This is topic 70mm on the up 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=005516

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 11-04-2003, 02:41 PM:
 
Just done another 35/70mm install here in the UK, not really at liberty to say where as yet, but it's nowhere you'd expect!

Nice to put a solid old Vic 8 back into proper service, after a bit of spit and polish. Looks like it will continue to give sterling service in it's new home.
 

---

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 11-04-2003, 02:50 PM:
 
Nice one Pete, a good trusty Vic 8 will do 70mm proud!
Cant wait to hear where it is. And will they program 70mm often?

Darren
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-04-2003, 02:52 PM:
 
That's the key to it, and where Darren has done so much. There are actually a fair few 70mm prints still extant here, and he's actuall y showing them, regularly, about 500 yards from my flat...
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-2003, 02:58 PM:
 
I've heard rumors that additional labs will be offering 70mm printing and processing.

65mm and 70mm motion-picture film are catalog-listed items by Kodak:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/colorNeg.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/colorInt.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/colorPrint.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/bwPrint.pdf
 

---

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 11-04-2003, 02:58 PM:
 
Too bad more mainstream films won't do stuff in 70mm... something like the Matrix or other 'high effects' films would do great in 70.
Even better if it was 70 at 30fps.

Anyway, it's always nice to hear of another theater installing 70, even if most of what they will show in 70 is just a blow-up from 35.
--Chris
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-2003, 03:06 PM:
 

quote:

---

Too bad more mainstream films won't do stuff in 70mm... something like the Matrix or other 'high effects' films would do great in 70.

---

"Matrix Revolutions" is being released day-in-date with dozens of 70mm IMAX prints this week:

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/filmsearch/movies/coming_soon.html?uniq=371
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 11-04-2003, 04:39 PM:
 
I believe the plan in this venue is to show 35mm adverts, 35mm features as part of themed events, and the 70mm stuff will be used as much as possible for the 70mm classics, Spartacus etc, again as part of themed events, usually with dinner, they've been researching what prints are available and there appears to be a fair whack. They are looking to run this thing 2-3 nights a week, as currently they are closed after 6pm. I thin kit could work very well for them if they do go down the event route they are planning.

Can't take all the credit for this job, I had a colleague with me for the alignments and we had a couple of extremely helpful electricians on hand.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2003, 06:56 PM:
 
Hopefully the 35mm and 15/70 day and date release model offered by "Matrix Revolutions" might become a thing to be copied by other event film releases in the future. But 70mm blowups should not be restricted to the 15/70 type on very expensive IMAX installations. I would like to see this kind of thing extended to 8/70 and traditional 5/70 houses as well.

Still, the thing that really needs to happen for 70mm to regain substantial popularity is getting the format to be used again as an origination process for traditional movie production. 35/70 blowups are nice in that you'll get an appropriately bright image on a giant screen (unlike 35mm) and noticeably better image quality than seen on standard 35mm release prints. But those blowup prints simply pale in comparison to the sharp definition and richer color of true 65mm/70mm.

Maybe one way to sell 65mm/70mm as an origination process is to tell the Hollywood folks, "your transfers to digital projection will look better". Most professional still photographers still insist on using analog large format films for shooting subject matter, and then have the elements drum-scanned at high resolutions for their final compositional work. I see no reason why motion picture production cannot copy the same process.
 

---

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 11-05-2003, 11:52 AM:
 
John,

I know IMAX is somewhat popular these days, but there are so few of those theaters around. Many regular theaters have 35/70 machines only ever running in 35. Would be nice for more mainstream films to be in the 5perf/70mm format that many more theaters could run. Granted, most of those places don't have sound for their 70mm sides anymore but if it was a 'hip thing to do' they'd be tossing in DTS 70mm penthouses on those old boxes quickly.

--Chris
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-05-2003, 12:01 PM:
 
I think almost all of us agree there is still a place for 5-perf 70mm to fill large theatre screens:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/dec98.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/march99.shtml

http://www.in70mm.com/

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lobby.htm
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-05-2003, 01:05 PM:
 
Does Spielberg still have business connection with DTS? Wouldn't it be great if he said "We'll sell 70mm DTS readers for [some really low cost] as an incentive to get theatres to upgrade" and also commit to 70mm blowup releases of his future movies. I know, not likely to happen, but that's what it might take to jump start a 5-perf 70mm rennaissance... Or how about a free 70mm reader with each new XD10 processor they sell.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2003, 03:33 PM:
 
First you have to get Steven Spielberg to shoot something in 65mm to have 70mm prints made. With his recent films, from "Saving Private Ryan" to "Minority Report", he seems to be in love with the color drained and grainy film look. He would need to do a complete 180 degree turn in style to use 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 11-05-2003, 06:03 PM:
 
The cost of a 70mm DTS reader has been an issue for exhibitors here, especially given the low use it would get. Recently I tured and failed to find a pair for hire here in the UK for a customer. Result, they cancelled that screening
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2003, 06:44 PM:
 
I assume the price for a DTS 70 reader is still around the $1300 range. That may not seem like a great deal of money, but I can see how it would make a dent in the profits made from doing a single show in 70mm DTS.

Perhaps someone should offer the readers for rent.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 11-05-2003, 07:19 PM:
 
I'd love to see 70mm resurrected here in BC. Does anyone know if VFS has any 70mm titles in there depots?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-05-2003, 07:34 PM:
 
It may be up but its not even a spurt of what it was in the 80's!
Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-05-2003, 08:23 PM:
 
In 2002, Columbia re-issued "Lawrence of Arabia", making up a total of 8 new 70mm prints. There were 5 prints that were DTS only, and 3 prints that had the mag tracks applied. (The mag prints may carry the photographic copy of the DTS track, but could not play the DTS because some of the mag track covers the area used by DTS.) However the gentleman heading the "classics" department at Columbia told me that the mag prints were used quite a bit, and the DTS not so much. So, if you want the best-looking, less-used print of "Lawrence", ask for the DTS ones. Obviously, more places still have mag track capability -- although the condition can be marginal.

One of the reasons Columbia cited for making the DTS prints was because they were "tired of receiving back prints with ticking sounds in the soundtrack" because of projectors with magnetized spots. I've encountered a few of them (noisy prints) myself, and it's quite annoying. Anyway, DTS seems (to me) to run hot and cold on their process. The DTS techs are eager to use it, but the suits don't seem to echo that enthusiasm, certainly as far as pushing (publicizing)the availability of the technology for 70mm prints.

FWIW, the new print of "Mad (4) World" that recently ran at the Cinerama Dome in L.A. was a DTS print. We expect to be playing that print at my theatre (The Egyptian, in Hollywood) around the middle of January. MGM may circulate that print to other places later, but I haven't heard their plans for it.

Back a year or so ago, when Ron Howard had a fistful of Oscars and was on track to direct the remake of "The Alamo", there was a rumor that he might photograph it in 65mm. When he left the project, that hope was "dashed to pieces on the rocks of despair". I'd hoped George Lucas would come around, but he's gone completely digital, of course.

The biggest problem (besides some extra cost) is the frantic release schedule of today's movies, in which films are sometimes in editing until the last possible minute, (maybe waiting for that last special effects shot), and then the reels are rushed to the lab with a need to make like, 4000 copies. Overnight. It would take another day or two (at the most optimistic) to make the 70mm blowups (and check them, of course), and oftentimes, that time simply isn't there.

Further, even though many good cinema locations have "sleeping" 70mm capability, theatre owners (a thrifty bunch, to be charitable about their behavior) often are not inclined to maintain the equipment, and often don't even bother to advertise the fact of the 70mm print being run. We ran "2001: A Space Odyssey" at my theatre at the end of 2001, doing a 2 week run at that time. Do you think my publicity department remembered to advertise 70mm in the display ad in the newspaper? Nope. There was some finger-pointing, saying WB specified the ad, but the reality was that the engagement was "okay" successful, but it should have been better, and would have, if they'd advertised it right.

And, 3 blocks away from me, Disney ran a 70mm print of "Sleeping Beauty" about a year ago -- and no mention of "70mm" in the newspaper ads. There was a tag, on the marquee, stating 70mm,
but you had to be driving past the theatre to see that!!!
For the life of me I can't figure out why they can't put that magical "in 70mm" logo at the bottom of the ads, to get the word out!

There has been other discussion of 70mm, on other threads, so rather than repeat all that, I'll refer you to the handy "search" function Brad has on Film-Tech. But I, like probably everyone else here, LIVE for the day we hear that someone is going to make a new dramatic film, shooting in large format (65mm).

I used to dream that someone could suggest to some of the "names" in a film (the ones that are paid obscene millions to act) that they take a million $ off their fee, to cover the minor additional costs of 65mm production. In exchange, they would get MUCH BETTER close-ups. What ego could resist such an offer? So far, I haven't heard of it happening.

And finally, for John Pytlak: Here in L.A., Foto-Kem lab has recently (in the last month or so) opened a new wide-gauge film department, hiring someone from Pacific Title to set it up and get it running. That's interestingly-good news. Wish I knew why they thought it was a good idea right now. On the other hand, CFI (lab) is no longer in business, so maybe that motivated them.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-05-2003, 08:49 PM:
 
"I'd hoped George Lucas would come around, but he's gone completely digital, of course.

"The DTS techs are eager to use it, but the suits don't seem to echo that enthusiasm"
_________________________________________________________________

Paul,

I think most of us here wish George would go away to say the used car industry where he could be of some real use!

Actually thats definately not true. According to conversations I've had Walter Browski DTS actually mounted their timecode printer onto the picture printer at CFI allowing one pass TC 70mm prints. That saves about 4 grand per print in the cost for a second step that was needed to print DTS TC track. I would assume they will do the same at the new lab as well. They are pushing big for use of the new XD-10 player with TC printed directly on 15/70, and 8/70. Makes changing previews and other editing chores a cinch.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-05-2003, 10:09 PM:
 
I am not sure why the DTS 70mm reader should be so expensive. Given that the 35mm version is less than 1/3rd that price, and it is the same basic unit except for wider machined parts. $1300 seems like a bit of a ripoff. Perhaps the high price is because there are so few units made -- they might have been made individually by hand. If there were a real demand for quantity, the price might come down substantially.

So does anyone have any pictures of the positioning of the DTS track? Has Dolby staked a claim on where its track will go should they decide to go 70mm? Will they just put it in one of the mag locations or will they stick to the their between-the-sprocket-hole concept? The need for that doesn't seem imperative if there is no need for mag tracks. That would make it unnecessary to make mag/digital compatible prints. If they don't have to squeeze digital around the mag geography, then they've got scads of space to record the digital stream anyplace they want. Hell, you could even lay in two SDDS tracks in a place other than where all the drive and guide components touch the print like on the 35mm prints.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 11-05-2003, 10:43 PM:
 
Boston Light & Sound has DTS 70mm readers, as well as whole systems, for rent.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-05-2003, 11:18 PM:
 

quote:

---

First you have to get Steven Spielberg to shoot something in 65mm to have 70mm prints made. With his recent films, from "Saving Private Ryan" to "Minority Report", he seems to be in love with the color drained and grainy film look. He would need to do a complete 180 degree turn in style to use 70mm.

---

quote:

---

Given Lucas' commitment for shooting digitally and Spielberg's passion for
film-rarely among Directors, he even edits on film - Indy 4 suggests an other
battle of the beards; but, apparently not. "I would do anything for my friend George Lucas, including compromising my own belief system. But I think practically speaking, there aren't going to be enough theatres even in 2005 to exhibit digital film to make it worth my while to commit digitally to Indy 4 at this time. If there were 2,000 screens with digital projectors I might seriously consider it for George and his vision of the future. But it looks like there's no chance that the theatres will put it in the next three years, so I'll be happily shooting Indy 4 on film."

Spielberg seems very enthusiastic about Indy 4 and now we also know that the film won't be shot digitally. Thanks to Luke Roberts for letting us know.

---

quote:

---

The Edmonton Journal reports that Steven Spielberg is no fan of digital moviemaking. "I don't want to shoot digital movies," Spielberg says. "I like film."

"I love shooting on film and I love editing on film. I know that digital will do the same thing film will do. It will still use lenses. It will still capture the same images. The difference is that digital is like acrylic paint. It's so photo-realistic that you don't see any flaws. With traditional film, where you have it going through shutters in a film gate, it's alive with grain -- compared to digital, it's like an impressionist painting. I would still rather see a still life painted by an impressionist than a still life painted by Norman Rockwell."

But as a favor to George Lucas on Indiana Jones 4, he might use it. "I'd do anything for George and if George asked me to shoot Indiana Jones 4 on digital, I'd do it. But my duties will always be to shoot on film."

---

quote:

---

SPIELBERG WON'T SHOOT FILMS DIGITALLY

Steven Spielberg has vowed to continue to make movies
"the old fashioned way," on celluloid rather than on
hard disks. Speaking Wednesday night at the Smithsonian
Institution's Baird Auditorium in Washington D.C., where
he received the James Smithson Bicentennial Medal,
Spielberg distanced himself from his longtime friend and
sometime colleague George Lucas, who has announced plans
to shoot his next Star Wars movie entirely on digital media.
As reported in today's (Thursday) Washington Post, Spielberg
told the Smithsonian audience: "I'm going to make all my
films on film until they close the last lab down."
The audience cheered.

Source: http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/

---

 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-06-2003, 07:25 AM:
 
Pete



[ 11-07-2003, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: Dick Vaughan ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-06-2003, 08:22 AM:
 
Dick said
"Pete

Was your Vic8 install anywhere near Penrith by any chance?"
_________________________________________________________________

I didn't notice any Pete on this thread...Sure you're in the right place? Especially Since not all Sic 8's run 70mm .
_________________________________________________________________

I would suspect that the 70mm reader is more expensive due to the smaller number of them sold.....

Mark
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-06-2003, 10:15 AM:
 
Ron Lacheur wrote:

quote:

---

I'd love to see 70mm resurrected here in BC. Does anyone know if VFS has any 70mm titles in there depots?

---

quote:

---

"Pocahontas" Disney made 70mm prints, but the sound was coming from a synched 35mm Dolby Digital print.

---

quote:

---

I beleive one of the bond films plus Independance day palyed 70mm DTS in scandanavia

---

The Bond movie in question was Tomorrow Never Dies.

These also played in Scandinavia in 70mm-DTS:
Star Wars (1997 Special Edition)
Godzilla
Armageddon
The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Those 007 and Godzilla prints were also shown in Los Angeles (one show each) during a 70mm fest a few years ago. Not sure if they've been shown elsewhere.

Some other films with 70mm-DTS print(s)
Dinosaur
Hello, Dolly!
Lawrence Of Arabia
Lord Jim
Patton
Pearl Harbor
Play Time
The Sound Of Music

and, of course:
Titanic
Vertigo

I've heard rumors about a new print of Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines.

Let us hope there will be others.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-07-2003, 12:52 AM:
 
The usual list of titles.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-07-2003, 05:46 AM:
 
Of course any print with DTS would have been made in the last ten years on print film having very good image stability, and likely very stable polyester film base (Kodak 2386, SO-886, 2383, 2393). So if they are treated well, they should have a very long useful life.

70mm prints made before about 1982 will likely show some fading, especially if they were stored improperly. Mag stripes on triacetate film also made the prints more prone to "vinegar syndrome" if they were stored unvented in a warm/humid environment. Moving these prints to proper (cool/dry/vented) storage conditions now will greatly slow any further degradation. (SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 131).
 

---

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-10-2003, 07:32 PM:
 
I'm (attempting to) attach a few photos of 70mm with DTS timecode, so you can see where the track is, relative to the picture area. This was requested on this thread last week. Of particular interest is the fact that, really, the projected picture can be wider than the with-mag-sound 2.21:1, because the picture area just inside the perforations is now not covered by the mag oxide of tracks 3 and 4.

These frames in these photos used almost the total width, but most theatres would need to re-file aperture plates (at the minimum!) to project a wider picture. The determining factors then become the available screen sheet area, masking travel, and any lens or porthole issues. The samples shown here are from a trailer for "The Truman Show" which ran with "Titanic", which similarly was full-width image on the print.

I'm sending some higher-resolution copies of these illustrations to Brad, which he may post here (I hope) since my computer skills are failing me at the moment for doing a normal connected image upload.

And a correction to my comment of last week that CFI film laboratories are "closed". Oops! Wrong. Their former physical plant on Seward St. in Hollywood is no longer CFI, but the work of CFI, including large format printing and processing, has been moved out to North Hollywood, near Universal Studios, and incorporated into the Technicolor building there. (Technicolor Co. bought the CFI business)


 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-10-2003, 07:46 PM:
 
Most 70mm traps will not support well the print in the gate with the extra width I did some test on a DP70 grinding out the rails and the image got very breathy
Dolby has a patent on SRD for 70mm by the way
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-10-2003, 07:47 PM:
 

quote:

---

Of particular interest is the fact that, really, the projected picture can be wider than the with-mag-sound 2.21:1, because the picture area just inside the perforations is now not covered by the mag oxide of tracks 3 and 4.

---

quote:

---

The samples shown here are from a trailer for "The Truman Show" which ran with "Titanic", which similarly was full-width image on the print.

---

quote:

---

I seem to remember Titanic *not* having a full width image on the print (the printed imagery extending no further than where the specified frame edge and the inner mag stripes normally would meet). And, of course, other DTS- 70mm titles (such as Vertigo) were also not full-width.

---

You remembered correctly. Normal 2:21 aspect ratio for all 70mm dts prints that I've handled.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-10-2003, 09:11 PM:
 
In the 7th edition (1993) of the American Cinematographer Manual, Rob Hummel wrote an article on aspect ratio, blow-ups, etc. in which he maintained that rather than sticking with the 2.2:1 AR of 70mm, a few 35mm to 70mm blowups, such as Superman, The Untouchables and Star Trek IV, maintained the 2.35:1 AR within the 70mm print by burning black above and below the picture. Normally, projected aperture for 70mm is 1.912 x .870. By making the print 1.912 x .816, one can maintain the 2.35:1 AR or 1.912 x .8 will maintain the current 2.39:1 standard.

Not that any of this matters because except for the outside possibility of a few 70mm prints made for restorations of films originally shot on 65mm, I think it's highly unlikely that we'll ever see 70mm/5perf prints again (except for IMAX and special venues) unless either Spielberg or Lucas suddenly decides that this would be a good thing. Since Lucas wants to produce film like television and Spielberg seems to have fallen in love with grain, it's more likely Spielberg will shoot on 16mm than 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-10-2003, 10:43 PM:
 
Dolby's patent apparently protects the idea of any 70mm digital sound process which involves stretching the pixels of a 35mm process. I somehow doubt it would stand up to a challenge since the earlier CDS process in 70mm is exactly the same as 35mm CDS except for enlongated pixels. But as it stands Sony would have to get a license from Dolby if they wanted to put SDDS on 70mm film and follow the expedient of simply 1.25X stretching the track. Frankly even without the "prior art" of CDS it seems like an obvious idea.

What may not be obvious at first is that even a process like Dolby Digital using discrete patches of data can be handled the same way. There would be a lot to be said for enlarging the data patches further for greater reliability or redesigning it entirely to use a continous band of data but those considerations aside it is possible to use exactly the same configuration. This simulation has 4 data patches per frame and each is exactly the same as on 35mm except stretched in the direction of film motion by 1.25X on account of greater film speed. The SR•D camera would "see" it exactly the same as the 35mm version and the player would not know the difference.


 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-11-2003, 03:56 AM:
 
DTS 70mm frame

And here´s a chronological premiere list of all 65mm films.

It would be interesting if Variety would compile box office gross for all of them. "The Sound of Music" will probably come out as the most successful of them all.

70mm films will never return to the cinema as it did in the 1960s. Today we have the occasional re-release and heritage to take care of.

[ 11-11-2003, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Thomas Hauerslev ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-11-2003, 07:36 AM:
 
Hmmm. With Steve's image there we have "Picture Start" and the SMPTE clock aready turning clockwise. Isn't the clock supposed to start at "8"?

Steve

PS, If Kodak were to "prime the pump" I would predict 5/70 would again breath new life. Kodak and the film industry have the most to gain with 70mm. They ought to remind the industry of just how good it really is as compared to all other formats, film or digital.
 

---

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 11-11-2003, 07:41 AM:
 
Shamless plug here but very 70mm related. If I have anything to do with it, im trying to put 70mm on the mao here in england, the more shows, the more the studios mught take note of the superiror presentation available in many existing cinemas.
DTS70 the way to go for the future.

City Screen York (England)
Sat 22nd Nov Earthquake in 70mm Sensurround, tickets selling fast

Sun 23rd Nov Krakatoa East of Java, 70mm Cinerama
Earthquake in 70mm Sensurround,

Anyone wishing to attend the show, advisable to book in advance.

Box office 01904 541144
www.picturehouses.co.uk

Cheers
Darren
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-11-2003, 10:07 AM:
 
Steve Guttag wrote:

quote:

---

If Kodak were to "prime the pump" I would predict 5/70 would again breath new life. Kodak and the film industry have the most to gain with 70mm. They ought to remind the industry of just how good it really is as compared to all other formats, film or digital.

---

If you think Kodak doesn't do enough to encourage larger formats, you aren't paying attention.

Kodak HAS worked closely with the movie industry to promote improved presentation quality, sometimes "priming the pump" when necessary. Certainly Kodak leads the way in maintaining the availability of the full family of 65mm and 70mm film stocks, at a price proportional to their size (i.e., 70 mm print film is about twice the price per foot of 35mm print film --- even though it costs more to slit and perforate due to smaller volumes.)

On a personal basis, I have written multiple articles, made multiple presentations at SMPTE, ShowEast, and ShoWest, and generally promoted the significant advantages of larger image areas on improved presentation quality ("Scope" and 70mm). Here are just a few:

Splendor of 70mm Part 1

Splendor of 70mm, Part 2

Scope 1.5X

Caring About Composition

SMPTE Presentation on Scope 1.5X

"Significance of CinemaScope", SMPTE Journal, October 1996, page 595.

Advantages of Scope

Here are some additional Kodak publications promoting 65mm/70mm films:

Hamlet 65mm/70mm

http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1996/44/hamlet/hamlet_visit.htm

quote:

---

The decision to use 70mm instead of 35mm on "Hamlet" was partly a creative, but (surprisingly) also a financial decision. Firstly it has always been a dream of Mr Kenneth Branagh, the director, and Mr Thomson to once make a film in 70mm. Castle Rock only agreed doing the film in 70mm, if it would not cost them anything more, concerning film stock, camera rent, etc. Panavision, Inc and Kodak were so kind to let them use the materials for the price of a 35mm production.

---

quote:

---

So how many complete upgrades to 70mm have you installed for YOUR customers FREE of charge?

---

quote:

---

Increase all 35mm film stocks 1/10th of a penny per foot and then for the year of 2004 sell 70mm film stocks (both negatives and print stock) for 1/2 of the regular cost of 35mm.

---

I'm sure distributors will just love the idea of paying more for their 35mm film just so the existing users of 65mm/70mm film can get a 50% discount.

I suspect Kodak, Panavision and Arri have tried "priming the pump" with good deals, as was written about Branaugh's "Hamlet".
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-11-2003, 10:02 PM:
 
Actually, I think the idea was to give them a 150% discount.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-11-2003, 10:31 PM:
 
John, have you never heard of a sale?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-12-2003, 12:19 AM:
 
(Pulling giant condom over entire body for protection)

Assuming that many studios and producers/directors got all excited about 565/570 and Kodak discounted, or even gave away the film stock, 70mm still wouldn't fly. And, while digital video is a significant factor, the overall problem is much more than the encroachment of "TV" into the commercial "movie" theatre biz.

Also, put aside the fact that 2000+ (or whatever) 35mm reduction prints still would have to be made for all the theatres that do not have 70mm projection. Granted, the quality would be better than what we now have and much better than the current "modern" 70mm blowups from 35mm. The bigger issue is lack of camera and editing equipment, and "expertise."

quote:

---

...camera makers like Panavision and Arri might be eager to get in on the offer, since they did pour a good amount of money in developing modern 65mm cameras.

---

quote:

---

John, have you never heard of a sale?

---

"Priming the pump" or "deal" are euphemisms for a "sale". It's been part of the business ever since Edison's lab bought film. But arbitrarily increasing prices to subsidize other products is generally perceived as unfair. That's why 70mm film is about twice the price of the same film in 35mm --- it's twice as big.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-2003, 03:48 PM:
 
Ok then don't increase the 35mm costs, just put 70mm on sale.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-12-2003, 06:14 PM:
 

quote:

---

That was true in the 70's. But most, if not all cameras, lenses, editing equipment, screening equipment is way outdated and generally has been rotting in storage vaults for the last 30 years…if it hasn't been junked.

---

Absolutely not true. Arri introduced the Arri 765 back in 1989, which has all the bells and whistles of any of their modern cameras. Panavision introduced their Super Panaflex 65mm camera and an entire set of Primos lenses principally for use on "Far and Away" in 1991. Another camera by Wilcam or Mitchell (I forget which) was also introduced in 1989 mainly for Showscan work and received a lot of high praise.

And even when it comes to the stuff "rotting away for 30 years" you'll find that a number of filmmakers have taken very good care of such gear. "Baraka" was shot almost entirely with old Todd-AO 65mm cameras and the picture quality was spectacular. Much better color and sharpness quality than any 35mm movie ever made period. And "digital cinema" (or faux-HD video to be honest) isn't even in the ballpark for 35mm.

I'll also give my spin, yet again, for the "forward looking" reason for shooting a movie in 65mm. Sure, you may not have thousands of 70mm equipped screens for the initial release. But there will not be a video format invented by mankind within the next 50 years to surpass the quality of a 65mm negative. That equals a movie that will be MARKETABLE FOR MANY DECADES. MORE MONEY.

Many old movies don't sell well on home video or DVD (or even get good ratings on TV) because most look like shit. This will be especially true for people who stupidly shoot major film productions in very limited digital video formats now. They will not be able to "up-rez" to much higher definition formats a decade or two down the road. 65mm/70mm is very future proof to such developments. A very worthwhile investment.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 11-12-2003, 08:17 PM:
 
What you need is a large format theatre (an "Event Theatre"?) per site equipped for 5/70, 8/70 and IMAX MPX.

That would give you the ability to show legacy 70mm titles whilst a new generation of filmmakers can shoot 65mm then make say, an IMAX print. Both systems are more compatible than say trying to show 70mm in a regular IMAX theatre.

The great thing about IMAX MPX being that it is specifically designed for 35mm stadium theatres, but with typically a 70ft screen and not as large as the "real thing" but still highly effective (for those who don't know, it's not a new format but a compact version of the original system and uses regular IMAX film).

Enlarging from 65mm to IMAX must already be happening in certain instances (effects work?), and that print would be playable in any IMAX theatre, MPX or no.

Current filmmakers who want to go down this road seem to be faced with "format overload". But whatever happens, with a Kinoton MP75E and an IMAX MPX system you could show any and all large formats

The end game being that all 35mm goes digital, and everyone moves up to the large formats. Interesting!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-12-2003, 10:39 PM:
 
Bobby Henderson said....
"Baraka" was shot almost entirely with old Todd-AO 65mm cameras"
_________________________________________________________________

Actually in the closing credits there is a camera constructed by, or camera engineered by credit. They definately did not use the old cameras much if at all as they woulda been way to heavy and unweildly for the type of setups they were acomlpishing, and for traveling round the world as they did. Even the old Todd-AO and Panavision hand helds are actually pretty doggone heavy fully outfitted!! What is definate is that they did build a 65mm camera, probably very lightweight with a small load, to conform to the Todd-AO format and it may have possibly even been built around a NOS spare Todd-AO camera movement. As for lenses, don't now there, but it looks way to good in 70mm in both sharpness and contrast, for it to have been shot with the old glass so I suspect that new Zeiss(Hassleblad), Mamiya, or Pentax glass was used as is most common these days for DIY 65mm stuff. There had to have been written an article on the filming of this back during its initial run.

Mark @ CLACO
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-13-2003, 12:04 AM:
 
Imax MPX does not maintain the (approximate) 1.4:1 aspect ratio of 1570. It masks off the top and bottom of the image to create a 1.75:1 image on screen. It will only be good for DMR films that are letterboxed on the print. Original 1570 films will appear to have something missing.

There are numerous reasons why MPX is a stupid idea, but they do not belong in this thread.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-13-2003, 02:16 AM:
 

quote:

---

That equals a movie that will be MARKETABLE FOR MANY DECADES. MORE MONEY.

---

quote:

---

'Matrix' buttresses Imax hopes for big film debuts

LOS ANGELES - The human race may not be the only thing Matrix savior Neo lifts to new heights. Imax theaters could be next.

Imax Corp.'s opening week box office of just over $3 million for The Matrix Revolutions hit the top range of expectations and buttresses Imax's case for debuting major movies on its giant screens the same day as in traditional theaters, co-chief executive Rich Gelfond said on Monday.

"When we sat down and thought about how well the movie could do, this was certainly on the high end," Gelfond said. "For the last two years, we have been saying, 'wait until we open contemporaneously (with traditional theaters), then look at that"' box office result.

Gelfond told Reuters Imax is in currently talks with four major film studios for the same type of "day and date" debut as Revolutions, a science fiction movie about humans led by their hero, Neo, battling for survival against machines.

The film debuted last week in 48 Imax theaters marking the first time a big-budget, franchise film has opened simultaneously on Imax and in traditional theaters.

Imax wants to entice studios to debut big budget films on Imax screens -- some of which can rise 8 stories high -- and in standard theaters the same day. Imax believes the promotional pull of the big films will bring more people to Imax theaters.

However various concerns, including some over cannibalizing normal ticket sales, have led to reluctance in Hollywood.

Last year, Imax was able to get older films like Apollo 13, animated The Lion King and more currently The Matrix Reloaded in its theaters but only after debuting in traditional theaters. Still, they provide the only comparison.

Reloaded opened at Imax in June, two weeks after standard theaters. That weekend, it sold $903,000 of Imax tickets.

This past week, Revolutions took in an average $63,000 per Imax venue versus The Lion King, which sold about $25,000 per Imax venue in its first weekend at Imax last December.

Gelfond said the Imax theaters were charging premium prices of about $2.50 more, on average, than standard theater tickets and still selling-out. In some cases, the prices rose as high as $15 per ticket in Imax.

"Our first look at the statistics shows very little cannibalization," he said.

Please send your comments or feedback to newsfeedback@abs-cbn.com

Reuters/abs-cbnNEWS.com

---

quote:

---

Another camera by Wilcam or Mitchell (I forget which) was also introduced in 1989 mainly for Showscan work and received a lot of high praise.

---

The camera Bobby was referring to is the Cinema products CP-65, I believe the movement was designed by Geoff. Williamson. Veteran cinematographer Jack Cardiff shot one of the Showscan movies with it.

For years, filmmakers kept bitching about cameras and lenses being to big and too heavy. We know what they did when Arri introduced the state-of-the-art Arriflex 765: NOTHING. A few short films, parts of Bertolucci`s LITTLE BUDDHA and besides that only SFX shots. They wanted modern tools with all bells and whistles, and when it was available, they began shooting shitty Super35, because even the anamorphic lenses seemed to unmanageable!

Today`s filmmakers are too uneducated, to lazy or to cynical to care for the great look of true 65mm photography.

If directors and cinematographers had been such sissies in the 1940s and 1950s, we would never have had Technicolor films like GONE WITH THE WIND or THE RED SHOES - "Mommy, the camera`s too heavy!" - "I need to much lights! It`s getting so hot!"

How I hate these "creative decision makers". I hope there`s a special hell for them where they have to watch "Dogma films" all day long.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-13-2003, 03:18 PM:
 
I´ve added a picture of the APR-65 (Cinespace 70) here - notice how small it is.

For the sake of accuracy, rent of the camera was USD 3500/week as of January 1993. The range of lenses was (10 x series 1) 24mm to 110mm (USD 225/week) and (7 x Series 2) 18mm - 150mm (USD 120/week).

Complete cast/credit for "Baraka

About the filming of "Baraka", see American Cinematographer, November 1993 p. 58ff.
 

---

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-13-2003, 08:34 PM:
 
I'll just add here that the Producer of "Baraka" (Mr. Mark Magidson) has spoken at my theatre (the Egyptian, in L.A.) several times, in conjunction with showings of the film.
And I recall him stating that the lenses were (mostly, if not all) from Hasselblad, so that confirms Mark's speculations, and also accounts for some of the amazing image quality you see there.

The "construction" referred to, in the camera credits, I believe is mostly making of the motion-control, and stop-motion system used during the production. I'd have to refer to the audiotapes of his talks to be sure, but I think one camera was an Arri, and the Todd-AO camera was camera #2 and was the one especially used for motion control.

In any event, Todd-AO (along with Dr. Richard Vetter) also made that demonstration film, aptly entitled the "Cinespace 70 Demonstration Film", about the same time as "Baraka" was made (circa 1991). One of the reasons for making it was to demonstrate -- and illustrate -- the Cinespace 70 camera, so DPs could see what it was all about. If you can ever see this film projected, I highly recommend it. Among other nice things, it is to run at 30fps, which brings it closer to the ideal film speed some of us would like to see utilized everywhere!

Incidentally, both of those films (Baraka & Demo. Film) were shot during the reign of what Kodak called the "EXR" family of film camera stocks. In the mid 90s, the "Vision" series of emulsions was brought out, with finer grain and better color, and the "Vision Premiere" print stock. So the film stocks today are already one complete generation improved since 1991...and now there is at least one newer camera stock, part of a possible "Vision 2" series of emulsions.

I will think I have died and gone to heaven when someone shoots something in 65mm on these new camera stocks, and then prints it on real "Premiere" print stock. Can you imagine how grand that could be?

And finally, we should mention the SD-70 ("Super Dimension 70") process, which has been demonstrated around L.A. for a couple of years, but so far has not lit any fires as far as being utilized for a major production. It is 5/70 image size, at 48fps(!). He has a projector custom-made with two (2) intermittents, one at the top and one at the bottom of the gate, to run the film through that fast. It's very impressive, and he seemed to have a valid business plan to get it into theatres (where the theatres would not have to pay for the machines, music to any theatre owner's ears!), but still -- no known applications that I've heard of.
They have a web site, <superdimension70.com> which you can visit for more info on that one.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-13-2003, 10:57 PM:
 
Well that Super Dimension 70 is not really anything sepecial at all and would certainly not have the ULTRA dimension that Showscan did. Its a standard dual intermittent Megasystem projector running at 48 fps. They call it a digital projector??? Are they nuts? There are timing belts in there halsf the size of Texas . I suspect that it just has a digital controler like the Iwerks Linear Loop machine does.
But the thing that really strikes me here is that I remember that Douglas Trumbull conducted all sorts of psychological testing on a huge scale and concluded that 60 fps was required for best realism of the image and from what I saw of Showscan it certainly worked very well. So where do these guys come off at doing it at 48? Trumbull also concluded that at above the 60 fps rate that the human brain had difficulty taking in that much information. So going from 30 fps to 60 fps is what it really takes to do film right in this respect.
These guys really just ought to crank her back to 30 fps as they are merely wasting alot of film for nothing at all gained.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-14-2003, 11:31 AM:
 
Imax HD which is 48fps has successfully demonstrated that 48 fps is more than adequate with sufficient periferal vision to produce a phenominal illusion of depth and realism
 

---

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 11-14-2003, 01:47 PM:
 
At 48fps you can single shutter the projector doubling the light output.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2003, 01:52 PM:
 
Likewise at 60fps.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-14-2003, 02:25 PM:
 
The light remains the same. Just spreading it over 2 frames instead of showing the same frame twice.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2003, 02:47 PM:
 
Since you can go to a single shutter occlusion instead of two, don't you actually get more light efficiency? Or have you found you need more degrees of coverage by the shutter blade?

In other words, if you use a two blade shutter at 24fps, each blade will typically be about 90-degrees, and the shutter will be about 50% efficient. At 48fps, you only need a single 90-degree blade, so the efficiency would be 75%.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-14-2003, 06:54 PM:
 
On the Imax remove the interceptor blades from the rotor and the master stays the same width
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2003, 09:50 PM:
 

quote:

---

Sadly the economics of Hollywood militate against a strategy of marketing films which are designed to recoup the production investment gradually over many years. The kind of big-budget productions which could feasibly absorb the extra costs of 65/70 have to generate a profit in the first week or two of release, or are considered a failure.

---

quote:

---

Imax MPX does not maintain the (approximate) 1.4:1 aspect ratio of 1570. It masks off the top and bottom of the image to create a 1.75:1 image on screen. It will only be good for DMR films that are letterboxed on the print. Original 1570 films will appear to have something missing.

---

Sure; I didn't mean that you could show true IMAX films in MPX theatres, just the other way round. However good point re. the ratio (they refer to it as 1:1.78 in their brochure). It means that even if you were to shoot 65mm and reprint upwards, you'd have a huge letterbox, possibly obviating any advantages of the larger image size.

But added to all the obstacles of shooting 65mm, there's the problem of too many formats. How can one, even with the best of intentions, justify printing say, Matrix : Revolutions in both 15/70 AND 5/70?

Not to mention the frame rates as above
 

---

Posted by John McConnel (Member # 2000) on 11-16-2003, 05:27 PM:
 
What's MPX? I just got in on this topic. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-16-2003, 05:44 PM:
 
New IMAX System Unvailed (sic)
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-16-2003, 06:34 PM:
 
If IMAX release, whether day and date or delayed, of conventional films is becoming all the rage is it that much to ask that a studio at least TRY releasing a few 5/70's and see if those jack up attendence (with appropriate advertising) like they used to? It's incomprehensible that they don't even try.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-16-2003, 08:36 PM:
 
yes and call it MiniMax
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-17-2003, 12:19 AM:
 
Did Sony learn anything of interest from the 70mm rerelease of LOA?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-17-2003, 01:46 AM:
 

quote:

---

What I am talking about is successful re-marketing of a "classic" film that was successful in its original release, but then doing certain things to keep the film from looking dated for viewers decades from now.

---