quote: Bob Jones

---

I'm interested to know ya'lls thoughts on how/if there is way to obtain a presentation that is sufficently bright enough for say an 80 foot x 43 foot screen

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

Project 70mm.

---

 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 09-30-2006, 12:05 PM:
 
With 35mm film, the heat output of the Xenon bulb with sufficient power to light such a screen would not be kind to film, warping the projected film frame, not to mention the temperature of the gate.

The increased amount of image space on 70mm film does indeed make it the most practical choice, though opinions will fly over this. There are plenty of opinions that should be easily uncovered with a search.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 09-30-2006, 04:04 PM:
 
Try to find out what Marcus is doing with their UltraScreen rooms. I have seen one here with about a 65' screen, and it looks better than one might think. 70mm would be a fine alternative, but that just isn't going to happen.
 

---

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 09-30-2006, 06:08 PM:
 
The problem with a BIG screen in a resonably large auditorium is that to most people it will appear too big to be comfortable. From the back or at least 75% back it will be fine.... for the rest it's just pushing the limits of 35mm too far.

As long as the 'message' is imparted to the viewer with no visual distractions then the goal of film presentation has been achived.
The aim is to show the image without the mechaincal methods being exposed. Grain, weave, jump, loss of definition and dim images being the problems exposed by pushing the limits.

In the current push towards digital presentation with its high lamp wattage needs, I'd be interested to see what a 70ft picture looks like.

Unfortunatly the WOW factor of some of these very large screens soon gives way to the realisation that biggest is seldom the best. I'd much rather see a 40ft picture well lit and with sharp focus and none of the other distractions. Short focal length len's are exceptional in what they can achive.... unfortunatly 35mmm film just isn't up to the task.

If you want GIANT screens then go giant format, 70mm, and deliver on your big screen promise.

But in this day and age of poor wages and front of house projection staff the reality is that they cannot maintain the presentation that is currently on offer.

So Respect the 35mm format and don't push it!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-30-2006, 06:16 PM:
 
used to work at a 21 goo-gooplex with 5 houses holding 33x65 foot screens. Machinery consisted of CHRISTIE SLC-45 consoles burning 6k bulbs with shooting most of this light through P35GPS machines - with a 95 foot throw at the norm. 7k bulbs is the limit for 35mm projection.

I loved those consoles for the had the blowers inside to get that heat out of there. Also, what helped was the use of 14 inch mirrors.

Picture looked better using scope features than with flat features due to the larger aperture opening.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 09-30-2006, 06:35 PM:
 
Here's another vote for using 70mm prints for such (hypothetical?) venues. It's not so unusual, either! Check the "in70mm.com" website for some specific details, but European exhibitors have done this several times, though not in the last two or 3 years, if I'm not mistaken. The European "Kinopolis" Theatre chain commissioned a few 70mm prints for exhibition on their largest screens. Also, the Oslo {Norway) "Spektrum", a very large venue, hosted several 70mm showings of custom-made prints.

Showmanship doesn't have to end, and if you're going to put on a show that's sold primarily on being "big", that doesn't necessarily equate to being also "dim" and grainy. Disney made a 70mm print of "Pearl Harbor" for a premiere in Tokyo -- on a giant screen.

If you want to do it right, do it 70mm! Think "I want to make it great", not "How dim can I make it before the audience suspects something is really wrong?"
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-30-2006, 06:57 PM:
 
The "no 70mm" is truly and exhibitor thing. The studios constantly tell me that they don't make it anymore because exhibitors don't ask for it (and I don't mean the odd cinema here and there...but as an industry).

If Regal and/or AMC said "make us 70mm" there would be 70mm prints.

35mm, to me, just doesn't look all that impressive on that big a screen...in fact, it doesn't look all that impressive to me on screens about 26-feet wide and larger. An EK print on a 40-foot screen can look great but not a release print. Naturally, it all depends on how far one is away from the image and what portion of their vision the screen encompasses...even VHS looks great from a mile away on a 21" screen.

However, I like the screen to completely fill my vision such that some amount of head movement is required for all of the action.

Generally, only 70mm delivers on that and it is an experience that one simply can not get in the home with today's technology (even HDTV).

So as to how wide a screen for 35mm...it all depends on the lens, screen gain, the lamphouse/lamp and shutter. The biggest I could go with 35mm not being damaged and achieve 16fL is about 31' x 74'. The screen will be curved and with gain. The equipment would need to be chosen very carefully. And if you are sitting about 93-feet away, it would even look pretty good.
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-30-2006, 07:48 PM:
 
I have a 70' screen (curved) and we use a 4000w in a Kinoton. It looks fantastic.
 

---

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 09-30-2006, 07:50 PM:
 
Steve--

You are "right-on" there, Buddy!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-30-2006, 09:29 PM:
 
We saw "World Trade Center" in Denver at some theatre that advertised "on our GIANT SCREEN!" Unfortunately, the ad was apparently referring to the ROOM, not the screen. It couldn't have been more than 40' wide. But there were about 750 seats in there.
 

