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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 70MM ad thread (Page 15)

This topic comprises 38 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  ...  36  37  38

Author Topic: 70MM ad thread Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 03-12-2011 01:06 PM                    quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques spreading numerous lies about film and rendering it as something inferior Ramon-I just can't see how they are lying when a digital hard drive costs how much to make/ship/run compared to a 70MM print or even an IMAX 70MM print for that matter? Trust me, I would love to see a 70MM production, but I just can't see that happening. 70MM would work in some circumstances if the movie is a huge success like The Dark Knight, the IMAX film presentation is outstanding. But nobody would of predicted success like that. The hardest hurdle to overcome and it is huge is the cost associated with making/shipping/running a 70MM print.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-12-2011 05:36 PM                     ...and the fact that Hollywood wants ALL film to go away, and is working steadily toward that goal.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-12-2011 11:28 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag A popular misconception is that if one [were] to [lose] the inside tracks of 70mm that one would get 2.39:1...you don't. Actually, you do. Well, close enough, anyway (2.38:1).  |  IP: Logged Ramon Lamarca Marques Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: Edgware, England, UK Registered: Feb 2006 posted 03-13-2011 06:37 AM                     quote: Tom Petrov Ramon-I just can't see how they are lying when a digital hard drive costs how much to make/ship/run compared to a 70MM print or even an IMAX 70MM print for that matter? It is certainly cheaper Tom, I am not denying this, what I was saying is that it is tiring to see all those reviews from accountants and IT people saying that film provides a much inferior experience to 2K digital, which is a blatant lie. Someone who is so happy to spread such lies hasn't got a clue about what cinema and film is and shows that film is in the hands of the wrong people. It would be like making curators of a Natural Museum History an accountant with no interest in history and an IT programmer who thinks history starts in the XX century. Certainly 70mm prints are not financially sound for a system that mainly relies on the income from just the first weekend of exhibition, but such a system will not last anyway and so unless they reinvent cinema as a different experience from Home Cinema they are doomed.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-13-2011 07:21 AM                     Incorrect Michael...the camera aperture for 65mm is only 2.28:1 (ANSI/SMPTE 215). Even if you were to go the edge of the camera aperture but use the projection aperture for height you are at 2.37:1 but there is a REASON you don't ever project the full camera aperture (any gauge)...you have to allow for some motion in printing/projection, the edges are also typically the worst area for image quality. You also can't get too close to the perforations before they cause fogging. Then there are stability problems as well as the need for the film to be supported around the perforations. The only way to really get a wider ratio than 2.28:1 is to decrease the vertical height (like they did with FLAT in 35mm) as well as loose the space for the mag tracks (which means modifying every projector out there). It would be easier/cheaper to do what they did with the Untouchables...just leave the width alone and increase the frame line for a 2.39:1 final projection ratio. At that point, it is just the masking to move or a new lens that is required. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-13-2011 06:18 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag Incorrect Michael How so? I was quoting the same SMPTE specs/figures you did, Steve (with the exception of appropriately rounding up). When you wrote about the popular misconception of the aspect ratio if one were to recover and project any imagery typically concealed by inner mag tracks, you sort of implied that the resultant figure was nowhere close to 2.39:1, and so I commented to the contrary. Emphasizing that the absolute edge of an image ought not be projected or that projectors would require some modifications is beside the point. Also, I'm not advocating anyone deviate from the current 70mm projection standard and try to project a wider 70mm image. I'm simply describing what one might achieve if they tried such an experiment. Moreover, few of the available DTS-70 titles would even benefit from such a form of exhibition because (1) some of the DTS-70 prints, including Vertigo and Titanic (probably the two most-played DTS-70 titles), don't even have imagery printed out to the edges, and (2) legacy prints for the 65mm restorations (i.e. West Side Story, The Sound of Music, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.) were never intended to have the imagery in the mag track area projected.  |  IP: Logged Mark Campbell Expert Film Handler Posts: 148 From: Seattle, WA USA Registered: Jul 2007 posted 03-13-2011 06:54 PM                     Ultimate awesomeness:  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-13-2011 07:23 PM                     Anyone ever seen 70mm at a drive-in? The San Diego Union, April 25, 1962.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-13-2011 07:23 PM                     I had to comment on Mark Campbell's image: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was the first movie that used that familiar 70mm logo in its ads. Since then it has appeared on all of Paramount's 70mm ads in markets like New York and Los Angeles. The logo doesn't work in small sizes though. It was positively tiny in some of the New York Times ads for Titanic.  |  IP: Logged Mark Campbell Expert Film Handler Posts: 148 From: Seattle, WA USA Registered: Jul 2007 posted 03-13-2011 07:30 PM                     More Seattle Summer of '82 70MM goodness:  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-13-2011 07:48 PM                     Mark: Man, the summer of '82 was great for 70mm... Annie Blade Runner E.T. Firefox Grease 2 Napoleon (re-release) Pink Floyd: The Wall Poltergeist Raiders of the Lost Ark (re-release) The Road Warrior Rocky III Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Star Wars (re-release) Tempest The Thing Tron  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-13-2011 09:40 PM                     And yet even though LPP print stocks were available at the time for some of the 1982 releases, I don't think ANY of these titles actually had 70mm LPP prints made. I know for certain ET, Pink Floyd, Poltergeist, Raiders, Star Trek II and Star Wars were eastman...meaning totally red by now (or in some cases like the Raiders, brown. Can anyone verify of any other 70mm prints released this year being LPP or red? Some of the 35mm counterparts were LPP though.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harrison Expert Film Handler Posts: 239 From: Harwood Heights, Illinois, USA Registered: Jun 2005 posted 03-13-2011 09:58 PM                     As there was much talk of this earlier, "The Exorcist" re-issue played in 70 in Chicago starting on April 27, 1979. And here's one of the crop of 1982 movies:  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-14-2011 11:51 AM                     The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, OH; November 12, 1982.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-14-2011 05:26 PM                     quote: Michael Coate Anyone ever seen 70mm at a drive-in? Unfortunately, no...but my father did the equipment upgrades to the NSW/Sydney Drive-In circuits to accommodate The Sound Of Music in 70mm in them.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 38 pages: 1  2  3  ...  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  ...  36  37  38

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.