|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Kodak to get out of the FILM business?
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-13-2007 10:14 AM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
When NTSC transmitters are all shut off in a year or so
The cut-off date for this is supposed to be 2/17/2009, but I would wager that the date will be extended yet again (original was May 2006). There are still a lot of small and medium market broadcasters who have digital channel assignments but who have not yet started service, pleading lack of funds. The tiny station in upstste New York that I first started in still hasn't invested in DTV, as it would mean a new transmitter and an extention on the building that holds the old analog one (a 40 year old RCA TTU-30A), along with a new antenna and someone to hang it on the mast. This is a station that gets maybe $50.00 top for a 30 sec. commercial. There are quite a few broadcasters in the same boat that are just barely hanging on in an increasingly low margin business. This is liable to be dragged out for quite a while longer, as no-one will do anything to sweep these guys off the air.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Any word on fuji's plans for the future?
Fuji seems to be in it for the long haul, God bless 'em. To the delight of many, they just recently reintroduced Velvia 50, arguably the best outdoor/landscape film ever made. If you follow great outdoor photographers like Galen Rowell, Tom Mackie, Brenda Tharpe, John Shaw et. al., all their stuff is all Fuji all the time. Not to kick Kodak when they are down, they make a fine portrait film, but I've always been suprised how they let this huge market slip away from them to the extent that they did. I appreciate that they THOUGHT they had a competive product in Kodachrome, but, geez, talk about dropping the ball. Pick up any book of nature or outdoor photography where the photographer lists specifications, and 99.9999% of the time . . . Velvia.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-13-2007 05:18 PM
Dustin...what you claim has NEVER been true in actual practice. That is, 70mm can and does outgross its 35mm neighbor every time.
However, you are right about some markets that quality just isn't a sell or no improvement in sales will be had by 70mm. However, those markets have the greatest potential to fail, period. If the customer doesn't perceive quality and is very price savy, the theatre is a horrible place to view a movie in most cases. They are expensive, inconvienent and often put on a performance that is inferior to the home, or the perceived home (if the patron likes the surrounds and subwoofers high, they will have that in their home). I do see the home market erroding the theatre in this situation. All the theatre has to offer is "a place to go." There are many places to go in this world. Perhaps in some small and particularly economically depressed towns there are fewer choices so a sub-par cinema may survive.
However as one moves towards major cities and towns, the choices of where to go are about limitless...these towns should have nothing but 70mm to choose from for movies by now and they should be showplaces that entice one to go to the movies over other forms of entertainment.
Having grown up in a town that has always had 70mm available (Washington DC area), I still see the affect that 70mm has over people...even kids that don't understand what it is...there is an instant perception of its greatness when watching the movie in 70mm. The AFI/Silver is about to run 2001:A Space Odyssey in 70mm 6-track (mag print they tell me...ooo how I love the smell of oxide in the morning) and they have already presold 100s of tickets. This on a old film that has been on TV, video and played in theatres almost since it was first printed...if the AFI plays a film in 70mm it always gets better attendence than if played in 35mm. Perhaps the AFI crowd is more sophisticated...after all it plays retro films a lot.
However, even in mainstream 1st run situations...70mm ALWAYS holds more than its own.
All of you that say it is dead and it wouldn't do anything to spark business don't have any evidence (other than the deadness) on it. History says it will do well.
Contrast, there is nothing that says that digital cinema will do anything for business except be more expensive to keep up. It isn't an advertisable quality improvement, it doesn't make the movie any better (70mm at least provides more detail).
Theatres can boast what 1080p 2K projection at the moment...when home theatres/TVs can claim the same thing...though the "p" may be on a limited basis for the moment. JPEG2000 isnt advertisable as an improvement...JPEG makes it sound like the pictures downloaded on the WEB and 2000 makes it sound nearly a decade out of date!
So I agree with those that say that 70mm will not be (or should be) a mainstream format. It should be the premium format for showplaces that can compliment its superiority. If you are going to have nobody without training thread up you projectors to scratch up 70mm like 35mm and present it on a crappy 25-foot wide screen...then what is the point?
What I feel is that the typical theatre (mall/multiplex) is what is headed for disaster and riding the digital boat all of the way down the drain. Not because of digital but because of changes in the society (what matters to them), overscreening to the point of non-profitability and also because of mediocrity that has become the typical movie theatre experience that has made it so unspecial.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 02-13-2007 06:13 PM
Stephen, sadly many US cinema chains view the conession stand as a more important operational aspect of their theatres than what's in the projection booth. Anything that is sold at the concession stand is typically allowed into the auditorium, though there are of course exceptions they are not the rule.
