This is topic Is 70mm Gone For Good? 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=005669

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-21-2003, 05:32 PM:
 
First, some ground rules:

I'm not referring to revivals and repertory screenings. And I'm not looking to get into a technical discussion about how/why 70mm is better than 35mm. Suffice it to say that I am well aware of the full potential of 70mm.

I'm trying to avoid theory.

I'm asking your opinion as to whether we will see mainstream releases in 5/70 format as we did back in the 70's and 80's when many 35mm releases enjoyed optical blowup to 70mm with 6-Track magnetic sound.

If you think that 70mm could return as a viable mainstream format then let's hear your thoughts on what it would take to make that happen.

By the same token, if you believe -- as I do -- that traditional 70mm (5/70) will be reserved as a special venue, reiussue/restoration, novelty format then let's also hear your take on why you feel that way.

One more thing -- if you wish to respond to a post (or part thereof) please make an effort to state where you stand in the process. It's more interesting than a simple "hit-and-run" reply.

Here's where I stand:

In light of the fact that the advent of digital soundtracks brought about the end of the era of 70mm blowups, doesn't it imply that the main reason for going with 70mm was for the enhanced sound?

Certainly, image quality couldn't have been a great a factor, because the films were still being shot on 35mm -- and film grain was definitely an issue.

Consider also the enthusiasm over the impending digital conversion. I am not foolish or naive enough to seriously argue that digital "rivals" 35mm but I have noticed that the exhibition industry has, for the most part, "screwed the pooch" and the plain fact is that 35mm in the hands of kids -- even college kids -- does not live up to its potential. Thus, many exhibitors are helping -- perhaps unwittingly -- to bring about the demise of 35mm as the exhibition standard. Digital won't necessarily *be* better, but it will *seem* better and that's what finally counts.

And I don't think that it's fair to characterize the studios as being evil or unfeeling or anything like that. The American film industry has always been just that: an industry. Surely there are elements and incidents of artistry but what truly matters -- what has always mattered -- is box office returns.

Theatrical runs are getting shorter and shorter, as is the gap between theatrical and home-video launches. Once the enemy of the film industry, video has become something of a savior, gradually becoming the ultimate release format in more than one sense.

So with all of that in mind, the more relevant question isn't whether 70mm is gone...but, rather, how much longer does 35mm have?
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-21-2003, 08:53 PM:
 
I think I stand on the ground of large format being the future. With Revolutions being simultaneously relased on IMAX and 35mil, and EpII and Matrix Reloaded having successful runs in IMAX I really think that the trend is being set. I also think that when people really compare the quality that can be achieved on 70mil film when shot for it and mastered for it, they will lose interest in digital because it will stil seem like 35 mil becasue of the similar screen size.

I would love for the large screen formats to be in the wider ratios rather than the IMAX ratio, but at that size it might just be too wide and the seats would have to be far enough away that you might find yourself back where you started from as far as perceived screen size goes.

Digital seems to already be losing some of it's luster with the average Joe. I think people are sensing that it just isn't delivering. I don't hear people talking about it like I used to. IMAX still seems very 'special venue,' but that can be changed very quickly.

If it can be figured out how to effectively do the scope ratio in such a large format, I think 70 mil will return as the mainstream format replacing IMAX despite the issues making that so problematic. Those issues are just a matter of getting some smart people together and hashing it out to find the optimum values needed.

If it can be cheaper than digital and IMAX to build, it might just take off. The cost of the film is where the studios will of course drag thier feet and all this depends on whether or not the numbers can continue to increase year after year as they are now. Which means none of these changing of the gaurds will happen until an emergency takes place. Nothing to do with evil anyones, just with the fact that from the exhibitor leval on up, the costs will be hard to ignore.

Of course my point of view is very limited compared to the people who are developing technologies behind closed doors. Perhaps there is something better than we have quite thought of in the works somewhere by someone we'd least expect.
 

---

Posted by Richard Cieplechowicz (Member # 1275) on 12-21-2003, 09:07 PM:
 
Regal seems to see a potential for 70mm by installing a 70mm in our newest facility in St. Louis. As for large format in general we have been doing very strong business with Matrix on IMAX and anxiously awaiting Harry Potter for our IMAX screen.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-21-2003, 09:51 PM:
 
I tend to think that even if you shot 65mm and promoted the 70mm presentation at a certain theatre (as opposed to others showing the same film in 35mm) a lot of people would pay little attention. If asked about the fantastic image quality they would probably say oh...yeah, I guess so...I hadn't really noticed. Some would come just because they saw it in the ad just like they might go out of their way to see a DLP show. But what we might think of as dramatically better they might not really think was all that special. What they are getting now with the IMAX blowups is a much larger screen. That might be a more workable option to combine 70mm with a substantially larger screen. And a more reasonable way of showcasing "big" films because frankly, the whole IMAX blowup thing is kind of silly.
 

---

Posted by Erick Akers (Member # 875) on 12-21-2003, 09:56 PM:
 
Manny,

My opinion about 70mm is that without a big push from all major players is that we may never see it as anything more than a novelty. A whole gereration has passed without ever experiencing a 70mm presentation (blow up or not).

In this industry; we have to deal with the Walmart mentality, as we follow along blindly governed by trends. That 20 & 30 plex seemed like a novelty when the first few started to sprout up. Now we have movies for the masses for every mood,
after all,
variety is the spice of life.

I do believe that 70mm has the power to win over this new generation, and I also feel that DTS sound makes handling 70mm much less difficult for the average multiplex Booth Jockey. With DTS, gone are the days of degausing your equipment, and there's less liability for the operator than the days of mag track.

(BTW, some films with Mag tracks can be and are currently being erased and completely re sounded. BARAKA is a perfect example, the Dolby A tracks were erased and replaced with Dolby SR)

Like Brad always sez,
"There's more to running 70mm, and it's best left to the professional!"

But wait, If we scare off the projectionist that want to learn how to handle 70mm then it has no chance of returning to the mainstream at all.

I have been also been asking my self why theater owners can't band together and make a real effort to promote the format?

IF it's not in the public eye how can anyone know any better?

GET THOSE 70MM PRINTS OUT OF THE DEPOTS AND SHOW THEM!!!

A truely organised coast to coast effort could work, but you would have to get a major theater chain to sign off on a deal like this,as well as every Independant Theater owner capable of featuring 70mm.

A push effort If you will,
advertise by any means necessary Radio, TV, Newspaper. Also, a petition signing at the venues featuring such a promotion sent to the right people might not be ignored any longer.

As is, the only 70mm we will ever see will consist of reperatory,revival, and ride film.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-21-2003, 10:03 PM:
 
The trouble with the "big push" approach is that I don't believe that theatre owners/operators have any interest in seeing 70mm make a comeback.

IMHO, it's projectionists that are in love with the format.

Truth is, were it not for the question of financing the equipment, theatre operators would embrace dCinema in a heartbeat.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-21-2003, 10:04 PM:
 
Actually I would rather see the return on a large scale of VistaVision and Technirama camera work and projection. Its still alot more practical and less expensive type of system to create large format images. Not only can it utilize all existing 35mm film stocks but it would also allow large format dye transfer prints to be made. Alot of people feel that both of these formats provided the highest quality image that could be obtained for cinema use. Both can also be release printed to 70mm making it a more universal system.

I would still like to see 70mm prints made at least for important screening locations. Unfortunately on a large scale its really impractical and that has been proven in the past by ow many prints are ruined in the first week of showing.
Mark

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2003, 10:37 PM:
 
I think there is some scant possibility of a return to using 5/70 prints for giant screen shows. Most IMAX theaters have a 35mm projector for showing mainstream films. So it should be no big deal at all for them to use a "universal" projector that handles both 4/35 and 5/70. Studios would get image brightness and overall quality every bit as good as any of those IMAX DMR things. They'll save a good amount of money on the difference in cost between a 5/70 and 15/70 print.

The Matrix sequels had 'scope aspect ratios, as will the upcoming Harry Potter installment. 5/70 gets just as much projected image onto an IMAX screen as 15/70 with those kinds of films since the images have to be heavily letterboxed to fit the aspect ratio.

Overall, however, for 5/70 to really work the standards on image quality have to be raised above the "just good enough" 2K/HD video levels. 65mm photography and 4K-6K renderings would make a big difference. IMHO, audiences would appreciate the difference of the 65mm format's much sharper image potential. Most just haven't had the opportunity to do so in the couple decades. "Far and Away" and "Tron" were both financial disappointments. Films like "Baraka" and "Hamlet" did not have broad appeal either. It will take something besides some period dress up piece or bible epic to get audiences enthused about 70mm. It is about damned time that an action movie or some other genre a hell of a lot more popular utilized the format.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-22-2003, 12:08 AM:
 
Re: Thread title.... Ummm, YES!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-22-2003, 12:50 AM:
 
A couple of points
1 Baraka had at least in Canada had from day1 SR mag prints
2 35mm Blowup to 70mm release will still have a better image than a 35mm to 35mm as most of the visible grain and jitter are in the 35mm print and since the print magnification is less it will be sharper and better detailed
3 The use of the lazy8 projector format will never work the projector cannot be dual format
4 Many of the large format theatres have dual 35/70mm machines
5 70mm prints do cost more to make more to ship and occupy far more space on a platter and add signifigantly to the weight that it must control so that is an issue
7 2k DLP is not equal to a 35mm neg to 35mm print in quality
8 70mm has outgrossed many 35mm screenings of the same title a point in fact is after the closing in 35mm houses in Toronto we brought in the 70mm print of Titanic and ran it to sold out houses for over 4 months doing about 90,000 patrons Outgrossing the Toronto 35mm run
9 Yes it requires a higher level of operator knowledge to run properly and many of the convertable"35/70 dual purepose platters" do 70mm poorly
Will it come back that is an odd question as there is interest in getting maximum audience hype and 70mm has done that In fact the release of Batman in 70mm and in Digital sound in Ny the 70mm print outgrossed the digital one
Many larger circuits have as of late resurected one dual guage projector in there largest screen in there larger market
Will we ever see the return of smaller markets getting a flood of 70mm prints no but in the important major markets yes. Disney even has regularly struck 70mm prints still for premier screenings
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-22-2003, 01:22 AM:
 

quote:

---

Batman in 70mm and in Digital sound in Ny the 70mm print outgrossed the digital one

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, people like Sean Penn, while within their rights to debate politically, show little passion to mobilizing support for improving projection quality of the "art" they put out.

---

Mr. Penn did go totally berzerk and tore into one of our managers and projectionists after he (Penn) was sitting in a screening of 'The Pledge' that had bad SDDS tracks on it. The 'passion' is there, but he needed to be a little less 'hot-headed' about the solution.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-22-2003, 12:28 PM:
 
Yes it was Batman returns sorry
Most of the Disney cartoon had a 5 perf 70 struck in most cases with a 35mm print runniong on a dubber to playback the SRD track
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-22-2003, 01:26 PM:
 
6. James Cameron -- advocate of the Super 35 format which, I admit, would look absolutely fabulous when blown up to 70mm.

But, seriously, Cameron has box office clout and TITANIC is one of precious few mainstream titles to enjoy a 70mm release in recent years and so -- yes! -- he's on the list.

Looking back at that list -- don't you think those guys would be getting 70mm releases if they wanted them? I think they're not that interested or else we'd still be getting 70mm prints...at least occasionally...but, really, what would be the point? A 5/70 release today would likely come with the same DTS track available to 35mm houses. This leaves us with only the image considerations. With this in mind, I now ask the following question:

How many of this year's movies (2003) do you think warranted a 70mm blowup?

Please...I know that some of you would like to say "all movies should be 70mm" but, for the sake of this discussion, let's try to be a little more practical than that.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-22-2003, 01:59 PM:
 
Manny said "How many of this year's movies (2003) do you think warranted a 70mm blowup?"
probably none
One of the big stumbling blocks is the fact that the larger film is more easily damaged due to the inerta and weight. It also has a higher linear speed. Even in the age of the blowups how often I heard from a distributor when a print was damaged the extra print cost now destroyed didn't equal the extra revenue. And one circuit when they were billed for a replacement 70mm print promptly removed every dual purepose machine from their circuit stating it wasn't worth that type of cost

The rise of the DMR to a large sense ensures a reasonably higher level of care to the prints as there are fewer venues and usually with a higher technical skill level involved
There is no reason that DMR could not generate a 5 perf print if desired but I doubt that will happen
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 12-22-2003, 03:18 PM:
 
Spielberg does have the power to do 70mm blowups. Just look at his films from the 1980's. All of them except for the Color Purple and possibly 1 or 2 others were given a 70mm blowup treatment.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-22-2003, 03:31 PM:
 
That may well be the case. But consider also that you are referring to an era in which 70mm blowups were quite common.

I still have a promo kit from DTS which contains a letter from Steven Spielberg in which he declares how happy he is that all theatres can now have access to great sound and not just the premiere venues. Since we haven't seen any 70mm prints of his later movies I'd have to infer that Spielberg doesn't see much point to doing 70mm blowups anymore.

And, for the record, I never said that Spielberg did not have the clout. Just that he doesn't seem to have the interest in pushing the format.
 

---

Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 12-22-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
I believe horizontal Vistavision had a lot going for it. Naturally, it wasn't going to take on as an exhibition format while projector manufacturers discarded the notion of duel format operation. I don't believe duel format was impossible. A projector that rotated 90 degrees on it's optical axis could have done the trick. The strengthening and a suitable bearing around the light cone would not, I believe, have been an engineering impossibility. Maybe a twin sized intermittent sprocket would have been possible to cater for the 8 hole pull across. Today, it would probably be achieved with a stepper motor along the lines of the Kineton option. I don't want to trivialize the challenges. but I just believe a projector to run horizontal Vistavision and conventional vertical 35mm could have been designed. The alternative, the development of a white elephant is said to have been responsible for the closure of the very successful Gaumont Kalee projector plant in Leeds England.

Now look at the benefits of Vistavision as a large frame format. It used standard 35mm film, so standard processing and printing (with modification) was possible. The cost per print would be about that of two prints of the same title. Compare that with a 70mm print today. The writing speed of 180 feet per minute would provide a better frequency reponse from optical analogue tracks. Shipping is much cheaper. There's much less bulk in 2 35mm prints than there is in one 70mm print of the same title. I believe if Vista Vision had received the same standard of development as an exhibition format as did 70mm, it would have been more sucessful than 70mm. The economics were always against 70mm.

But let's face it - I'm dreaming. We will never see the benefits of Vistavision. This is not an industry that really cares much about resolution on the screen any more. After all 80 percent of American films are produced in 1:1.85 aspect ratio which discards a whopping 35 per cent of the available frame area. How many industries waste that amount of their product without going broke?

