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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Upcoming 70mm Screenings (Page 3)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  9  10  11

Author Topic: Upcoming 70mm Screenings Geoff Jones Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 579 From: Broomfield, CO, USA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 11-10-2007 03:06 PM                        Some 70MM screenings at the Cinerama Theatre in Seattle. Spread the word! -2007- Ghostbusters : November 11 and 13 Titanic: November 25 and 27, December 2 and 4 -2008- 2001: A Space Odyssey**: January 27 and 29, February 3 and 5 (**Original print in "B" condition) Tron: February 24 and 26, March 2 and 4 Lawrence of Arabia: March 16, 18, 23, and 25  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-10-2007 03:15 PM                     With all of these semi-regular 70mm screenings, I have to ask what is the current print condition of these movies that keep getting handled over and over? I will probably be flamed for this, but fact of the matter is that with advances in filmstocks over the years, in many cases the 70mm print will not give a better presentation (with certain exceptions, such as Lawrence of Arabia). Case in point, compare an original Raiders of the Lost Ark print in 70mm to what is capable if that movie was reprinted on polyester Vision stock. (Either an EK print, or the original negative had a new printing negative struck off of it using today's film stock and printing technology.) Not only would the 35mm print free of wear (since it would be new), but the colors would be true to the original and the end result resolution would be better. At this point the only difference is sound, and MOST 70mm mag prints have suffered wear due to incompetence or lack of lubrication and no longer sound like they did when they were new.  |  IP: Logged Ben Wales Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 602 From: Southampton. England Registered: Jul 99 posted 11-10-2007 03:36 PM                     quote: Brad Miller I will probably be flamed for this, but fact of the matter is that with advances in filmstocks over the years, in many cases the 70mm print will not give a better presentation Well that may seam that way,but it's kind of "Steam Railways" for the Cinema world, old, but with class. I have viewed through some well worn, some in Grey Scale 70mm prints that had seen better days, but people do seek out 70mm screenings and does not deter them and if you try to flog them of with Digi stuff - they just won't come  |  IP: Logged Geoff Jones Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 579 From: Broomfield, CO, USA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 11-10-2007 07:08 PM                        One of the attractions to me is that any theatre that is bothering to show something in 70MM is likely to give a damn about the presentation. (That doesn't automatically mean that a 35mm house doesn't give a damn... but an awful lot sure don't.) Also, isn't the larger film stock able to handle more light when projected on really giant screens? And more inherently steady, due to its larger size? And isn't any dirt on the film going to appear a little smaller, because it isn't being magnified as much? (I'm not projectionist, and welcome any professional efforts to set me straight on these details!) Ultimately, I like to support 70MM presentations because of the (likely vain) hope that supporting them will lead to more 70MM releases.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-11-2007 10:05 AM                        Geoff: in general I agree with you about 70mm; this is not to say that MANY releases in 70 were actually inferior to the 35mm release. Superman II comes to mind. Remember the quality of 70mm many times was primarily related to the fact that 1. it had stereo and 2. the print was struck off of the camera neg in many cases wearing out the original neg. Louis  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-11-2007 12:31 PM                     I have a feeling that many of these 70mm films will never be re-struck when they hit the trash bin and will just be scanned at 4K to be shown on that system in digital. So enjoy em while you can! From the suits point of view it just isn't worth the cost when the digital scan itself will never wear out. I just checked the link to the listings.... how pathetic! Only two of them were 100% lensed in 65mm. Wasn't the Top Gun aerial stuff done in either Techniscope or Super 35 because the anamorphic lenses were too heavy to fly at those G forces? Titanic was all Super 35. The ad makes it sound like they all were shot in 65mm... From the ad... "Shot on film twice the size of a typical 35MM motion picture, these super high-resolution films are known for their amazing clarity and detail on the big screen." Come on boys at least mark the 35 blow-ups as such! And if you're going to stick to what it says in your ad there are still a number of other true 65mm to 70mm films available. Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-11-2007 07:58 PM                     Actually, those that 70mm features shot on 65mm...they do indeed keep 70mm prints, period. 4K digital does not equal 70mm in resolution...in fact it only equals 1.85 35mm in the sense of resolution. The other falicy is that storing digitally somehow keeps the image perfect forever...when in fact digital is showing itself to be a poor archival medium with both data loss but also changing storage methods obsoleting older ones. There is a booming business in Hollywood now to transfer digitally shot movies/effect to film for storage. Film represents a storage medium that most archivists believe they can keep for 1000-years or more...I admit it is a bold prediction considering how film has been treated in its first 100 years but this is what places like the Library of Congress state (I know, cuz I've heard them say it myself). I'm also happy to say that we are installing 70mm projectors into the new Library of Congress facility in Culpeper, VA in addition to Nitrate rated 35/16 projectors. Steve  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 11-12-2007 02:23 PM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen I just checked the link to the listings.... how pathetic! Only two of them were 100% lensed in 65mm. Two? I count three. (Or are you not considering "Tron"?) quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Wasn't the Top Gun aerial stuff done in either Techniscope or Super 35 because the anamorphic lenses were too heavy to fly at those G forces? According to American Cinematographer's coverage of the film published around the time of its release, the entire movie was shot in Super-35.  |  IP: Logged Blaine Young Master Film Handler Posts: 477 From: Kirkland, WA, USA Registered: Sep 2006 posted 11-12-2007 03:41 PM                     I've been wondering about the screening of Titanic. I thought I read somewhere that all of the 70mm prints for that had been played to death and there only a handful to begin with.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-12-2007 04:31 PM                     There were 14 prints made, 10 of which played in the US. By the end of the run my print at the GCC Northpark was still 100% flawless. That and two others (one from Denver and one from LA) were also saved. The other 7 were totally trashed according to Paramount. Joe Redifer screened the print from Denver and said it wasn't very good. The LA print is missing reel 1 and has wear on it. My print left the Northpark in flawless condition, as I screened the final performance in it's entirety and was the one to break it down. I played that print again after it had a one week engagement at the Fox theater in Atlanta, where they so nicely put some light scratches on it and the reel changes had handling cinch marks on them. (Thanks guys...I played it for 6 months and yet you did all of that in one week!) Since then the Northpark print has been used for most engagements since it is still the best print out there. Unfortunately that reel 1 keeps getting shipped back and forth to mate with the LA print. You can tell it is my print because at the A/B switch of reel 4 there was an ultrasonic lab splice that some dipwad cut out and spliced back with tape. Also the end of reel 9 another dipwad scratched in Clint Fare cues because the scene was dark. If anyone screens that print, I would be curious to see how beaten up it has become. As I stated before, it left my theater 100% FLAWLESS.  |  IP: Logged Sean Weitzel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall) Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-13-2007 01:22 PM                     We (bay area residents) had two of the 70mm Titanic prints that were being screened on two of the three screens of the Century 22. I saw the film three times there over the course of a month and sadly, the last screening I attended, at least one of the prints was covered in scratches and vertically jumped throughout. It was hard to determine whether the machine was threaded incorrectly, or the perforations were damaged, but it sure didn't look good at all. I asked the manager about it once i noticed the problem and all he said was "it's the print". Sigh. I later learned that both prints were all but destroyed by the time the engagement ended. Side note, didn't James Cameron pay out of his pocket to have those prints struck?  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 11-14-2007 08:24 AM                     If I remember, a 70mm print of Aliens was destroyed on opening night at the Criterion theatre in New York. The owners had just twined the place in time for opening, and probably rushed the job. It was a huge run down 'barn' of a theater when I had seen Alien there before. I remember a bunch of rats running across the stage. Problem is, too many operators think 70mm is the same as 35mm, only bigger.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-14-2007 10:31 AM                     It's not just some operators that think that. It's also some technicians and most corporate personnel.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-14-2007 10:40 AM                        Brad, John, etc.--the differences that I have noted between 70mm and 35mm with respect to operation are as follows: - mag tracks (need to demag projector and be careful of print storage; different Dolby alignment procedure) - gate tension is touchy due to mag tracks and varies from print to print - film runs faster, thus any damage will likely happen faster and affect more footage (vs. 35mm) - takeup tension is touchy and takeup reel usually needs a little help at startup to avoid film breakage or sprocket damage - need to remove certain 35mm parts from projector (e.g. 35mm pad roller from JJ upper sprocket) to avoid potential for film damage - need to re-center lens for 70mm - need beam-spreader for lamphouse and need to re-align lamp - prints are more expensive and existing inventories are unlikely to be reprinted in 70mm if damaged; thus, prints need extra-special care Am I missing anything important? Are there any issues specific to platter operation that need to be addressed? (If anyone needs to borrow them, I should mention that I have generic loops of Dolby tone and pink noise in 70mm mag that I would loan out to anyone who can use them.)  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 11-14-2007 11:27 AM                     quote: - gate tension is touchy due to mag tracks and varies from print to print Also 70mm prints are more likely to be triacetate, and therefore need adjustment due to thicker stock, and possibly brittle with age. I've only ever run one 70mm film, actually half a film as I was operating one machine of a pair and it was a long time ago, but I believe that the EQ isn't standardised, so you need different loops for each film. Obviously need to take care lifting 70mm prints due to the greater weight involved. Need to check parts only used for 70mm; e.g. rollers in penthouse turning freely. quote: - need to remove certain 35mm parts from projector (e.g. 35mm pad roller from JJ upper sprocket) to avoid potential for film damage This seems to be a very common problem; I've seen a lot of 70mm prints which have scratches which obviously line up with where the edges of 35mm film would be.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  9  10  11

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.