Steve, my point was not that 70mm can't outgross 35mm or digital, my point was that I do not believe that the format a movie is being projected in is the main selling point anymore. Among the list of things that a customer uses to decide where they will see a movie things like general cleanliness (bathrooms in particular), staff friendliness, auditorium comfort (as a side note, seats are particularly important. One theatre in this area has the high back style of seating and I know many people who refuse to go there because they feel the head cushion part of the seat forces their neck into an unatural position. True or not, they will not go there merely because of the seats, despite the fact that this theatre probably has the best operations in the area), and pricing how the image is generated is towards the bottum of that list.
In major markets I am sure there are enough people who recognize the quality of 70mm to make a theatre showing it exclusively viable-given that the economics of film printing will allow it to be viable and given that the studios remain willing to strike 70mm prints of features, two conditions I personally question.
As a side note, and perhaps a question for a researcher like Micheal Coate, I wonder if there were any instances of 70mm release where the number of 70mm and 35mm screens in a given market where similar so that an overall comparison could be made? Part of me wonders if the cinemas that outgrossed their competitors did show because they were showing 70mm or because they were showplaces even when they were showing 'only' 35mm. I have read many comments on here lamenting the demise of the Northpark theatre in Dallas, often talking about how they would drive many miles, even from other states, just to see a movie at the Northpark. I know that the Northpark showed many movies in 70mm, but not all of their shows were in that format. Yet the theatre still performed as a showplace and brought in those people even when it wasn't showing 70mm.
I am not saying that 70mm added nothing to the experience, certainly not, just that there was something else there besides the format of the film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 02-13-2007 06:58 PM
Here's what I dont see being discussed (if it has, sorry). Since most if not all prints are made through 2k DIs these days, what real benefit would 70mm have anyways? I mean, filming in 70mm, scanning at 2k, editing digitally, then outputting back to 70mm doesn't really sound like it'll knock the socks off the audience. Plus the fact that most "event" movies are chock full of sometimes good but mostly bad CGI effects rendered at 2K, do we really need 70mm anymore? I mean, Im not going to want to see the latest shitacious Ben stiller/owen wilson comedy just cause it was filmed in 70mm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 02-13-2007 08:49 PM
Steve, I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this subject. Heck, I've never watched a 70mm show so I can't really speak on quality or drawing power outside of speculation.
I still maintain, however, that the success or failure of this whole idea depends on two factors out of the exhibitors hands:
The cost of a 70mm PRINT (not the equipment to run it), and
The willingness of the very same studios pushing digital projection to strike said prints even when costs go up
70mm might be twice as expenisve as 35mm now (makes sense, twice the image and all) but how expensive will it be when film projection drops significantly with the wider introduction of DCinema? The question of REG converting is not if, its when IMHO. When that conversion is complete you will have almost half-if not more than half by that point with other conversions-of the screens in the US converted to digital cinema. It follows reasoning then that the demand for filmstock will be half of what it was pre-conversion. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but film is made in large sheets and then slit and perforated for the desired format. Thus, if Kodak makes 1,000 sheets of film it can slit 900 of them for 35mm and 100 for 70mm (oversimplifing I know but you get my point). Thus, as demand for 35mm prints goes down and the price for 35mm presumably goes up due to loss of economy of scale/attempts to protect profit margins/etc the price of 70mm will also go up.
In the end I hope you're right Steve. I'd rather like to be able to drive to Minneapolis and see 70mm at a showplace theatre sometime in the future. I wonder if it will happen though.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 02-14-2007 03:53 PM
Yes Paul, it's 25%, the perforation shape, size and pitch are the same on 70mm prints as on 35mm, though the distance from the edge of the stock is 2.5mm greater. That's assuming that you're shooting at 24 fps of course. For 30 fps Todd-AO you'd need to increase the, already increased, length by another 25%, giving a total of 1.5625 times the length of 24fps 35mm. Then you have to double that to get the area of film used, of course.
The perforation pitch on 65mm negative stock is the same as on 35mm, but they are a different shape, Kodak Standard perforations, as on prints, are used on 65mm negatives, rather than the Bell & Howell ones used on 35mm negatives. I don't know why, possibly due to the greater strain caused by pulling down the greater mass of film at a greater speed in the 65mm camera. In Russia 70mm stock is used for both negatives and prints. They also use KS perforations in 35mm negative stock there.