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that an anamorphic system of slightly over a one and a half expansion, (instead of twice) would provide the 1:1.85 aspect ratio from the same frame area as that used for Cinemascope. The resolution on the screen with no frame loss, even with the imperfections of the anamorphic, would be improved significantly. I'll leave others to do the maths. The light output for the 1;1.85 aspect ratio would also be improved significantly.

What would be required? an additional anamorphic and backing lens ,not unlike that once used for Superscope, and aperture. The backing lens would be the same focal length as that used for scope. The cost would probably be about the same as that for the conversion to cyan tracks which produces NO technical improvement for the audience. The problem is, the industry is not spending money where it counts in the final result to the audience.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-22-2003, 04:35 PM:
 

quote:

---

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realise that an anamorphic system of slightly over a one and a half expansion, (instead of twice) would provide the 1:1.85 aspect ratio from the same frame area as that used for Cinemascope. The resolution on the screen with no frame loss, even with the imperfections of the anamorphic, would be improved significantly. I'll leave others to do the maths. The light output for the 1;1.85 aspect ratio would also be improved significantly.

---

quote:

---

The cost would probably be about the same as that for the conversion to cyan tracks which produces NO technical improvement for the audience. The problem is, the industry is not spending money where it counts in the final result to the audience.

---

Are you referring only to the cyan tracks? Or are there other examples of industrywide mis-spending?

Just a side-note: At the very least, cyan dye conversion gave us reverse-scan LED readers which do a better job than the old filament exciters. Even if cyan dye *never* takes off, at least a lot of us got better scanners.

Maybe we should start another thread if people want to share their thoughts on that.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-22-2003, 04:50 PM:
 
Isco vision was the 1.85:1 anamorphic format and if one does a search there is alot on this site about it
Vistavision isn't as simple as rotating the head 90 degrees since lazy 8 projection runs from the lower reel up to the upper reel requiring the intermitent at the other end of the trap
Unless one wants to flip the machine the other direction and lie on the floor looking uppwards to lace up

VistaVision and techniramma both provide a good source of a large format negative for 70mm prints as was done with many super techniramma titles
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-22-2003, 04:53 PM:
 
We are straying now, but I'm curious...

Was VistaVision ever implemented as a projection format and, if so, to what extent (how widely available) ?

Somehow, I had always figured VistaVision as a shooting format, like 65mm.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-22-2003, 05:02 PM:
 
To keep it short and not strying it was used in quiet a few regular theatres by Paramount
3 companies built horizontal projectors
Century (there is some articles on this machine I copied and are on Marty Harts site)
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistavisionref.htm
Micron in italy made one
and Guamont Kalle built several (probably 4)
http://www.cinephoto.co.uk/odeon_leicester_square_20.htm
The original machine was a century C on its side with the lens mount bolted where the shutter guard went and the shutter supports on the lens mount It had no soundhead and ran double system
It was used for White Christmas and Strategic Air Command ant radio city and 8 other locations and designed and built in only several weeks
The final machine had a optical soundhead (vistavison used optical perspecta sound)
4 machines were custom built for Colonial Williamsburg (article on Marty's site as well) that featured 6 track mag instead of optical and curved gates

The MicoLambda had a seperate optical and mag reader mounted side by side under the machine on the input side and one threaded according to the track as techniramma 8 perf was magstripped
The Kalee machine I have not seen a good picture of the soundhead compartment as to how it handled the dual tracks
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 12-22-2003, 05:14 PM:
 
Chicago opened in NYC at the Ziegfeld. Because the Ziegfeld is equipped for 70mm and Chicago is a musical, Miramax could have put up the money to strike a 70mm print for the "Oscar Bait" run. As it turned out the Weinstein family pushed Chicago into some suburban multiplexes day-and-date with the Ziegfeld.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-22-2003, 05:24 PM:
 
So, Charles...

In your opinion there was one movie released in 2003 -- "Chicago" -- worthy of one 70mm print?

I'm not exactly sensing a huge 70mm comeback.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-22-2003, 05:33 PM:
 
When VistaVision opened in New York and Los Angeles, only the Paramount Theatre in Times Square and the Warner Beverly Hills were fully equipped to run that format with the Century VistaVision projectors.
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-22-2003, 05:47 PM:
 
The thing that always seems to come up in these types of discussions is the exhibitor leval. I agree, the theatre's themselves need to improve thier presentation before anyone will seriously look at giving them something that is even more of a challenge to deal with.

To me a good 35mm print is certainly beautiful so 70mm doesn't have to be there to make me happy if there really are ways to make 35 mil better.

I still really feel that IMAX is the future of mainstream cinema which should result in better quality all the way around because of the fact that it is a more complicated system. The operators seem to be better all around but there are also a lot fewer operators so the actual number is probably the same.

I didn't realize that the IMAX releases were still in the full widescreen.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the advantages of IMAX from a business model standpoint. It's all just thoughts at this point but if there was a wide range of mainstream releases, combined with the current special interest IMAX releases that are mostly way cool, you have a much wider range of product you could draw from. Seems to me that there would be a lot of room for creativity that isn't really there in the 35mil market. If it took off, those DLP projectors would probably see a major death until they can get thier resolutions up there with at least current 35 mm.

That also seems to me like it would be better for the studios. I still don't see why someone would want to pirate a movie from a video camera. And, if they do, it's just so they can see it after it's not in release and before it's out on video.

If digital takes off, hackers could get actual full sorround mixes during downloads. People just think there is pirating now. It will be crazy if there is ever a widespread, mass distributed digital system in the works.

I think at least once every day about whether or not today's times are ground floor leval on the next big thing with IMAX. To me those theatres are in the driver's seat if they have some really creative people in the management leval.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-22-2003, 05:55 PM:
 
I think that IMAX will eventually become an old-hat novelty. It certainly seems to be enjoying a heyday now but I don't see it staying that way. Sooner or later there's going to be a string of DMR day-and-date releases that bomb because the movie is just boring and/or stupid. Whenever that happens, the studios will shy away from it.

From a studio perspective, I have always thought that home-video was the way of the future. Step back and take a look at the progression.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-22-2003, 06:33 PM:
 
(deleted by author due to redundancy)

[ 12-23-2003, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Paul Linfesty ]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-22-2003, 06:38 PM:
 
Home video may seem like the "wave of the future," but you still must have commercial movie theaters to make any movie release release "legit." The trouble is this stupid rush to "go digital" (honestly it is just "go video") would amount to the studios cutting the throats of commercial theaters and then their own throats for the long term.

The studios are doing NOTHING to drive standards above standard HDTV levels. If the image quality between commercial and home theater is identical, but viewing in the home is much cheaper, which do you think audiences will choose? At least with 35mm there is some physical separation between formats. With 70mm there is a demonstrably SUPERIOR format. Digital? Big deal. 5/70 does a much better job than any digital video format, period.

HDTV monitors and other HD related gear is still a very high end item. However, prices are falling by large margins year after year and more sophisticated products keep getting introduced --all far ahead of the pace of improvement for any commercial theater "digital projection" efforts. It won't be long before widescreen TVs and HD broadcasts are commonplace. Just look at the history of DVD. In the format's first couple years hardly anyone had it. Now over 60 million standalone players have been sold in the United States alone, DVD outsells VHS sell through titles (some movies don't even get released on VHS anymore) and DVD is fixing to surpass VHS on rentals as well --all in just a handful of years. There's a lot more money in the consumer electronics market. That fact alone will make electronics companies betray any exclusivity on technology they provide for commercial theaters.

Commerical movie theaters are far better off sticking to showing film prints. The only way I would advocate a video-based system for commercial theaters is if it were something totally different from the home and impossible to implement in the home.

