Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Super Dimension-70 (70mm process) web site has opened

This is topic Super Dimension-70 (70mm process) web site has opened in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002255

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 05-10-2001, 09:42 AM:

In order to wave the 70mm flag, a new web site about the latest 70mm format has opened at http://www.superdimension70.com/

Has anyone seen the process demonstrated and if positive, what is your opinion?

------------------
All my best
Thomas
..in70mm - The 70mm Newsletter
www.in70mm.com www.dp70.com www.70mm.dk www.hauerslev.com http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 05-10-2001, 10:07 AM:

Two things that caught my attention on the WWW site:

quote:
"Absolutely breathtaking and orgasm-inducing" - Robert Primes, ASC

I can't believe they actually posted that one.

quote:
"What I have just seen is brighter, sharper and clearer than Imax and best of all SDS-70 fits into my theaters”

Mary Oiler, District Manager
AMC Theaters, Century City, CA

Sharper and clearer than IMAX? With 5-perf 70mm with only one-third the area used?

quote:
Screens as big as 80 feet can be employed and have a reflective light level of more than 16ft Lambert's. SDS-70™ can fit into any Megaplex without costly construction

Ummmm, yeah, if there is already an auditorium with space for an 80-foot screen. Most megaplexes (except in larger cities) max out with 40 foot screens in auditoriums that are seldom more than 56 feet wide.

The increased temporal resolution of 48 fps, projected at 96fps, along with the pin registration transport mechanism seem to be the improvements over regular 5-perf 70mm, which would reduce the flicker and make the image more lifelike, and so would reducing the jump and weave, but would it make the quality better than IMAX? If the jump and weave were reduced by a factor of 3 and the film stock had 3 times the resolution of stock used for IMAX, then it could be possible. Is the increased frame rate alone enough to give the illusion of increased spatial resolution?

Do you think that so few people have seen a 70mm presentation of a movie in so long that they would be amazed by standard 24 fps 5-perf 70mm? Many people that watch movies in theatres nowadays have never seen anything other than standard 35mm flat and scope formats, and even the older people that remember 70mm have not seen it in close to 20 years (or longer).

I'd like to hear the opinions of anyone who has seen SDS-70 and IMAX that could make a comparison between the two. I'd also be interested in hearing from anyone who has seen SDS-70 and normal 5-perf 70mm that could make a comparison between those as well.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-10-2001, 10:20 AM:

I haven't seen the demo yet, but have heard that it is stunning. Shooting 65mm negative at 48 frames per second should approach 60 fps SHOWSCAN quality for sharpness and lack of grain, with excellent motion rendition and lack of strobing. Showing 70mm prints at 48 fps with a two blade shutter would completely eliminate shutter flicker, even at very high screen luminance levels. AFAIK, the 48 fps frame rate was chosen to facilitate easier print-down to 24 fps for general release, making this a more viable format for feature film production than 30 fps or 60 fps formats.

"Film Done Right" taken to the next level --- Go for it!!!

Evans: 15-perf 70mm formats like IMAX are great, and certainly have the advantage of image area. But the 1.43:1 aspect ratio doesn't lend itself to today's feature production.

IMHO, SDS-70 would also look stunning on a 20 x 44 foot screen.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-10-2001, 06:38 PM:

There is a market for "big-format" films like IMAX. Odyssey is an example. But of course, people want it cheaper than real IMAX. I think it is this market Super Dimension-70 is going for.

It can't be marketed for the average multiplex theater, because the average multiplex theater can't even get (or have patrons interested in) regular old 5/70 @ 24fps. And many already have the equipment to run it (some even at 30fps.)

So, while anything in 70mm is cool, this kind of thing fragments the market and causes people not to invest. It does not say if the projector can also run regular 35mm; (probably not) if so, even fewer exhibitors will want to pay for two machines.

So (to me) this falls in the same catagory as Maxivision, 8/70, etc.: It's cool, but regular theaters will probably never see it. And to totally defy logic, e-theaters (with their poorer picture quality) _will_ happen.

They also are jumping on the "digital" buzz word, which is OK; fight fire with fire!
Quote:

"In addition, the 48fps. SDS-70™ frame rate is digitally optimized so that each frame is refreshed twice, resulting in a display rate of 96 images per second, a similar refresh rate employed by computer displays. "

I note they are careful not to let you see the mechanism, or give any real description of how it works.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-10-2001, 06:46 PM:

Showscan failed to impress my sorry ass. True, it was mostly computer graphics, but there was a live action scene which was probably just a 35mm/24fps conversion. Still, it sucked. The moving seats also distrated me.

Maybe we should all get together and invent a new 70mm format... 30 perfs per frame (running horizontally)! That way it would be wide enough for today's movies. Oh, and make it run at least 48 frames per second, maybe 60. The size of a typical 70mm print today would equal the size of a short trailer with this imaginary format!

Ah hell, DLP is plenty good enough. Let's go with that instead!!!

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-11-2001, 04:56 AM:

Which ones did you see, Joe? Are there any "classic" Showscan movies? Are they all less than 10 min? I've seen the Abandoned Mineshaft Ride (in two different places) and some kind of Dragon/Fantasy/Sci-Fi ride whose plot I had no hope of following since I was first and foremost trying to evaluate technical quality while determining if my internal organs were still functioning.

What little live-action there was did not seem enhanced. The only clue I had to the increased frame rate was the faster jump/weave. Whether it was shot on 35 or 65 I don't know since the focus seemed soft anyway. The CGI which made up probably 95%-100% of both movies was quite primitive. Modern video games are better. All in all I was quite disappointed.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-11-2001, 05:33 AM:

Yeah I saw that Mine Shaft one. God it was bad. It is no wonder that a format like Showscan failed. I never had any sense of motion at all. And even if I did, a real roller coaster is much more fun. Hell, even waiting in the line is more fun than Showscan!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2001, 05:49 AM:

The original concept of SHOWSCAN developed by Doug Trumbull was to use a large curved floor-to-ceiling screen and very bright screen luminance allowed by the 60 fps frame rate. Almost everyone who saw this version was very impressed with the realism and quality. The system evolved into the "ridefilm" version, much of which involved CGI that did not take full advantage of the resolution of the system. The best of these later SHOWSCAN films was "Street Luge", which was live action. IMHO, if you didn't see the original version developed by Trumbull, you really didn't see SHOWSCAN's true capability.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-11-2001, 08:25 AM:

I saw a demo of Showscan many years ago (1983?). I forget the title, but in the film the projector "breaks" and a guy goes behind the screen to "fix" it. He turns on a light behind the screen and does things like lean against the screen while working (so you see a reverse pin-cushion distortion.)

Anyway, you would swear on your life there was really a guy back there; it was quite impressive both visually and audibly. So while today's Showscan plots and/or content may suck, that's not the format's fault.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2001, 01:40 PM:

AFAIK, the first SHOWSCAN film was "New Magic", and I believe this is the one with the projectionist behind the screen bit that looked like real life. Here is the list of SHOWSCAN titles on the Internet Movie Data Base:
IMDB List of SHOWSCAN Films

"Devils Mine" was one of the first SHOWSCAN ridefilm titles.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2001, 01:53 PM:

Joe, you forgot about the fans on the ceiling to force air on the viewers during the mine ride. Did that distract you too?

Overall the idea was great, but I was unimpressed with the machines. They would work great in "forward" motion, but as soon as they would disengage to rewind through the projector, the film would be destroyed after about a day's worth of that. No tech was ever able to make those damn things work. Not even the Showscan tech. Rewinding through the projector is just a stupid idea in the first place. They should've gone with a loop cabinet or a platter. Rethreading a platter would've saved tons more time than dealing with that machine tearing up film during a rewind. A loop cabinet would've been ideal.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-11-2001, 02:05 PM:

AFAIK, the original SHOWSCAN machines were "beefed up" Century JJ, and the film was rewound separately.

The machines that rewound through the gate were driven by the desire to automate the ridefilm sites, and have the flexibility of several titles on one roll.

Recall the ill-fated Eprad "SWORD" system that also attempted automation by running the film backwards through the gate.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-11-2001, 04:14 PM:

I don't remember the air blowing on me, it was many years ago. I honestly do not remember much at all except that it was unimpressive.

I saw the projectors a few times (in action) and they definitely did not resemble a JJ in any way. I do remember the film having a light black scratch on it, and it was fairly new, so Brad's statement that it destroys on rewind seems to be correct.

Why use such a high standard of presentation just to deliver "ride films"? You could have used 35mm 30fps and no one would have been the wiser. The screens were so small that it wouldn't have made much of a difference with CG anyway.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-11-2001, 05:02 PM:

John is correct (as usual) about the original Showscan concept. I was so impressed at the time that I bought stock in the company (it might have been under the Todd-A-O banner at the time) and got to watch the stock price drop to nothing. I might have an old annual report still kicking around in back storage.

I'm encouraged that someone is trying something similar, but I seriously question whether it will have any better chance of success. IIRC, Trumbull was touting 60fps as more effective in any translation to tv, but that didn't open any supporting pocketbooks.

When showscan was resurrected as a kishka shaker, I endured one ride and wrote it off as a recycling of the name. Upon leaving, I felt like a James Bond martini (shaken, not stirred.)

Trumbull impresses me as a man with great technical skills, and a passion for excellence, but for whatever reason his ideas were rarely appreciated or implimented properly. Regrettably, his lead in the tech effects team of "2001" was probably his 15 minutes of fame.

I do think that the new system could make a wonderful 3-D format with the addition of a polarized shutter setup. A rock steady image and single lens would solve the registration problems that plague two projector and two lens 3-D movies.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-11-2001, 05:24 PM:

Frankly it looks like another looser system that some mega rich investors got suckered into. Oh well.........
Years ago, Showscan and Douglas Trumbull did allot of psychological research into frame rates. They did not just come up and say hey, lets run the thing at 60fps and that should look good. What they did was to perform psychological comparisons on many people of 70mm film projected at many different frame rates starting at 30fps and going up from there. What they discovered was that 60 fps was the optimum rate that created the best overall illusion of something being real. And as John Walsh mentioned when the guy went behind the screen and put his face to it it was VERY real looking and stunned the audience.
This new system at 48fps is a serious compromise on all the work that Showscan did. Somewhat like when Todd-AO went from 30 fps to 24, like taking the Todd out of the A-O. Again, just another compromise system. Also looks like another version of the Mega, or linear loop projector that they are using. Oh well again....It should be a rolling loop for highest quality!! Common guys...2000 runs...thats not anything to brag about.
They also say that they are using standard cameras off the shelf. I've seen allot of double exposure tests of different 35mm cameras running at different high speeds(anything above 24) and believe me, they do not perform near as well at high speeds as they do at normal 24 or 30, pin registered or not. Thats one of the reasons that Panavision has a camera called the Panastar. Its designed to churn out dead steady images at high speeds. Again in this area Showscan had Cinema Products build custom 65mm cameras for them to be able to run at this high speed day in and day out and perform as well as a normal camera at 24 or 30.
I have seen Showscan many times and the best was at the Aladdin on the ride simulators and at the demo that was setup at Showest in the MGM Grand theatre years ago. The Demos at the MGM made many people, including Gene Siskel, quite sick and I'd say this is a testament to the fact that it worked! I doubt that many people could watch "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" in Showscan with out being taken out on a stretcher at the end of the show. Imax 3-D will also do the same thing. Can't remember going to an Imax 3-D that didn't have some seats bagged off, or a section roped off cause of puke on the seats.
Trust me, It'll be short lived like the rest of em and It'll all go nowhere.
Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-11-2001, 06:48 PM:

I've been to an IMAX 3D presentation in Las Vegas and the 3D was VERY convincing. But I never felt like I was "there". It was interesting, however. With the glasses on, everything looked so small. When I took the glasses off and looked at the screen, it seemed HUGE! I guess the 3D effect destroys the big screen effect, as your brain looks at everything proportional to real life, and it just seemed small.

I like 24 frames per second better than 60fps. Why? The mental state that you are in. With 24fps, your brain must interpolate more, which in my opinion makes you more involved in a movie. It also makes it seem more like a fantasy or whatnot. At 60fps, it looks like a TV soap opera. You just sit there and vegitate, just like you do when you watch TV. I don't want to have the same mental state when I watch movies as I do when I watch TV. Yuck. 60fps does not look like a movie.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-11-2001, 07:01 PM:

Joe, 60fps is not meant to look like you are watching anything let alone a film. Thats the film speed that makes the film like viewing experience disappear.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-11-2001, 07:48 PM:

Imax HD is at 48 fps and is mindblowing in its reality

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-11-2001, 07:49 PM:

Joe, The IMAX 3D Camera has a fixed interocular of 72.4mm (2.85 inches), parallel lens axes (no convergence).

The normal distance between adult eyes is closer to 64mm. The difference creates the appearance that 3-D IMAX objects are smaller than normal. For perfect recreation of the angles that give proper proportion, the taking lenses would have to exactly match the interocular between your own eyes, and seperation of the vanishing point images at the screen would have to be the same.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-11-2001, 07:49 PM:

I checked out the SuperDimension70 website. Their proposal is interesting, but it is easy to see how the "remember Showscan" comments come up. Also, who came up with that awful logo? It looks kind of silly --not anywhere near as good as some of those 70mm logos used in the newspaper ads back in the 1980's.

The 48fps factor would be better than the current 24fps standard, but the movie industry cannot even jump up 30fps at all. That makes me very pessimistic about any movie studio using SDS70 on any major releases. It seems like that format goes beyond the basic 5-perf 65/70 system, and you can't get Hollywood to make any movies in that format either.

If there wasn't so much wrongful hype about DLP and that "digital" buzzword, the 70mm format might have more of a chance. But most people don't realize there is good and bad aspects to digital like anything else.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-11-2001, 10:08 PM:

Bobby,
Actually there still is usually more bad to digitally based stuff than good. Ya gotta remember that digitally based anyting is still in its infancy and has along way to go to catch up to the state of the art in analog.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-12-2001, 12:23 AM:

Mark,

I agree with you about 60fps mimicking reality. That's kinda what I said in my previous post. It won't seem like watching a movie, so why use it for movies? I haven't seen 48fps, but it is obviously smoother than 30fps.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-12-2001, 03:31 PM:

Yes, Mark, I agree there is a lot of "Bad" with digital. Most people do not realize that. They think, and wrongfully so, that the word digital equals "perfect."

There are a lot of areas where analog is better. For instance, a 2-inch tape with audio recorded at 30ips with Dolby SR and timecode will yield better audio quality than any 16-bit recording and would be virtually indistinguishably in quality with any full 20-bit audio recording. A film shot on 70mm like "Lawrence of Arabia" will still look great on future ultra high-def video formats decades from now, whereas George Lucas' digital video of the next two "Star Wars" installments will not look as good, thanks to them being locked down by the limits of their digital source quality. Movies really should only be shot on film, and many of them need to be shot on 65mm/70mm for forward compatibility purposes.

Even though computers are in many millions of homes now, most people still have a lot of misgivings on what digital technology does.

I deal with a lot of that stuff in my day job. Someone will come into my studio and want a fancy sign with routed aluminum parts, recessed neon and all sorts of other visual trickery. But then they hand me a disc with a tiny GIF bitmap version of their logo and expect me to instantly generate the neon tube patters and G-code files for the CNC router from that crude art. Their eyes glass over when I mention "vector art" or "Postscript", and I wind up just asking them to give me the cleanest sharpest printed version of their logo they can find so I can scan it in and manually vectorize the art myself. It is kind of a pain. I had one fellow complain, "can't you just hit a few keys on the keyboard and make the design just spit out?" I replied, "that only works in the movies."

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-12-2001, 05:22 PM:

I gotta say, I though Showscan was the best film based presentation I have EVER seen, bar none. As others have said "NEW MAGIC" was very impressive (and they didn't rewind through the machine at that time).

It was an intense medium and I recall that part of Trumbel's study showed view fatigue after about 40 minutes.

Personally, I think Mike Todd had it right....70mm at 30fps...it is the best bang for the buck out there....once viewed 35mm/24fps looks pretty unimpressive.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-12-2001, 06:24 PM:

30fps would be great! But wouldn't the industry throw a bitch fit since it would be even easier to videotape?

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-13-2001, 11:26 AM:

Bobby Henderson wrote:

quote:
Even though computers are in many millions of homes now, most people still have a lot of misgivings on what digital technology does.

I read that a couple of times before I realized ... you meant "misconceptions", not "misgivings", right?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2001, 06:21 PM:

"Misgivings" or "Misconceptions" --I guess it is just a thing about syntax. You have the context of it right though.

People think "digital" means perfect. Many also think if they get anything recorded to a floppy disc they can have anything done to it in the digital realm. Certainly not so.