Fox Grandeur 70mm was four perforations per frame, but they were a quite different shape, and at a greater pitch than on modern 70mm film, so the frame height was very similar, just a few 'thou' less. The width was less as the aspect ratio was 2:1, rather than 2.2:1
70mm film is also available with the perforations closer to the edge of the strip, as on 35mm, but this is for use in medium format still cameras.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-14-2007 09:08 PM
quote: Bill Enos
I don't believe the public in general gives enough of a damn about 70 mm outside of special venues like Imax etc to make an effort to go out of their part of town to see an ordinary movie in 70.
Why should the public give a damn? Hollywood studios haven't truly made a fully credible effort of making a real 70mm movie since the late 1960s. When you look at every 65mm-photographed title since 1970, there's been one compromise after another made and very often the movies themselves only had limited appeal (art house flicks) or were just box-office bombs.
It's been a very long time since an actual hit movie was shot in 65mm. I strongly guarantee if the Lord of the Rings movies or The Matrix had been shot on 65mm we would be seeing a lot of new 70mm projectors getting installed. True 70mm just hasn't had the support of any real hit films since the 1960's.
IMAX, as a format, is currently being led to ruin by all these fake, DMR'ed blow-ups. It would be far more positive if Hollywood actually shot a feature film in 15/70 or at least 5/70 to use on those screens.
quote: Lyle Romer
Very few people have the kind of semi-ideal home theater setups that us geeks and our circle of friends have.
That doesn't stop lots of people with new home theater systems, no matter how badly compromised, from thinking their setup is just as good as the movie theater, even when they're playing regular 480p DVDs.
quote: Scott Norwood
If distribution costs are a concern, 1000 really high-quality screens running 70mm would cost less to support than 35,000 mostly mediocre screens running 35mm or DLP, and might just take in more money, too.
While I'm 100% in favor of this sort of thing, sadly the business aspect of Hollywood most certainly is not. They want the movie in and out of theatrical release and onto home video as quickly as possible. The studios think that will generate the most profit. With just a limited number of high quality theaters in operation a good theatrical release could play for many months. Studios are scared that could mean a lot more in the way of interest payments on all the money they borrowed to get the movie made. A lot of the lesser quality movies would be forced directly to video and not have the appeal of being seen as a legitimate movie release and instead be seen as something made for TV.
quote: Cameron Glendinning
To me no modern digital sound format actually comes close to the quality that was available in 6 track mag 70 mm.
While magnetic 6-track Dolby SR on 70mm was great, it doesn't have the upward capability of 24-bit uncompressed Linear PCM digital audio formats now going into D-Cinema theaters. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both have a lot of audio potential via the new Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master audio formats.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 02-14-2007 10:08 PM
quote: Mike Heenan
I mean, filming in 70mm, scanning at 2k, editing digitally, then outputting back to 70mm doesn't really sound like it'll knock the socks off the audience.
Very good point! although I do suspect that you would spot the difference. The higher the quality of the shooting material the more it does hold up through the degradation that follows in post production. ie a 70mm print transfered to vhs, always looked better than a 35mm print to vhs. Im sure that to some degree this would apply to 2 K standards but it would be wasteful.
quote: Bobby Henderson
it doesn't have the upward capability of 24-bit uncompressed Linear PCM digital audio formats now going into D-Cinema theaters.
Excellent point Bobby, Its the one aspect of digital sound and jpeg 2000 that does excite me, and that I was ignoring . Although I do think that there is still life in the old analoge verses digital arguements.
Taking Steves ideal or dream of a 70 mm comeback one step beyond. How about a DTS upgrade to either Blueray or HD Dvd drives with a modern non compressed HD audio codec, (one that might actually be 6 track and could really record say a different music track on each channel if wanted and not just steering logic!) that links off the existing DTS timecode track and is downwardly compatible with the existing CD based system. If we are going to dream! the existing 70mm houses will also be forced to install cup holders to totally complete the ultimate cinema experience!
Personally the only real economic reason to reintroduce 70mm to cinemas, would be so that Kodak could brand the experience as the ultimate imaging company! The prestege would revitalise Kodaks Brand and share price,perhaps they would finally sell some of there crappy digital cameras on the back of it!
When I worked at an IMAX theatre, It was very obvious how much 70mm has improved over the last 30 years. I wonder what Laurence of Arabia would look like if it was filmed with todays stocks (with film post production).
quote: Lyle Romer
They are buying it because of flat screens and the HDTV buzz word.
Just like how the punters once lapped up the hype of 70mm and ultra panavision perhaps? especially the optical blow ups? (granted the sound was a vastly superior experience in the pre digital days).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic