 2K is merely a stepping stone to get there. 35mm 1.85 already has about 4K of resolution...CinemaScope having yet more. Digital still has a ways to go to catch up to 70mm. I also note that whenever one has put out a 4K demo...they keep going to The Sound of Music as an example...a film shot on 65mm back in the 1960s...all of those advances in film stock that even allowed Super-35 to have any use also applies to 65mm stocks. The 5/70 format remains the best that we have offered yet to the regular movie audience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God
Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 10-30-2010 05:22 PM
Steve, Tom knows everything, thinks theatres with no masking are ok, knows for sure that AMC ETX setups are Sony 4k, had to ASK if 70mm could be run off a platter, and has no intention of ever listening to any of us with experiences or knowledge that doesn't match his. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Hell, he can't even phrase his response right on whether Raider's was shot in 65mm, as he says one thing and means another. :
quote:
(Greg Anderson said :I'm gonna say there's no way they did principal photography with 65mm on these movies. Watch Raiders of the Lost Ark (the actual movie without even needing behind-the-scenes stuff) and the anamorphic optical artifacts are obvious all over that movie.)
Tom's response:
You are right. They did you 65mm to shoot Raiders. Speilberg has never used it for principal photography.
You said it best right here:
quote: Steve Guttag
And I'm thinkin'..."is he just plain retarded, or is he stupid just plain ignorant or perhaps he is just trying to get some people to flame"
All of the above.
He had registered here all the way back in 2003 and doubled his post count in the last month, mainly in this thread and THIS THREAD, where he has gained zero credibility.
He's entitled to his opinions as much as anybody here, but his motives for what he says don't seem to be in the spirit of contributing or learning anything of substance.
And even though Steve and I don't always agree on everything (like twisting speaker wire ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) Steve has summed up the 70mm format's virtues spot-on.
A closed mind, like a closed room, grows useless, dead and stale quickly.
And Tom I don't care if you like me or not, but you need to listen to Steve, Brad, Joe, Chris S, etc. as I have learned a LOT from them over the years I have been on this board.
The best folks in this industry always listen to what others have to say and are willing to change their mind or methods if their ideas are wrong. (Like me in regards to D-Cinema.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 10-31-2010 12:27 AM
quote:
Steve, Tom knows everything, thinks theatres with no masking are ok, knows for sure that AMC ETX setups are Sony 4k, had to ASK if 70mm could be run off a platter, and has no intention of ever listening to any of us with experiences or knowledge that doesn't match his. [Roll Eyes]
Hell, he can't even phrase his response right on whether Raider's was shot in 65mm, as he says one thing and means another. :
quote: (Greg Anderson said :I'm gonna say there's no way they did principal photography with 65mm on these movies. Watch Raiders of the Lost Ark (the actual movie without even needing behind-the-scenes stuff) and the anamorphic optical artifacts are obvious all over that movie.)
Tom's response:
You are right. They did you 65mm to shoot Raiders. Speilberg has never used it for principal photography.
You said it best right here:
quote: Steve Guttag And I'm thinkin'..."is he just plain retarded, or is he stupid just plain ignorant or perhaps he is just trying to get some people to flame"
All of the above.
He had registered here all the way back in 2003 and doubled his post count in the last month, mainly in this thread and THIS THREAD, where he has gained zero credibility.
He's entitled to his opinions as much as anybody here, but his motives for what he says don't seem to be in the spirit of contributing or learning anything of substance.
And even though Steve and I don't always agree on everything (like twisting speaker wire [Big Grin] ) Steve has summed up the 70mm format's virtues spot-on.
A closed mind, like a closed room, grows useless, dead and stale quickly.
And Tom I don't care if you like me or not, but you need to listen to Steve, Brad, Joe, Chris S, etc. as I have learned a LOT from them over the years I have been on this board.
The best folks in this industry always listen to what others have to say and are willing to change their mind or methods if their ideas are wrong. (Like me in regards to D-Cinema.)
Wow! You are sensitive.
I will lay off the anti-70mm chat
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 15 16
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic