Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70mm Alive And Well In San Francisco

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » 70mm Alive And Well In San Francisco (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: 70mm Alive And Well In San Francisco

Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler

Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 07-22-2005 01:34 AM

I want to thank Michael for posting this thread. I had no idea this was coming up, and would have missed it if I hadn't read this post. I will probably try to make several of these screenings. It will be difficult to make the drive into SF for some of the earlier ones on weeknights, but it will be worth it.

My only lament is that it's the Castro which is showing these. It's a well run theatre, but unfortunately they have an academy ratio screen. When showing 5/70, they use top masking. The resulting image is awfully small. I saw "2001" there a few years ago, and while I was glad I went, it was a little frustrating the screen wasn't bigger. Something like the Century 21 in San Jose would be a much better venue for a festival like this.

I'm almost more interested in what's on the Casto's calendar for the weeks following the 70mm screenings, namely, 35mm screenings of Harold Lloyd films such as "Saftey Last".

I forsee myself spending a lot of time driving to SF in August. Thanks again for posting this Michael!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 07-22-2005 05:35 PM

quote: Phil Hill
No matter how bleak of a picture you paint for commercial movie houses, they will survive. Perhaps NOT in the current numbers, but simply because people WANT to get away from their home NO MATTER how kewl their home theatre is.

"Perhaps not in the current numbers" is the point I think is worth underscoring. Sure, some premiere class theaters in big city centers and other high traffic locations may survive in some form. I think the theaters that do survive in the long term will have to reinvent themselves.

It is tough to predict what will happen to business in the future, be it good or bad. It seemed like stadium seating would be really great for business in 1995 when the AMC Grand 24 in Dallas helped start that building trend. I would not have predicted so many circuits would go into bankruptcy by the decade's end.

I think the not better than HDTV quality of digital cinema and the shortened video release windows of movies in the long run can be a very bad combination for theaters in most suburbs, smaller cities and towns. Exhibitors will operate unprofitable theaters for only so long. Sure, there's always going to be some people who will visit a theater even if they have to sit in lawn chairs. But you've gotta have enough of those customers to stay in business.

I saw a commercial last night advertising the DVD release of "XXX: State of the Union." Didn't this movie get released to theaters at the end of this past April -just a few weeks ago?

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-25-2005 05:07 AM

quote: Aaron Haney
My only lament is that it's the Castro which is showing these. It's a well run theatre, but unfortunately they have an academy ratio screen. When showing 5/70, they use top masking. The resulting image is awfully small. I saw "2001" there a few years ago, and while I was glad I went, it was a little frustrating the screen wasn't bigger.

Top masking is not evil in itself. Its application at the Castro is correct, yielding the best presentation.

Top masking is evil in modern auditoriums, which are short, so they chop the top of small screens for wider pictures. The Castro is a proscenium theatre, so it's design difference is that it's about a billion times taller than neccessary for pictures of a wide aspect ratio when they extend from the left & right extremities of the screen. Having top (& side masking) means that the Castro (& other proscenium theatres) can carve out the largest picture possible from the screen area for all formats. They only have an "academy ratio" screen when the top masking is completely out & the side masking in all the way. With the logic of wider aspect ratio movies not being good at the Castro because the top masking comes in, it would also be neccessary to say academy ratio pictures aren't good there because the side masking comes in. In fact, the top & side masking make possible the largest pictures possible on that screen.

There's a picture of the Castro's original screen here, & its current, larger front end here.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-26-2005 08:43 PM

quote: Phil Hill
But Steve, back when 70mm was "THE THING", a release, whether 35 only or 35/70mm, was NOT showing on 3500+ screens like today's releases. The ratio is totally different... There is NO comparison.

You are so wrong. Back when 70mm was "THE THING" as you put it...it DOMINATED the available audience...it matters not how many screens are showing it...you could (and did) have 35mm screens within the same theatre and people waited for the 70mm show. People would and did drive right by a theatre with a 35mm version and go to the 70mm theatre. All the screen count would do is FURTHER slant the number of theatres running the film in 70mm versus the amount of money made by 70mm. More people are not going to the movies due to screen count...the 70mm theatres would just take their high percentage of the pie.

quote:
Oh PULEEZE! That is sooo lame! You know as well as I do it's all about the "IMAX" name and hype. Nothing to do with what is better!

How can you claim my statement was lame when you throw out that "Status quo" statement that is total crap. The IMAX name is not what is bringing the people in beyond the perception of quality associated with the IMAX name. Just like 70mm. About the only time 70mm took hits in its time was when it was for 1.85:1 films where most people also mistook 70mm for the widest picture format. I even had a manger come into the booth while running ET in 70mm in 1982 to measure the width of the film to verify it was 70mm and not somewhat skinnier.

5/70mm is the real deal and it has always delivered. Give it a film worth showing and it will bring em to YOUR theatre. If people want to convert Hollywood product to IMAX...I suggest they give FlixFx a shot...then they will have Sky, Sky, SKY!!!

| IP: Logged

George Roher
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Washington DC
Registered: Jul 99

posted 07-27-2005 04:03 PM

I also think 5/70 is a better choice than DMR, but I should point out that I have never seen a DMR print.

The 5/70 shows I've run/seen were more satisfying experiences than any Imax film I've run/seen. Resolution aside, some 35mm shows I've run were more enjoyable than Imax due to the level of showmanship involved.

The MPX projectors, which are hawked as being more monkey friendly, may cause plexes to multitask the Imax operator and have shows running unattended. And even with the flattener on auto-cycle, shows cannot run completely unattended. The FF still needs to be manually hit once and a while and sometimes auto-cycle needs to be turned off.

If a mega-plex has a filmguarded 35mm print in one house and a DMR print in an unattended MPX booth, it's possible that the 35mm version will be the better show, because of the lack of crap on screen. And this is assuming there's no film damage.

When you consider 5/70 can be filmguarded, can have a curtain, is cheaper, and is big enough for the mini-large-format auditoriums, the choice is obvious. 5/70 is the way to go.

[ 07-27-2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: George Roher ]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 07-27-2005 05:36 PM

1000 and 2000 print releases were common throughout the 1980's and much of the 1990's. I have quite a few stack ad clippings from the late 1980's showing legions of theaters playing a movie like "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" where huge numbers of theaters had 35mm prints and a few 70mm bookings would be peppered throughout the area.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler

Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 07-28-2005 03:23 AM

William: Admittedly I have not been to the Castro in several years, but I have seen two films, "2001: A Space Oddessy" and "Metropolis", there within a relatively short time frame. Perhaps things have changed since, or I am remembering incorrectly, but it certainly appeared to me at the time that the width of the screen was the same between both screenings, and only top masking was employed to reach the 2.20:1 ratio for "2001".

I found the screen size when set up for 2.20:1 to be frustratingly small. I ended up sitting on the very front row for "2001", and still felt the viewing angle was a bit small. As I said, unless things have changed since or I am remembering incorrectly, I expect to find the same circumstances when I go back for this festival. Not to say I won't enjoy it, but I do wish the screen were bigger than when I saw "2001".

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

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.