In the long run special venue theaters may be the only thing left for movie exhibitors. 70mm is still the reigning king of that market regardless of all the stupid digital hype.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-22-2003, 06:58 PM:
 
"It was used for White Christmas and Strategic Air Command ant radio city and 8 other locations and designed and built in only several weeks"
_________________________________________________________________

Actually, it did have an optical soundhad and they made use of Perspecta Sound on those features as well. Here are rear and front photos of the westrex optical soundhead as it was used on the first Century VV machines. The optical frequency response was also very good extending almost to 20khz! They did not use interlocked mag for the premiere but interlocked optical on Westrex R-8 dummy heads that were already there.

As best as I have been able to trace back there were 30 pair made of the actual production VV machines including the 2 pair at Colonial Williamsburg. Alot of them were used at Paramount. Many of those machines and several of the early pair are still in constant service, some at Lucasfilm, and several pair at Hansard Process. My VV projector is a very close replica to the early unit except for improvements in the gate and the addition of a loop stabilizer to eliminate the possibility of film scratching.

Bill,
White Christmas did open at Radio City Music Hall. This is well documented in a number of theatre publications and in International Projectionist. The Paramount in NYC had booked something else big in at the time. The Paramount was later used for the premiere of Strategic Air Command and utilized the newer production VV machines and on film optical sound track.

Mark




 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-22-2003, 07:07 PM:
 
The VV machines ran double system at radio city and the New York Paramount.
As Warren Jenkens said the picture at RCMH was so sharp you could see the pours in J stewarts face from the front row but also the machines ate an intermitent a day

There were also 4 machines installed in toronto as well
check out the article on marty's site with the booth shots
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-22-2003, 07:16 PM:
 
Yea, the A type movement as used in the production machines actually saved VistaVision. The first hand built machines actually used the "C type" 1/4 inch star shaft with three taper pins through the sprocket. These pins usually sheared off by the end of the days run. Later on Brenkert movements were custom retrofitted to those few macines with a spreader type arrangement down though the end of the star shaft to secure the sprocket. Steve Krams has an interesting box of sheared off 1/4" diameter sprockets down in MIami that he showed me once. Those early movements really took a beating while the "A" type movements run and run with little trouble!!

You should be able to see everyones zits...its about the same resolving power that 5 perf 70mm has plus both Technirama and VV had far, far greater depth of field.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-22-2003, 09:23 PM:
 
Bobby wrote:

quote:

---

There's a lot more money in the consumer electronics market. That fact alone will make electronics companies betray any exclusivity on technology they provide for commercial theaters.

Commerical movie theaters are far better off sticking to showing film prints. The only way I would advocate a video-based system for commercial theaters is if it were something totally different from the home and impossible to implement in the home.

---

quote:

---

Theatrical runs are getting shorter and shorter, as is the gap between theatrical and home-video launches. Once the enemy of the film industry, video has become something of a savior, gradually becoming the ultimate release format in more than one sense.

So with all of that in mind, the more relevant question isn't whether 70mm is gone...but, rather, how much longer does 35mm have?

---

quote:

---

are you refering only to cyan tracks or are there other examples of industry miss spending?

---

quote:

---

Vistavision isn't as simple as rotating the head 90% since the lazy 8 runs from the lower reel up to the upper reel.

---

quote:

---

Where does it end?

---

quote:

---

Its also the only way one could ever see a large format film projected in Dye Transfer.

---

I'm pretty sure IB Technicolor prints weren't made of true VistaVision prints, due to the cost of making the matrices for a couple of prints.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-22-2003, 11:15 PM:
 
Fine. Be that way.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2003, 01:36 AM:
 
I would think that in today's productions, the cost of VV versus 65/70mm photography would be only slightly measurable.

Kodak charges roughly double for 70mm. 8-perf 35 is double 4-perf 35. So a VV production would set you back double of that for a conventional shoot. 65mm would set you back double plus 25% (added perforation per frame) though John. P can clarify if 65mm negative is twice that of 35mm negative stock (The prices may be closer).

The larger the frame the less the depth of focus and the more light that is needed to light it...those are the downsides to large formats.

What VV brings to the table is the film is curved in the horizontal direction on projection...which will have better film control over the large frame area as compared to 70mm.

Personally, I don't think any significant improvement can be realized from the 65/70mm process from the VV format. In terms of reviving large format origination, 65/70 has a clear advantage...both primary camera manufacturer/renters offer 65mm equipment with relatively recent designs that include small size and weight. In projection, you have quite a few choice of manufacturers. Even in lensing...both ISCO and Schneider have relatively modern ('80s) lens designs for 70mm projection.

As an aside...the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation has their visitors film they show in their historical back-to-back twin theatres. The film was shot and originally projected in lazy-8 VV format (late '50s). The vista-vision process didn't even make it a decade in projection before it was converted into 70mm (using Century JJs for projection) ('60s).

The negative is being restored by the best (Bob Harris) and they explored going back to Vista Vision projection. Kinoton offered their projectors in a Vista Vision format with either normal or reverse vista-vision orientation. Upon looking at all options...it was decided to retain 70mm as the projection format though it will make a transistion from magnetic to DTS digital sound when the restoration is complete.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-23-2003, 03:26 AM:
 

quote:

---

1. Steven Spielberg -- still insisting on shooting 1.85:1 (The "Indiana Jones" movies were shot in 'scope to satisfy George Lucas)....
6. James Cameron -- advocate of the Super 35 format which, I admit, would look absolutely fabulous when blown up to 70mm.

---

quote:

---

I know Disney struck a 5/70 print of "Pearl Harbor" for the Japan premiere.

---

quote:

---

Last I heard 65mm raw stock was on average $7.00 a foot but J.P. might like to clarify that.

---

quote:

---

Commerical movie theaters are far better off sticking to showing film prints. The only way I would advocate a video-based system for commercial theaters is if it were something totally different from the home and impossible to implement in the home.

---

quote:

---

The current line of 65mm cameras is only slightly bulkier and heavier than the current 35mm models (arri and panavision)
Both have a very wide variety of lens

---

Like so many things, the issue isn't the reality, but the perception. When was the last time you heard a cinematographer say that if they had their way, they would love to shoot in 65mm?
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-23-2003, 07:01 PM:
 
Far and Away turned out to be a very poor example of 65mm origination, not, as I had hoped, something you could point to and say, "See what you've been missing!" Between the fast film, shallow depth of field on many shots, and other photographic choices it really did not show off the format and some would say it did more harm than good to the Cause.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2003, 07:13 PM:
 
The fact is most cinematographers fantasize about shooting a movie in 65mm. The problem is they're not the ones signing the checks. Producers do that.

If most producers had their way 100% most filmmakers would be shooting all of the product we see on videotape. It's really unfortunate all this stupid "digital filmmaking" hype is trying to make that a reality. It amounts to no more than a big cost cutting decision resulting in a giant leap backwards in image quality.

I really don't buy it at all that 70mm is a whole lot harder to use than 35mm. If it is such an impossible format how do all those giant screen special venue projects ever manage to get completed? There is a shitload of potential with 70mm and films like "Baraka" prove that with a giant exclamation point.

The real truth is Hollywood just sticks to a status-quo kind of thing until someone with some balls shows up and does something different. Then others try to copy that fashion statement. And "fashion" or "fad" is exactly how I would describe the whole deal with people getting on the George Lucas bandwagon to videotape major productions. Never mind the images barely have half the quality of a 1080i HDTV image! But Hollywood figures most Americans are stupid anyway. Look at how many people are shelling out upwards of $10,000 for flat plasma screens that have only around 1300 X 800 pixels. The customers think the sets have the full 1920 X 1080 thing happening, but none on the market deliver. The hype-meisters just throw out that "digital" word or mention something like "6000 to 1 contrast ratio!" The term "DIGITAL" these days seems more a catchphrase to screw people with substandard product than anything else.