---

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 09-30-2006, 10:50 PM:
 
Cinemasource has recently taken over scheduling for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and among the options which circuits or theatres can choose to attribute to a showtime is GIANT SCREEN... An option since adopted by some local houses which use the term "GIANT" quite liberally.

Deception will degrade standards

I think last year's IMAX release of Polar Express shows that there is still a lot of public vitality to the techinical virtues of 70mm. Perhaps conventional 70mm needs a new buzz-term for the process to generate the needed public interest.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-01-2006, 01:46 AM:
 
Maybe it's about time someone actually bit the bullet and released a blockbuster in 70mm as well as 35mm.

There's enough of those around to see how marked the difference would be in box office between the 35mm and the 70mm houses.

A bit of work would need to be done on the attributes of 70mm though as the last 70mm 'release' was what...Titanic? Many wouldn't know what the hell 'IN 70mm' was. It needs work.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-01-2006, 04:49 AM:
 
Yet, why do 70mm when you now have BIG screens that can be filled with 2k, and coming soon over the horizon, 4k DIGITAL movies...when you have is information loaded on a HDD, which is loaded into a server instead of huge machinery hustling that megasized film from platter (or still reel) to projector and back...

Sorry, thinking of the price and the demand in this era of film presentation ....

If the price of 70mm drastically comes down to the price of processing 35mm, THEN we would possibly see the increase for the visual demand for 70mm, but as for now..just gonna be a rare treat for us all.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-01-2006, 08:21 AM:
 
Because Monte, 70mm is still at least 6 times better than 2K digital even being conservative...that is 6 times the information and still retaining film's greater color pallet, dynamic range...etc. Only 70mm can really give the customer the really big screen appearance that the consumer can't get at home...what DCinema offers the consumer is the Home experience...why pay for that?
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-01-2006, 09:17 AM:
 
But the question was really about what can be had from 35mm.

Getting 16fL on a 80ft x 45 screen (1.85) would be tough even for 70mm. This is an example of where every part of the optical system would have to be optimized. I guess I would start with a glass reflector, using a short-arc xenon bulb. You might experiment with and without a heat filter. It reduces the heat, but at a cost of less light. Films don't stay in theaters very long nowadays, so sacrficing the print through excessive heat may be OK for some 'markets.' The film will get heat imbossed resulting in poor focus, and the color will fade.

The projector would have a blower to reduce the buckling effect of the heat on the film, like Century's 'Cinefocus' option. I'd water cool the gate; not that it provides any direct picture improvment, but so the operators wouldn't burn their hands what taking out the gate to clean it every time.

Experiment cutting back the shutter to allow more light; you might have to buy a few shutters in case you go too far and get ghosting. A trade-off can be decided on between slight ghosting and more light, or less ghost and less light. A fast pull-down intermittent like Simplex's 'drive-in' intermittent or the "Quickermittent' (sp?) I don't know if Kintone's electronic intermittent can be programmed to go faster, but it might be a good idea because it will keep a steady image (although prints made today are not so steady, it would still help with a large screen.) Twin rotating shutters? I don't know which of the above allows the most light; tests would have to be done.

Optical glass for the port window; usually people use two panes to reduce noise, but here you might consider only one. Extra big exhaust fans for the lamp.

Depending of the shape of the theater, consider a gain screen. There are guidelines for the proper shape of the curved screen frame needed (ray-tracing.) More gain gets more light, but it narrows the good seating area. The best lenses of course; maybe even a custom design.

None of these ideas will get 16fL, but it's a starting point. They are also not easy or cheap, but if the goal is the brightest picture at any cost ........
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-01-2006, 05:29 PM:
 

quote: John Walsh

---

I'd water cool the gate; not that it provides any direct picture improvment, but so the operators wouldn't burn their hands what taking out the gate to clean it every time.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Fundamentally, any movie theater company anywhere has no business building giant auditoriums if they have no intention of projecting the proper level of brightness on the screen. They should not build it if they can't do the job right.

---

quote:

---

Q : Can you share you thoughts on Digital Cinema?

A: I think eventually it will get to where it's all digital. And hopefully the technology is good enough that it will look like film and you can't tell the difference. I don't think that the technology is quite there yet, but one thing that excites me about digital is when everything is digitally projected it's all going to look the way you want it to look. I mean, i've gone into Theatres- and you do all this work with lighting and colour to get the set to look perfect, and you shoot and you time it- and the projectionist has the bulb set on 7 instead of 16 and you can't see anything. So basically, at the end of the day, you are at the mercy of the 17-year-old kid in the projection room. When it's all digital, it's all going to look exactly the same and it will be perfect. And you are not going to have scratches and the prints aren't going to get dirty. You have to embrace the technology. I just hope it looks as good as film. If it looks as good as film, I don't care how it gets delivered. I'm not one of those people who needs to see the photochemical process.

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

Well is there a method in place that sets strict guidelines into the design and build of Theatres?

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

Do studios/distributors refuse to rent out a film to a given Multiplex that is not perfectly equipped and fails in all areas of on-screen presentations?

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

I read often articles with Directors whining about the level of presentation standards but does anyone do anything about it? Can something be done about it?

