Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: May 22, 2008

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: May 22, 2008 (Page 14)

This topic comprises 22 pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20 21 22

Author

Topic: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: May 22, 2008

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 03-03-2008 01:43 PM

Supposedly someone in the sales dept. at Paramount started trying to find out (via a fax to some bookers) how many digital theatres could still run film, because Spielberg had indicated his desire to have the movie on film-only. This fax was premature, but of course somebody leaked it to the joblo.com site.

I'm surprised it didn't get much farther -- but the fact that it didn't plays right into the whole "most people don't know the difference or care" theory that a lot of us have.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-03-2008 03:59 PM

quote: Martin Brooks
I don't understand how any theatre can be all-digital. As far as I can tell, only a small percentage of films have been released in digital and according to the lists I have (which admittedly might not be complete), they actually show a decrease to the number of digital films released. For 2006, I show about 65 films and for 2007, I have tracked about 50. For 2008, I only show 7 so far.

Martin... Your numbers are TOO LOW! Maybe your commitment and responsibilities for your real job is preventing you from being thorough in your research or perhaps you're the victim of an unreliable source(s)? [Confused]

There were more than seven digital releases just in February alone.

As for the "Indiana Jones" situation, I think the "announcement" and how it has played out suggests there's been a big misunderstanding. I suspect someone misinterpreted the purpose of what Paramount was seeking; that is, how many venues can run both film and digital?

Obviously, film-only venues need to be sent a film print, and digital-only venues need to be sent a digital version. I think Spielberg & Paramount's intent in having as many film prints as possible in circulation meant surveying who could run both and then encouraging/insisting those dual-format venues to book film print(s) instead of digital.

Since the movie was shot on film, cut on film and (I think) not using a digital intermediate, what excites me is the possibility of hopefully seeing a true "show print," should they strike any.

Also, anyone see the posting on the rec.arts.movies.tech newsgroup about the possibility of a 70mm print being used for the film's premiere at the Cannes Film Festival?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 03-03-2008 04:57 PM

If I was Disney, I'd move Narnia back a month to April. They're going to see a huge drop when Indy opens.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-03-2008 05:30 PM

The month of April represents a big opportunity to a movie studio willing to take a chance on a major movie release. Usually there's just a lot of trash product getting moved in and out of theaters quickly as possible to make way for "summer movies" arriving in May. Not much real competition during that time.

I'd say the same thing for mid August to mid September as well.

On the topic of digital intermediate and Indy 4, if they don't use a DI step in post production that will probably be fine. I just hope all of those CGI effects are rendered at a higher resolution than mere 2K. They will also have to be very careful about the control of color on those CGI effects otherwise they won't cut into the film elements reliably.

One good example of this problem can be seen in a previous Spielberg film, Jurassic Park. I've seen it on film in theaters and the glitch is even there on DVD.

Go to the night time T-Rex attack scene where it leaves its paddock and attacks the Ford Explorer to get to the stupid kids inside. Jeff Goldblum is waving a flare. When the T-Rex roars at him you see it. A big color shift. That shift marks the edit point going from the live action plate to the CGI plate where the T-Rex starts chasing after Jeff Goldblum. The shot is still amazing to watch, but that color shift is still a flaw.

In a digital intermediate work flow it is much easier to fix such problems and control color consistently throughout the duration of the movie. It's also an added convenience that the DI can serve as a master for HD-quality home video release and reduction DVD release. Unfortunately too many are rendered in mere 2K and throw away significant image detail in the process.

I think it would be pretty cool if some 5-perf 70mm prints are made of this movie. I'd be willing to drive some considerable distance to see the movie projected on a big screen in 70mm. But I think such blow-up treatment would make it even more critical that the CGI effects be rendered in 4K rather than 2K.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 03-03-2008 06:16 PM

In case anyone from Paramount is watching... count me in as someone who would also drive a great distance to see this movie in 70mm. And I'd bring a car load of people with me.

And for what it's worth, had it been SHOT in 70mm, I'd have driven even further.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 03-03-2008 06:53 PM

Didn't Spielberg have a big hand in killing 70mm by not releasing JURASSIC PARK in the format?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-03-2008 07:02 PM

No. In 1993 several movie releases had 35/70mm blow-up prints despite Jurassic Park being 35mm-only.

To add to that, Steven Spielberg invested in DTS, the only digital sound for film process compatible with both 35mm and 70mm film for commercial movie theaters. Dolby Digital and SDDS were never compatible with 70mm.

1994 saw fewer films with blow up 70mm prints (True Lies and Robert Altman's Short Cuts being among those few).

If anyone deserves blame for removing 5/70mm from commercial movie theaters, it's the movie distributors themselves. The policies of certain movie theater chains also played a part in that too. I've always been very critical of movie chains that built huge stadium seated multiplex sites featuring some theaters with gigantic sized screens -yet merely illuminated with 35mm projection. I think they should have at least installed dual gauge 35mm/70mm projectors just so the capability would be there to pressure distributors. By equipping 35mm only they gave distributors the perfect excuse for distributing 35mm only.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 03-03-2008 07:28 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Steven Spielberg invested in DTS, the only digital sound for film process compatible with both 35mm and 70mm film for commercial movie theaters. Dolby Digital and SDDS were never compatible with 70mm.

But CDS was. And it could do 35mm as well. Maybe Indy 4 will have some CDS prints?

| IP: Logged

Don Furr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 509
From: Sun City, Ca USA
Registered: Nov 2002

posted 03-03-2008 07:35 PM

Gosh, I thought CDS was a dead audio format. [Confused]

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 03-03-2008 07:44 PM

When I started at AMC in 1989, our theater had two Century 35/70 projectors in our biggest houses. I believe that theater opened in 1985. The Centuries were removed sometime in the early nineties for some unknown reason. They worked great - better than the six other Christies did at the time. But for whatever reason, they were removed. In the whole time they were there, that theater only ran two 70mm movies, Innerspace and Dick Tracy. I was lucky enough to get to run Dick Tracy while I was there, but I never understood why they didn't take the opportunity to run 70mm more often. [Frown]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-03-2008 08:42 PM

Cinema Digital Sound may have been too ambitious a system for 1990s film printing and CCD imager technology. 6 million bits of data per second on the print and no analog back up track.

I could understand movie distributors being stingy with booking 70mm film prints in theaters when the prints were mag striped. Those prints cost a lot more money than the typical 35mm print. But when DTS 70mm became available -right at the time the stadium seated theater multiplex building boom was going full speed- the movie distributors didn't do squat to take advantage of it. They could have produced quite a few DTS 70mm prints for large screened movie theaters for much lower cost than mag-stripe prints. As Brad has suggested, it's still possible and even practical for a big movie theater to do a special DTS 70mm show of a major event picture. Systems can be set up temporarily if need be.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 03-03-2008 08:57 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
No. In 1993 several movie releases had 35/70mm blow-up prints despite Jurassic Park being 35mm-only.

I know it wasn't the last 70mm release, but I always thought that releasing a movie as huge as JURASSIC PARK in 35mm only marked the beginning of the end for 70mm. Weren't 70mm fans freaking out when that happened?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 03-03-2008 09:40 PM

Scott,

It depends on the venue and when it was designed and what its primary media format is. I like and multi projector system to minimize variances on Changeover. So, in the case of a four film projector system (I have one and a second one coming on line), I have the DLP in the middle and the pairs on either side of the middle machine. That is, machines 1 and 2 are a pair and machines 3 and 4 are a pair. It may sound odd to not have machines 2 and 3 to be a pair (closest to centerline) but by having 1 and 2 be a pair you minimize the perspective difference on the pair and thereby virtually eliminate any perceptable change at the changeover.

In both installations, machines 1 and 2 are 35/70 machines and a 70mm image really can look odd when changedover with a big perspective difference (discovered this in an IMAX theatre where the 35/70 machines were divided with an Imax projector between).

The other pair of projectors in both installations are 35/16s...again, you don't want huge differences between the two on changeover...particularly 16mm so I couldn't put the 35/70s in slots 2 and 3 and leave the two 35/16s in 1 and 4 (not 16mm aperture plate cutting is a pain).

Due to when the AFI/Silver was designed, the video projector was in the 5th port by design. Portal 3 is on centerline. Fortunately, with a 110' throw, the DLP being offcenter is mostly corrected with lens shift...likewise with #1's 70mm...lens shift corrects for most of the keystone distortion but both #1 and the DLP need some toe-in.

At the LOC...the DLP will be dead center and the film projectors will have as tight a spacing as practical and lens shifting will be employed to minimize keystone artifacts.

In existing 2-projector booths...the video is often getting to sit off center...a disadvantage to existing booths is that often the two sets of ports are centered about the screen center...so the Video is notably off center. The worst part of this is without any digital keystone correction...subtitles will show off the keystone...the DCinema machines SHOULD allow digital keystone correction once the mechanical (optical) keystone correction has been exhausted.

For all of our new multiprojector booths...we are doing Video in the middle, film equally on either side with as tight a spacing as practical. For single projector/platter (grrrrr) we are essentially treating the video projector as the other film projector and both are equally offset to minimize any keystone to each. Again, lens shifting is employed on all machines to minimize or even eliminate all keystone artifacts.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 03-03-2008 10:11 PM

quote: Mike Schindler
I know it wasn't the last 70mm release, but I always thought that releasing a movie as huge as JURASSIC PARK in 35mm only marked the beginning of the end for 70mm. Weren't 70mm fans freaking out when that happened?

Not really.

For one thing, Jurassic Park was filmed for 1.85:1 format. A pretty good number of 1.85:1 movies throughout the 1980s and into 1990 had 70mm blow up prints, but many fans of 70mm and widescreen were often annoyed by such blow up treatments. 70mm seemed to provide a better visual pay off for anamorphic filmed movies and certain Super35 shows (such as those directed by James Cameron).

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 03-03-2008 10:24 PM

Digital sound killed 70mm. The end.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 22 pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20 21 22

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.