The bad thing about 70mm is it has not been used in the right place at the right time in 30 years. If only Panavision and Arri had come up with their Super Panaflex and Arri 765 models a couple years earlier we might have seen Spielberg film "Empire of the Sun" in 65mm. He seriously considered doing that, but the equipment and film stocks available to him at the time didn't make production very feasible. A couple years later the technology was dramatically improved. "Empire of the Sun" was not a landmark film in and of itself. But it might have done more to give 70mm a helpful push if it had been shot in 65mm.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-23-2003, 08:03 PM:
 
On the issues of cameras too many of todays cinematographers are spoiled (much like a lot of projectionists) with technology that has reduced the amount of work required to produce a finished product
Often I would love to see some of the current crop of camera operators and DOP have to do a production with a rack over mitchel BNC (let alone a 3 strip camera or a 2709) and film with an ASA of 10 and carbon arc lamps that trim times were critical and a fast lens was f3.5
The technology is rarely the stumbling block
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-23-2003, 08:08 PM:
 
Far and Away was the first 70mm first-run film I had ever seen. It was the first time I had ever been to a movie where the audience applauded afterwards.

I thought the image was incredible, with the lush green Irish coastline, and the wide shots of the land race.

Coincidentally, after being so impressed with the image quality and overall experience of that movie, I attended the CES in Chicago very shortly after seeing the movie (it was very fresh in my mind).

A bunch of companies banded together to give a home theater demo on the show floor. One of Theo K's opulent theaters was setup in the middle of the show floor, and they were using (I think) a Vidikron CRT firing onto an 8-foot wide screen. If I recall correctly, they were using an Elite Series Pioneer DVD player (were line doublers in use back then?).

Even though we were stuffed into this theater like sardines, the experience sold me on home theater. I caught the bug and the idea of replicating the "theatrical" experience became a hobby. I am finally now to the point of getting a dedicated room set up so that the picture can rival the sound I already have achieved.

When I first started in this hobby, my wife thought it was a little strange and perhaps a little embarrassing, because no one else was doing it. Now, it's pretty mainstream to have a surround system, and quite a few people are installing larger screens and asking me about how to upgrade their TV and stereo for better sound.

It's odd that the film largely responsible for hooking me on movies is also not very highly regarded here. It makes me wonder what other 70mm presentations would have done to me...

I've seen 70mm presentations of Ben-Hur, Cliffhanger, Gone With the Wind, and Alien and they have been very good (even though the latter ones were blow-ups from 35mm). All but Cliffhanger were at a classic movie theater, so I hesitate to judge the medium based on those experiences alone.

I've also seen the IMAX DMR version of Star Wars Ep. 2, and while it's cool and the quality was good, there was a premium price and I had to travel over an hour to see it.

The IMAX DMR process has a better chance of seeing growth than 70mm, since it allows theaters to have a large auditorium to show special-interest IMAX films and then mix in the DMR films when they are available. I would choose a DMR film over a standard 35mm presentation if my local theaters had that capability, and if they did the presentations right. (I'd even be willing to pay the $3 premium admission)
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-23-2003, 08:27 PM:
 
Another great debate.

I happen to believe 70mm could make a comeback. The playback equipment is readily available and DTS is an easy fit to it. SR.D would not be all that difficult either.

While in the recent past this release format was used for superior sound characteristics (over Dolby Stereo optical soundtracks)if it made a comeback it would be for image quality, even blown up from 35mm.

All we need is a film maker to ask for it and the rest would all roll downhill.

I moved a lot of 70mm projectors into normal 35mm venues years back for Alien, Close Encounters and other films, all with a few days notice. It would be much easier today with Digital soundtracks and 70mm would look fantastic in today's stadium theatres with wall to wall screens and 28mm lenses.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-23-2003, 09:10 PM:
 
It was never my belief that it would be difficult or impossible to equip the theatres. The hard part will be getting new product.

quote:

---

All we need is a film maker to ask for it and the rest would all roll downhill.

---

quote:

---

Are 35mm blowups satisfactory or is it necessary, in your opinion, to actually originate on 65mm?

---

quote:

---

Which of today's directors have sufficient clout to ask for -- and get -- a 70mm release? Have these directors expressed an interest in the format?

---

quote:

---

Were there any movies in 2003 that were worthy of a 70mm release?

---

quote:

---

Would it be necessary to hire "real" projectionists or do you believe that 70mm (without mag stripes) is no more complicated than 35mm?

---

quote:

---

It has often been cited that 70mm presentations have proven themselves at outgrossing 35mm houses with the same title. Does anybody have data regarding how well the dCinema houses performed at the box office, as compared to 35mm houses with the same title(s)

---

quote:

---

If the distributors don't care about having quality operators to run their 35mm prints, then why would they care about it with their 70mm prints?

---

quote:

---

Related topic: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the quality of projectionists (in general) seems to have improved in the last year or so? I deal mostly with "first run" (whatever that means in this context) art house titles with an occasional mix of assorted repertory prints and mainstream titles.

---

quote:

---

35/70 blowups should be a mandatory requirement for any oversized theater screen. The UA Galaxy 9 in Garland, TX claims to have the largest indoor movie screens in Texas. I don't care. I'm not watching a 35mm print on a screen 80 feet across.

---

quote:

---

In the long term 70mm actually helps. It will future proof a movie and make it easier to repackage and resell on newer, better video storage/playback formats.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't know the improved grosses on D Cinema features versus 4/35. But I would expect a significant increase with all the silliness that surrounds the "digital is perfect" hype. One of the big things that helped 70mm in the 1980's were the big logo boxes you would see in the stack ads which separated the 70mm booked theaters from all the other ones only showing 35mm. Many customers went to the 70mm theaters. Most probably didn't understand what 70mm was, but they figured it must be something that makes watching the movie better and didn't want that hollow feeling of having settled for something less.

---

quote:

---

The equipment is out there, either in place or gathering dust in a warehouse and with a little cleaning or overhaul could be installed relatively inexpensively along with a few other doodads (DTS reader, platter, guidance, cue detector, splicer). Equipment is barely an issue.

---

quote:

---

Personnel able run it without destroying it is an issue, as is willingness to commit the big screen to play this film for at least a few weeks to justify making the print.

---

quote:

---

In return the distributor supports it by noting the 70mm houses at the top of the ad.

---

quote:

---

There is no doubt the 70mm prints would outgross the 35's all other things being equal. But if it's viewed as simply canibalizing the other runs they might not see a point.

---

quote:

---

And would the difference in grosses hold up on subsequent releases or would people shrug it off not noticing a difference when it's just a blowup?

---

This is really what it all comes down to. If the customers can't discern an improvement then there's no point. This is why dCinema is actually viable despite its current shortcomings.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-24-2003, 08:00 PM:
 
Manny,

You've outlined the various salient points very well and the responses are first rate.

As to the training involved to run 70mm, It's a relative snap as 70mm is actually easier to thread and run than 35 for inexperienced help.

As to the amount of prints struck, it need not be a small release. Dick Tracy struck 152 prints after making a decision to go for it only 15 days before showtime.

What is needed is a campaign to get interested directors to go with a 70 release. Sounds like a job for Pytlak to spearhead. Most exhibitors, particularly the small ones playing day and date, will buy off on it in a minute as they are always looking for an edge. Once they buy off the more conservative companies like Redstone and Regal will quickly follow suit.

I used this tactic to get Dolby Stereo and Dolby Digital launched. In Seattle which an up-market film community, for Batman Returns we picked Act 111 cinemas as a launch customer and put the digital in a lesser theatre in Bellevue, WA, a suburb. This theatre out grossed all theatres in this market.

The only real road block is that the 70 print can not be moved to a lesser screen if it's a dog.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-24-2003, 08:09 PM:
 
I agree with the others that "Return of the King", or the entire trilogy for that matter, deserved the 65mm treatment. Or AT LEAST true anamorphic! It would be nice to have 70mm blowups of the three extended versions.

Manny: I wouldn't go so far as to give 70mm houses a few weeks of a head start. A few days would do it. Say a movie is opening on a Friday, have the 70mm houses open it on the Wednesday before. For Wednesday (and holiday) releases, have them open it the Friday before. And the key would be to advertize it as such. "Starts Wednesday at Select theaters, Friday everywhere"

Truth is "Seventy Millimeter" is a mouthfull. Someone should come up with a catchier, more sellable name. MAGnavision?

The digital sound folks need to wake up, too. If DTS would push its 10-track audio exclusively on 70mm prints, or if Dolby would print double tracks on both sides of the image in place of the outer Mag stripes, they could boast 10-track audio, too, or at least have a redundant 5.1 track in case of dropout. And what's the problem with putting optical DTS-Stereo on DTS70 prints now that all that area covered by the mag tracks is reclaimed? Being I've never personally seen a DTS-70 print before, I could be putting my foot in my mouth...

Our Kodak Vision Premiere 2393 print of X-2 looked absolutely awesome. I could only imagine a Vision Premiere 70mm print. You'd almost want to step into the screen...

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-24-2003, 08:38 PM:
 
5/70mm just needs to continue to be called "70mm". There is already decent brand identity established for the format. All that needs to be done is bringing back or updating the pretty cool logos used to promote 70mm back in the 1980s.

Coining other terms for 70mm would run the risk of sounding pretty stupid. Let's be honest, after "CinemaScope" and "Panavision" the terms of other also ran 'scope formats started sounding corny. Anything with "-O-Rama" placed as a suffix kind of makes my skin crawl and seems deserving in placement on a David Letterman top ten list of something goofy.

I don't agree with making any next generation sound format tied to 70mm exclusively. It might help things for a 70mm show to feature a 10.2 channel audio track via DTS' new XD-10 system. But at the same time I don't think it would be fair to the majority of commercial theaters who would never see a 70mm print otherwise to not be able to use the same "next generation" audio process.

The point of 70mm is image quality, not surround sound. Most of the 35/70 blowup prints made from the late 1960s through early 1990s were primarily made just for the sound. In a certain respect I think it represents a deep misuse of the format and is one of the factors that helped kill it. The blowups made Hollywood think they don't really have to shoot on 65mm to make a 70mm print since a blow up is "good enough." Then when 35mm was able to deliver a 5.1 track via five different systems introduced through the 1990s Hollywood figured the 70mm prints aren't needed anymore either. Promoting 70mm via a DTS 10.2 introduction would just be more of the same misuse.

35/70 blowups do have their place: showing regular 35mm originated movies on giant screens. Outside of that, if someone is going to promote a resurgence of 70mm they need to do it from the purist standpoint where the image quality is the top priority.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-24-2003, 09:12 PM:
 
Kind words, Sam. Thanks!

I agree with everything Bobby just said.

Thomas -- as Sam just pointed out -- a 70mm print can't be downgraded if the smaller houses aren't equipped to handle it. For that reason alone, the 70mm houses will need more than a few days "protection" on their investment.

Inventing a new name for 70mm ignores the fact that there is actually already a fan base for the format, albeit a relatively small one.

An attempt at reintroducing 70mm under a new name could backfire, inadvertently creating confusion. Or, worse, it could *really* backfire if people get to thinking that we're trying to sell them "something old" by merely "calling it something different."

Magnavision isn't that much easier to say than 70mm, especially when I consider that many people "in the know" just call it "seventy."

Cinerama always reminded me of "ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong" and, in fact, we jokingly called it "Cineramadingdong" when I lived in Southern California.

Regarding 5/70 with DTS:

1. Same discs as 35mm?
2. Has a 5/70 DTS release ever shipped without the discs?

And would there really need to be a ".2" in a new format? What would that be? Stereo LFE?
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-24-2003, 10:32 PM:
 
Some point that seem important in my opinion:

1. 70mm release prints are necessary for the largest screens because you can get a brighter picture and less focus problems. Films shot on 35mm will look better as a 70mm blowup, too. Films shot in 65mm will look like IMAX without the big headroom, but better because of the 5-perf's better depth of field.

2. All films that have potential for epic looks should be shot on 65mm. Reduction prints on 35mm anamorphic will look much superior to 35-35 prints IF the quality is not lost through careless duplicating and printing operation.

3. There is no shortage of 65mm cameras or lenses for a few big productions a year. BUT there is a reluctance with today breed of cinematographers to use a tool they are not familar with. Good cinematographers choose the best tool they can get. MOST cinematographers do what they are used to and find some stupid "artistic" reason for it afterwards.

4. There is presently no major director who cares enough about image quality so he will check that cinematography is top-notch AND have the international release print quality checked. This is not impossible, as Stanley Kubrick used to prove (except EYES WIDE SHUT, which was shown in some places in prints with inferior image quality - because Kubrick had died before the release).
The great quality in many showmen like Mike Todd, David O. Selznick or David Lean was that they CARED about every aspect of their work's presentation. Today, NOBODY has the power to do so because moviemaking has become so expensive that nothing but the first weekend gross counts.

5. The additional cost of 65mm original photography is negligible with any major production. Additional cost of film stock (double 35mm + 20%) looks like a drop in the ocean regarding today's budgets.

6. There would be additional work and money spent if the digital effects and postproduction were to be done at full 65mm resolution. IMHO the downhill race in cinematography began when every film had to have some digital work done. So they had to degrade the non-effect photography, otherwise the CGI stuff would stand out like a sore thumb. Welcome, Super-35! Hello, high speed film stock!
Digital effects can be done in highest resolution and will outdo anything on 2K Super 35 film - imagine T-REX in IMAX-like quality without the added headroom!

7. This would be the time ro revive Technirama. For years, the outmoded printing process would have prevented the use of it. (Although I believe that 8-perf-technirama-to-35mm printing was still offered by Technicolor labs some time ago, but I may be wrong.)
Today, it would be easier. Shoot on 8-perf, use any given lab (it's plain 35mm film), use a telecine for viewing and postproduction, then scan the camera neg at 4K rez and record it onto 35mm interpos/interneg stock, adding more squeeze to get 2x. The 35mm prints will be the best anamorphic print you can get.

AGAIN, the problem lies with the cinematographers.
There are a few 8-perf cameras, for example from Wilcam (Clairmont rents them, I think) or Filmtechnik Fromm. Only one (the Wilcam) is blimped for sound recording. So you would have to manufacture a number of these 8-perf cameras to shoot a major film.
But then there comes the problem of getting lenses. Cinematographers love to use their favourite lenses, and one of the reasons why they embraced inferior Super-35 is that it allows them to use their standard lenses!
Few cameraman will go back to the Technirama age where they had exactly four focal lengths.
THEN there is the problem of the anamorphic adapters. The original Technirama anamorphics were huge units, as you can see on Marty Hart`s great site:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr1.htm

Sure you could make smaller anamorphic lenses today, but this is very, very costly. The ISCO company seems to have done a few when Kinoton unsuccessfully tried to introduce a 35mm/1,5x anamorphic format in the 1980s, making even a modest series of 1.5x anamorphic lenses for 8-perf (unless you want to use the SLR-type 1.5x lenses known as Iscorama ) will be an expensive thing.

I am afraid that today's cinematographers will not accept tools that do not come of a rental houses shelf. Most new films are badly photographed, and films that have the potential to bring an unique experience to the screen (LotR, for example) are shot with limited resolution only - money saved means more profit later.

8. This thread touched the question a few times whether the audience notices or not. THIS IS THE WRONG QUESTION.
The movies a a whole must make an impression. Perfection in imaging will heighten any delightful experience that acting, effects, direction and storyline create.
Films like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA had it all, some films like RYAN'S DAUGHTER did not catch the viewers as intended by the filmmakers, although they are technically marvellous. They are remembered so well after decades not only because of their great story and acting, but because the outstanding image in 70mm presentation has a subconcious additional kick to the viewer (I will not say subliminal )
That goes for any technical point, it is not necessary for the audience to be aware of a stereo surround, but when it is used cleverly like in MASTER AND COMMANDER or RAPA NUI, it pulls you even deeper into the film experience (although sloppy pictures like in M&C can prevent that, at least for me...).
So do not ask, It is so much better that people will take notice.
The question is, Will the film make more impact through better photography ?

Remembering the fact that even 'scope films statistically gross more than flat movies and 70mm presentations did better than the same title in 35mm, I would say YES. But to prove it, you would have to change the way films are made during the last 25 years.

I's love to see it, but I doubt it will happen. Who knows?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-24-2003, 10:44 PM:
 

quote:

---

Regarding 5/70 with DTS:

1. Same discs as 35mm?
2. Has a 5/70 DTS release ever shipped without the discs?

---

1. Yes
2. Yes, once the print has finished it's first run, it is quite common to have it show up and there are no discs. This happened several times with engagements of Titanic.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-25-2003, 12:20 AM:
 
65mm shooting increases the cost of production in more ways that just film stock. There is undoubtedly increased cost associated with camera equipment (and, probably, crew too) and then I'm told that more lighting is needed. Add to those increases, the printing and projection of dailies. So, it's a bit more expensive than just the raw film stock.

It is also a little naive to downplay the question of audience perception. As you pointed out elsewhere in your own post, there are business concerns and -- like it or not -- some of those concerns carry a lot of validity. To my way of thinking it is perfectly acceptable to consider the end user because if I were producing a movie and I had to choose between (a) shooting/releasing in 35mm and getting all of my effects shots, having a stereo mix and the star(s) that I wanted or (b) shooting on 65mm and/or releasing in 70mm with fewer effects and less of the other good stuff...I'd have to go with using 35mm so that I could get the other stuff that has been *proven* to sell tickets.

70mm may have marketing power as a gimmick but I doubt there are many people saying "I won't go see it because they released in 35mm." It's not a critical factor in the audience's decision-making process.

And why did I just *know* that, even with 70mm, there would be DTS disc issues!
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-25-2003, 01:35 AM:
 
I don't think losing the discs is much of a concern as 70mm is a premiere format that will earn it's screen in the first week(s) of a run and then be downgraded to 35mm as soon as the grosses drop. No matter how much any of want to see 70mm return, in my wildest imagination I can't see it going over 500 screens. How many IMAX locations are there. BTW?

Merry Christmas everyone, I'm checking out.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-25-2003, 01:40 AM:
 
Manny,

the question is whether the 65mm postproduction would really drive up the budget so much. I am no specialist on CGI and visual effects, so someone else will have to answer this question.

You may be right about the way decisions are made today. But making films (the creative part, not the financing and distribution) is more than just weighing everything that has proven successful in the past. There are many examples for things that were risky or (from the back-then point of view) not logical, but the people who made those decisions made better films and bigger profits.
Walt Disney made the first animated feature film when everyone said that no audience would pay for seeing a cartoon longer than seven minutes. Mike Todd produced AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS in a format for which there was no working projector, no editing equipment - he could have been wrong about guessing what people would enjoy.

When you reduce the whole movie making process to logic, you get what many of us (and the ticket buying public) do not care about any longer: basically always the same film repackaged, retitled and played safe.

The customers do not need to know whether the sound comes from analog, digital or how many channels there are. They don't have to care about the film stock, the projection system or anything else. But when the sound is very effective and the picture looks great, it creates a more intense experience.
Why did George Lucas have his experts reinvent visual effects for the first STAR WARS film? Audience seemed happy enough with the state-of-the-art effects which look cheesy and unconvincing to us today - but would you say that the effects did not play a role in the success of STAR WARS?

70mm is a technique of improving the visual impact of films.
Nothing more, nothing less. Does it pay to make a thing better?
It's a question for the creative people in the film industry, not for the bookkeepers and executives, for they don't understand, they never have. This goes back to the days of Technicolor or panchromatic black&white stock.

As for the added cost of 65mm shooting: There are some modern 65mm cameras that will be easy to use, like the Arri 765 or the CP65 (used for Showscan). They run silent, have all the accessories and "little helpers" that today's cinematographers are used to.
Yes, there are handheld cameras (MOS) and they can be adapted to a Steadicam and remote heads. It does not necessarily take more light to shoot 65, but it will look best if you add about one lens stop to give better depth of field.

I have met cinematographers here in Europe who told me that they couldn't shoot a certain film in Scope because they would have needed more extras for the wider picture. I went and asked the directors and set designers. It turned out that some of the DoPs just lied, they just felt comfortable using their own equipment.

Shooting Scope compared to 1.85 or (European standard) 1.66 wide screen, you will not need more extras or bigger sets. It all depends on the angle of the camera lens you want to use. I could write pages about cinematographers who told the biggest lies about their work, lies so big that every amateur photographer would have laughed his head off. Many times I was told that they would not shoot Scope because the anamorphic lenses were so inferior to sphericals. They took opinions and facts from the 1950s and repeated them without knowing anythings about new lenses or formats - all to justify what they did everyday.

At a dailies screening, a well known DoP raved about how great the Super-35 format was. I asked him why the image looked so grainy and soft, and he said: "Oh, that's because of the printing process. You know, the S-35 gets squeezed to Scope, and the lenses in this theatre are not good, like most scope lenses."

His explanation seemed strange to me. I knew that most S-35 dailies were screened flat to avoid the optical step-printing at that stage.
Back at the projection room, I asked the projectionist in charge what they had run. It was a contact print (shot S-35 full frame) from the original camera negative, matted to 2.35 width with a spherical lens.
The next day, I had a little chat with the 1st camera assistant, and he confirmed, that the DoP had requested shooting that scene "wide open" with his favourite zoom lens which tends to go soft below T4, and he insisted on using ASA500 stock and push it in development. This was the true reason for the lousy image quality, not the theatre's evil anamorphic lens.

So I would be careful with cinematographers telling you about 65/70mm "It's too expensive", "the equipment is hard to handle" and all the stuff. From my experience, the people saying "it can't be done" are mostly the people who either don't know how to do it or don't even want to try.

There are many cinematographers that I will praise and respect, but if you look behind some of the stories of others, they just have nothing do do with optics, laws of physic and sensible photography.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-25-2003, 01:46 AM:
 
Sam, the issue over projectionists isn't necessarily about how difficult or not it is to run 70mm but the extraordinary cost of the damage that can be done. Somewhat less without the mag but still quite a bit more than with a 35mm print.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-25-2003, 01:58 AM:
 
But, Sam...

With 70mm if there are no DTS discs then where's the sound?

...and Christian:

Fine and good to point out innovations that worked but you're ignoring the fact that 70mm has been tried and it has had its day...first as an image format and then later as a sound format. But things change.

It turns out that movies earn their keep when produced and distributed on 35mm with digital audio. Turns out that there isn't a serious demand for 70mm in and of itself. The studios don't want it. Directors don't want it. Experienced cinematographers could take it or leave it. The theatres are probably happy with 35mm and the audiences aren't demanding 70mm.

Apart from a small fan base within the consumer ranks, the only people demanding 70mm seem to be projectionists.

You're saying that 70mm won't add that much to the budget. I'm saying it won't add that much to the net receipts. Sure...a 70mm house might earn more but, as Steve K pointed out, it will likely amount to a cannibalization of the audience. To the studios, there's no real difference.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 12-25-2003, 02:11 AM:
 
"Mike Todd produced AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS in a format for which there was no working projector, no editing equipment -"

Just curious Christian - what do you mean by that?

The DP70 arrived on the scene in late 1954 and American Optical manufactured all the neccesary equipment for Todd-AO including editing equipment for 65mm.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2003, 11:25 AM:
 
The lack of a "moveover" house for 70mm is becoming less of an issue as well. Many "big" titles are getting contracts that require exclusive use of the biggest theatre for x-number of weeks anyway...you can't move the 35mm prints in those situations either.

The cost of 70mm has never been less expensive to the exhibitor...you don't need the magnetic part for the projector or sound system. For the American projectors, the optical sound head is now just something to slip through or go around so it is the same as for 35 or 35/70. Virtually all platters use drop in centerfeeds and can have dual purpose rollers so even that isn't such a big deal.

As such, for the exhibitor, 70mm is only a $10K-15K per-screen question (presuming you already have a DTS player). As compared to going to something like DCinema...it is a bargin with much more bang for the buck and it actually improves the image rather than hold the status-quo

Steve
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-25-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
Thomas, you are right. I meant (but didn't write so) that back then no projectors existed in a large number of first run theatres.

As for the editing equipment, I got that from an American Cinematographer article where it was mentioned that the workprint of EIGHTY DAYS had to be cut without editing equipment, in a manner like they cut the silent films. But memory may fool me, I will look it up ASAP.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-25-2003, 11:24 PM:
 
The issue of dual inventory for 70mm prints is really a non-issue. Premiere class single screen theaters, twins or triples often have 70mm equipment installed on all auditoriums.

Then you have the "megaplex" issue. Any movie "big" enough to warrant 70mm prints is likely to stick multiple prints of a film in any multiplex. Even if the biggest auditorium has a 70mm print, odds are extrememly likely there will be 2 or 3 other prints in 35mm playing in the same complex. Hell, the Carmike theater here in Lawton is only an 8-plex yet it commmonly gets 2 prints of big releases. It ALREADY has lost one if its LOTR: Return of the King prints due to four different X-Mas releases coming out. So, honestly I think the studios are crying big crocodile B.S. tears over print cost on that one.

Finally, any auditorium big enough to show off 70mm is going to have lots more seats than many of the TINY shoebox sized theaters I see getting 35mm prints. The Central Mall theater here in town has several houses with only 80 to 90 seats each, yet they have 35mm prints playing on them. A DTS time coded 70mm should not cost anywhere near as much as a mag-striped 70mm print. It would seem pretty likely that a large auditorium with 500 seats would have a print cost per seat average that compares very nicely against putting a 35mm print in a tiny auditorium.

[ 12-26-2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-26-2003, 02:28 PM:
 
70mm holds a special place in the hearts of its fans. It's like a mini religion. There's definitely a kind of a "messiah" thing going on.

Listen to the fans and you get a sense that 70mm was a religious experience to behold (at least, for them) and then there are the feelings of sadness that it was over all too soon and frustration with the people who had the power to keep it going but chose to destroy it.

And, through it all, even when faced with the historical facts surrounding the birth of 70mm and the evolutionary factors that brought about its demise, there is faith that 70mm will return someday.

Going to see the occasional reissue of a 70mm classic can become somethign of a Mecca, with viewers traveling miles just to be there.

Practically speaking 70mm is gone, if not forgotten.

[ 12-26-2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-26-2003, 08:36 PM:
 
Practically speaking it is far from gone there is pro bably more 70mm print stock used nowdays providing special venue than ever before
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-27-2003, 05:20 AM:
 
Are you talking about IMAX or 5/70 ?

In any event you are talking about "special venue" and for purposes of this discussion we are talking about 5/70 as an integral part of general release patterns as it was in its heyday.

[ 12-27-2003, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]
 

---

Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 12-27-2003, 10:09 AM:
 
A few points...

AFAIK there were no dye transfer VVLA prints. As with all non-recent 70mm prints, all VVLA were struck from the camera originals.

There is no horrific cost differential between shooting 35 and 65 origination; portability is no longer a problem; pickups can be made in 35 if necessary as was done on Far and Away.

There are currently two 65mm labs in the U.S. CFI (Technicolor) and, just recently, Fotokem.

The decision to stay with 70mm projection for the Williamsburg project was predicated upon not only the fact that 70mm equipment was in place, but also that since the new 65mm dupe negs were being created optically (from digitally produced 8 perf interpositives) that the entire height of the 70mm frame could be used for a brighter and steadier image.

In the past, the full VVLA image had been transferred to the 65 dupe and then cropped to the proper Vista 1.96:1 aspect ratio, thereby losing a great deal of optical real estate.

RAH
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-27-2003, 10:42 AM:
 
VVLA = ?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-27-2003, 10:54 AM:
 
Manny we'll keep you in suspense on that term .

Bob, What I was referring to was that it would be possible to manufacture VV I.B. release prints since its all 35mm stock. While the likelyhood of there ever being any 70mm I.B. is nill.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-27-2003, 11:54 AM:
 
Mark, that is just EEEEEeeee-vil.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-27-2003, 12:11 PM:
 
VVLA = VistaVision Large Aperture = horizontal-running 8-perf aka Lazy 8.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 12-27-2003, 05:02 PM:
 
While the possibility of creating dye transfer VVLA prints was available, the numbers (financially) never worked out, and prints were derived from Onegs.

RAH
 

---

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 12-27-2003, 06:08 PM:
 
Hi Robert,
If you keep restoring them, I'll keep showing them as much as posible! Twenty 70mm shows in 13 months starting with roberts Lawrence restoration to the latest screening of Earthquake in Sensurround!
There seem to be more and more people her in the U.K. and Europe that ive come into contact with since i've been screening 5/70.
So if we all pester the distributors to make 70mm prints of the latest harry potter in DTS 70 etc, there may be a chance!? It was proven with the Titanic 70mm prints that they paid more than a 35mm print in a similar cinema. With good promotion and education of the viewing public, 70mm can be compared to the VHS(35mm) to DVD(70mm) quality. This is a simpe way of saying 70mm will give you a hugely better picture.

Darren
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-27-2003, 06:43 PM:
 

quote:

---

if we all pester the distributors to make 70mm prints of the latest harry potter in DTS 70 etc, there may be a chance!

---

quote:

---

I think Gord was referring to 'Batman Returns' which had a few select SRD prints out there at the time.

---