---

Sure. A lot can be done about the problem. But it's like herding cats to make any progress. Apathy exists across the board from filmmakers, movie distributors, exhibition companies and even many of the customers themselves. You have to get people to care about quality in all those parts of the chain. Right now too many people don't give a shit about quality. "Good enough" is typically the order of the day.

Regarding the quote from Eli Roth, little does he realize any D-Cinema projector can have its lamp brightness turned waaay down just like any film projector. Although the D-Cinema companies are supposed to do all the technical work on that hardware, I'm sure a few booth people here and there will monkey with knobs and switches anyway.
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 10-05-2006, 08:37 PM:
 
I agree that D-Cinema does not fix presentation issues nor do I believe that it will put more bums on seats.

If one wants to bulid Theatres with 70ft+ screens then that's all good since people really get into the bigger screen experience but technically it should all be worked out so that the best possible on-screen presentation is experienced day in day out.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 10-06-2006, 07:39 PM:
 
Agreed - there needs to be dialogue on this IMHO between Engineering bodies (e.g. SMPTE, ITEA, etc.), Crafts organisations (e.g. the ASC) and Exhibitors (e.g. represented by NATO).

The message needs to be sent out that 35mm cannot generally be pushed beyond a certain limit (60-70ft on Scope seems to be the consensus), and that in this size range you need 70mm.

This could also provide the impetus that Steve Guttag implied earlier that would need to come from Exhibitors to re-introduce 70mm prints.

The practical and cost aspects are being looked at at present, and bodies such as NATO can be appraised of this, which will help, but if there was education and understanding on this issue across the industry it would help a lot.

I have heard of the Inter-Society Committee, which was just such a structure for dialogue across the industry, but don't know if it is still active, or whether they could play a role. Can anyone elaborate?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-06-2006, 10:23 PM:
 
I can't hardly wait until I get my first 8 reeler in 70mm on clip together plastic reels in a godamn Fox box.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 10-10-2006, 01:29 PM:
 
Heh heh...be careful what you wish for!
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 10-12-2006, 11:57 PM:
 

quote: Martin Brooks

---

The fact is that back in the Dolby 70mm days, theatres showing 70mm prints of Star Wars, Superman, Star Trek and many other films did most of the business. Was that incremental to the business if no 70mm prints had been made at all? That's impossible to tell. But the fact that consumers sought out 70mm presentations tells me that it made a difference. If you can find some old posts of mine about this, I quote direct figures from old issues of Variety. (I'll edit this post if I can find them.)

---

quote:

---

Paramount Pictures worked 68 70mm copies of Star Trek II. Impressive statistic is that some 20 percent of Trek's $60,000,000-plus gross has been earned in only four percent of its theaters — those booking the 70mm version.

---

quote:

---

Give the American moviegoing audience something special, and they'll turn out in droves. That was the lesson learned by Paramount Pictures, among other distributors, who went to the extra effort of making 70mm prints of "spectacle" films. Barry London, Paramount's vice president and general sales manager, reports that that the 68 prints his firm released in 70mm for "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" was the largest such big-format campaign in [Paramount's] history, "and it certainly justified our investment and the effort made by exhibitors."

During the first three weeks of their run, the big prints grossed nearly $8 million, or about $115,000 per print. And that average includes not only showcase theatres in major cities, but also houses in smaller markets such as Ta[c]oma, Little Rock, Modesto and Halifax, Nova Scotia.

This was hardly a fluke. During their long runs, the 49 oversize prints of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" pulled in more than $35 million. And Paramount provided a fresh 70mm print of "Raiders" for the Pacific Cinerama Dome Theatre in Los Angeles after the movie had already made its first, second, third and Academy Award runs in the city. The print ran for five weeks, grossing more than $400,000.

The lesson for both distributors and exhibitors, is obvious. When potential ticket buyers are presented with the opportunity to see something fresh, something unique and excitingly different, they'll buy tickets. They did it for 70mm, and they did it for 3-D.

But it's not a free ride. As London points out, a visual gimmick is not enough. The storyline must be there, and the audience must be made aware of the special treat through effective marketing. The technology also costs money: a 70mm print costs about nine times the price of a standard 35mm print, and exhibitors must have the equipment and rooms to do it justice.

Still, Paramount's two efforts, in big prints and in 3-D, should drive home the lesson that the movie theatre is very much alive and kicking — kicking out enormous profits fo exhibition, distribution and all the segments of the film industry that depend on them. In the fascination with cable, pay-per-view TV, satellites and the other new technologies, that's a lesson worth remembering.

---

quote:

---

The gamble with making a lot of expensive large format prints (which cost roughly eight times that of standard 35mm) paid off as it was reported following the film's first week of release that the 70mm engagements, which were booked into 13 percent of the theatres playing the film, accounted for 30 percent of the total gross. Lucasfilm Ltd. Senior Vice President Sid Ganis told the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner at the time that "everything George [Lucas] and Steven [Spielberg] have been hoping for — an awareness by exhibitors and audiences of the value of a quality presentation — has come of age."

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

Are any of these what you're referring to?

---