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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 70MM ad thread (Page 35)

This topic comprises 38 pages: 1  2  3  ...  32  33  34  35  36  37  38

Author Topic: 70MM ad thread Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-25-2013 10:43 AM                     quote: John Wilson We need more 7Omm ads for 'Return Of The Jedi' for its 30th Anniversary. Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1983 The Dallas Morning News, May 27, 1983 The (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star, June 3, 1983 The Honolulu Advertiser, June 23, 1983  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-25-2013 06:47 PM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer Just too bad that the Star Wars cycle released in 70mm were blow-ups from the 35mm negatives. One could easily tell due to the grain issues in the presentation and the sound mix was plain 5.1 and not 7.1 as with 70mm. --Emphasis added. Really? 7.1 on 70mm? Tell me more.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-26-2013 07:05 PM                     Thanks Michael.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 05-26-2013 08:20 PM                     Jedi in 70mm: something very few if anyone will ever witness again. How sad. AJG  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-27-2013 12:01 AM                     Whoops .. sorry Manny .. got stuck with CP750's in my mind - be six channel for 70mm. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jedi in 70mm: something very few if anyone will ever witness again. How sad How sad was it was like watching 35mm - just a poor blowup of sorts. Now, "Alien" was worth seeing in 70mm!  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-28-2013 03:26 AM                     I don't buy the complaint about the grain. Yes, the 35mm image gets enlarged to 70mm. But, so what? If we compare "apples to apples," this should not really be an issue in theaters where the screen size was comparable for both formats. In such a cases, the 70mm image would require less magnification which, I think, is preferable. Additionally: The larger aperture lets more light through. Pin registration yields a steadier image. The larger frame means positive dirt particles appear smaller on-screen. I'm surprised nobody has whined about the cropping required to reduce a 35mm 2.39 (or 2.35) image down to the 70mm 2.20AR.  |  IP: Logged Rick Raskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1100 From: Manassas Virginia Registered: Jan 2003 posted 05-28-2013 07:06 AM                     "Pin registration yields a steadier image." Possibly because in the day, 70mm teeth were cut to fit the 70mm sprocket holes whereas 35mm teeth were generally cut for Fox sprockets; but more often ran standard sized perfs. I remember that 70mm was rock solid on the screen as was also 4-track mag (Fox sprockets), but standard 35mm was not always so. Increasing gate tension sometimes helped.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-28-2013 08:30 AM                     Maybe it was a just a limitation with 35mm release print stocks and printing technology in the late 1980's and early 1990's, but I have noticed those prints looked noticeably muted in terms of color compared to a 70mm blow-up of the same movie. For example, I watched Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade in 70mm Dolby SR mag at Loews Astor Plaza and again in 35mm Dolby optical at a multiplex on Staten Island. The blow-up print had considerably richer color than the 35mm print. The theater showing it in 35mm had it projected at a properly bright level, but the image still looked kind of washed out. And, yes, 5-perf 70mm projection is noticeably brighter and more steady than 4-perf 35mm. I have often complained about stadium seated theaters boasting giant screens equipped with only 35mm when they should have used 70mm. With everything going digital the point seems moot now, except for the fact 70mm does have the capability of showing quite a bit more image detail than 2K or 4K can display (not to mention better color and much deeper black levels).  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 08-02-2013 12:17 PM                     Tucson Citizen, June 15, 1990 Tucson Citizen, June 15, 1990  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-03-2013 01:38 AM                     Mike, We get it -- El Con advertised 70mm. Give it a rest! Brad's got other things to do besides lock F-T threads. LOL  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-03-2013 02:22 AM                     Manny, please don't be the "insensitive prick" you are famous for. Best to stick with blue things.  |  IP: Logged Jim Henk Master Film Handler Posts: 364 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 08-03-2013 04:42 AM                     The Newport ad posted on 2/10/11 - that's great! It's where I saw SW. It ran in the big house, with, I believe, Annie Hall running in the small house. Just sent a copy of the ad to a guy who ran relief there at the time. I'm sure he'll appreciate it.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-03-2013 09:08 AM                     The blow ups were a mixed bag but on balance...they were a net positive for most features it was done to (not all, for sure). The 70mm print runs were much shorter than 35mm and were more hand done. Due the cost of them, and that there were multiple chances for screw ups (have to be printed, striped, degaussed, sounded) they were checked better than the average 35mm release. So, depending on the lab doing the 70mm printing, you were going to get a better printing job than the typical 35mm release. Then there are the projection aspects. The hardest part of the film process is the projection. It has to be done in real time, naturally, you have a light source that is trying to deform the film while it is being projected...the light source is interrupted and thus pumps the film and you have wear/tear on the equipment. By using the larger format, you are reducing the magnification of all of these things by at least 3-fold. You are distributing the same light/heat over a larger area too. So are are going to start with a steadier, sharper image, just from the projector aspect itself. The biggest "hit" that comes with a blow up to 70mm is the optical process itself. It is an extra step and it will typically reduce contrast some and you are dependent on the optical qualities of the printer. But this "projector" is in a much more friendly environment than a movie theatre. So the net result is that 70mm blow ups almost (but not always) look better than the 35mm release print of the same title. For theatres like the Uptown in DC, they were pretty much essential for superior presentations. The flaws in 35mm prints just get magnified all out of proportion. That and the Cinerama screen gave 35mm such a narrow window for a decent looking image. Yes a 65mm negative to a 70mm print is better (it is starting with a larger negative and there isn't the extra optical process) but that does not discount the real benefits the 70mm blow ups offered to many theatres.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 08-05-2013 12:10 AM                     Tucson Citizen, May 22, 1992 Tucson Citizen, June 15, 1990 Tucson Citizen, May 22, 1992  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 08-06-2013 09:11 AM                     Tucson Citizen, May 23, 1984 Tucson Citizen, May 16, 1986  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 38 pages: 1  2  3  ...  32  33  34  35  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.