Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70MM ad thread

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » 70MM ad thread (Page 14)

This topic comprises 38 pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 36 37 38

Author

Topic: 70MM ad thread

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-10-2011 09:01 PM

Los Angeles Times, July 10, 1983.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 03-10-2011 09:19 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
65mm camera negative film and 70mm print film have the same size image area inside the perforations. The only difference is the area outside the perfs. 70mm film has more material outside of the perfs to hold four tracks of a 6-track magnetic soundtrack.

I have wondered why film production people went to the trouble to make two different widths of film for the classic Todd-AO format. Why not just make it all 70mm in width? Is there substantial savings on weight in the camera with shaving off 5mm of width? Does shedding that extra 5mm made the film run through the camera more reliably?

One interesting thing: it might actually be possible for the 70mm version of DTS to work on 65mm film. That time code isn't nearly as wide as 4 tracks of magnetic sound. But I don't see anyone going to the trouble of re-working film projectors to do 5/65mm projection.

I would like to see 65mm/70mm production make a comeback at the very least in the film production end of things. It does make a difference in how well the movie looks on mediums from film projection down to Blu-ray. Baraka is proof of that.

I thought 70mm was the generic name: while it's technically 65mm negative space 5mm for allocated sound encoding.

| IP: Logged

Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover

Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 03-10-2011 11:42 PM

Micheal- Perhaps you might know.

From what you have been uploading, it looks like the Mann Chinese was the place for 70mm

Did they play 70MM for an extended period of time without 35mm in between?

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-11-2011 12:00 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
One interesting thing: it might actually be possible for the 70mm version of DTS to work on 65mm film. That time code isn't nearly as wide as 4 tracks of magnetic sound. But I don't see anyone going to the trouble of re-working film projectors to do 5/65mm projection.

DTS screwed up with the dts70 format. They SHOULD have placed their timecode outside of the perforations and WIDENED the actual image area to 2.40:1.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-11-2011 01:03 AM

On DTS-70, the timecode is outside the perfs.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-11-2011 02:42 AM

Oops, you're right. What I meant to say was when they were creating the dts70 format they screwed up in not using that newfound width available to the picture.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 03-11-2011 07:14 AM

A popular misconception is that if one where to loose the inside tracks of 70mm that one would get 2.39:1...you don't. But another issue is that NO 70mm film gates are set up to run that wide either so EVERY 70mm projector would need to have its gate/trap modified to allow for the extra width.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-11-2011 12:51 PM

And the problem with new projector gates and such is?????? After all CDS did it! [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 03-11-2011 01:39 PM

Yeah...sortof...they shaved one side on the Century JJ only. Which begot asymmetrical stability. Simplex barely has enough meat on their runners as it is. It would take significant engineering for all of the existing 70mm machines of the various brands to be able to accommodate this marginally wider image.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-11-2011 04:17 PM

quote: Tom Petrov
[Michael]- Perhaps you might know. From what you have been uploading, it looks like the Mann Chinese was the place for 70mm

Well, the Chinese is, arguably, the most famous theater in the world, so the top films often played there.

I loved seeing movies at the Chinese back in the day. It wasn't my favorite L.A. theater, though. My fave was probably the National, followed closely by the Century Plaza, Avco (before it was split up) and the Village. And in Orange County I really liked the Big Newport.

A lot of presentation-savvy people think the Chinese is overrated and should never have been given THX certification. I think it's fine so long as you don't sit too far back (where some acoustical weirdness can kick in).

quote: Tom Petrov
Did they play 70MM for an extended period of time without 35mm in between?

What do you mean? Like during 1989 when the Chinese played Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade followed by Batman followed by Casualties of War followed by Black Rain? That's about six months of 70mm goodness! Or are you asking about long, extended runs of a single film, like the 58-week roadshow engagement of West Side Story?

During the '80s, when there were a LOT of 70mm releases, the Chinese often ran 70mm bookings back to back. Plus, the Chinese was a triplex then and so you'd frequently find two or even all three screens running 70mm simultaneously.

And, finally, I leave you with an ad from one of the Chinese Theater's five return enagements of this '80s action-adventure classic.

Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1983.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-11-2011 05:30 PM

quote:
In other words, The Exorcist 1979 re-release played nationwide, mostly in 35mm, in the typical staggered distribution pattern of the era...At least six 70mm prints circulated during the re-release.

Thanks Michael - I had read your post - I was hoping you'd be able to expand with these kinds of specifics.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 03-12-2011 09:30 AM

Another ad for Mann's Chinese:

Los Angeles Times, December 1, 1985.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-12-2011 10:59 AM

Michael is now REALLY bringing out the good stuff!

And there's the proof. Back then they would print anything in 70mm. It didn't even need to be an event movie or something that would specifically benefit from the technology (such as a musical). [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Mark Campbell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 148
From: Seattle, WA USA
Registered: Jul 2007

posted 03-12-2011 11:08 AM

Wasn't "Spies Like Us" mono in 35MM? If so what was the 70MM mix? And why blow up to 70MM?

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-12-2011 12:56 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I would like to see 65mm/70mm production make a comeback at the very least in the film production end of things. It does make a difference in how well the movie looks on mediums from film projection down to Blu-ray. Baraka is proof of that.

Yes, specially now that they are planning to phase film out from exhibition. It would be a proper send off for film after all its many good years of service to have good productions filmed in 65mm with limited release in 70mm. It would be great if Kodak could reach some sort of agreement with the big names in Hollywood to do this, at least film could have a dignified death, instead of this ignominious death at the hand of many digital advocates (many of them accountants and IT specialists, ergo not related to film at all) that are spreading numerous lies about film and rendering it as something inferior, when in reality it has been the essence of film making and its raison d’etre.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 38 pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 36 37 38

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.