Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Widescreen Weekend 2008 (UK)

This is topic Widescreen Weekend 2008 (UK) 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=009094

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 01-31-2008, 02:05 AM:

Program is now on-line at www.in70mm.com - hit the Widescreen Weekend link, or hit it here.

Who's attending?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-31-2008, 09:00 AM:

I don't know, that is always a difficult time work-wise. I'll try, but I haven't been able to make it the last two years.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 01-31-2008, 04:17 PM:

Well I be there, sadly not so much 70mm being screened this year and looks that the D-Cinema 2k [dlp]

is now in the Widescreen Festival [Frown]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-31-2008, 04:54 PM:

I'm going to try to make it over for The Sand Pebbles, even though it isn't a 70mm print of the recent restoration (presumably that proved too expensive to ship?). To be honest, the other films are either things I've seen before and relatively recently, or don't really grab me. But I guess that, living only 25 miles from the museum, it's possible to be blasé about such things!

Hope to see some of you on the Saturday afternoon.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 02-01-2008, 03:06 AM:

Well Leo two people you know from Vancouver will probably be there [Wink]

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 02-01-2008, 06:12 AM:

Hi Ben: Widescreen Weekend is not speciafically 70mm, everything else in widescreen is welcome. We have to embrace new technology too, like digital.

Hi Leo: "Sand Pebbles" is not available in 70mm

See you there guys

Posted by Serge Bosschaerts (Member # 298) on 02-01-2008, 12:54 PM:

Would like to come but I have recently changed jobs and I'm following a 65 week training course as train driver for the Belgian railroads so sadly cannot attend this year.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-01-2008, 01:36 PM:

Dick,

Can you recommend a good cheap hotel nearby?

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-01-2008, 02:08 PM:

quote: Thomas Hauerslev
Hi Ben: Widescreen Weekend is not speciafically 70mm, everything else in widescreen is welcome. We have to embrace new technology too, like digital.

True, as you know doubt most of the Widescreen Weekend Supportors are Cinerama and 70mm Fans and many are there for that reason, I guess we have been spoilt with 70mm & Cinerama in the past.

As for Digital Cinema, well it's here, but with the same experience you can buy a DVD/HD of an old Classic film and watch it at home - you can't recreate a large 70mm or Cinerama screen with Mag sound - It may well be "Old Hat" but it is why people pay to see it.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 02-01-2008, 02:54 PM:

Stephen

The most reasonable "real" hotel is the Express by Holiday Inn,just over 5 minutes walk from Pictureville. Rooms about £42

Find details here

Posted by David Graham Rose (Member # 1450) on 02-02-2008, 06:26 AM:

Greetings Stephen

Whenever I am in Bradford I always stay at the Midland Hotel. It offers 4 poster beds, and has bathrooms larger than the bedrooms in the Holiday Inn! There is also a very nice Italian restaurant called New Guiseppies just over the road, and a very aggreeable public house - The Shoulder of Mutton, which server very nice strong pilsner. Bram Stoker stayed in this hotel, and I have occupied his very room on more than one occasion.

Good afternoon

David

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 02-02-2008, 09:20 AM:

The Midland is the official Festival hotel as stated on the BIFF08 Website

quote:
Situated in the heart of Bradford, The Midland Hotel is the official hotel for the Bradford International Film Festival 2007, and as a sponsor, will host many of the Festival’s guests, as well as offering special rates for all film fans attending the Festival. Only a 10 minute walk from the Museum, the Midland is ideally located for Festival goers, and is convenient for both Forster Square and Bradford Interchange train stations.

The Midland played host to the rich and famous in it’s hey day, including legends such as Laurel and Hardy, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, George Formby and even the author of Dracula, Bram Stoker! Now restored to its original greatness, but with all the facilities of the 21st century, the Midland Hotel continues to welcome people to Bradford with friendly service, a great restaurant and a residents’ bar that never closes – ideal for that drink after a late night Festival screening.

Tel: 01274 735735
Web: www.midland-hotel-bradford.com

For sole occupancy then the Holiday Inn has a better rate

The Visit Bradford website has a full list of accommodation.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-02-2008, 11:01 AM:

I do not find this year’s programme one of their best.

I also agree with Ben on the projection of some films electronically, it is a sad decision indeed. I understand Blade Runner since there are only digital files available of it, but to show The Great Escape in digital is a bad aesthetical and ethical decision.

Films like The Great Escape should be preserved out of the digital domain, as close as possible to the real experience. I saw a good 35mm print of it at the NFT some years ago. There are many good 35mm scope restorations by Columbia and it is a pity that none of them are being shown.

The only film that really interests me this year is The Sand Pebbles and I hope to be there to see it. I will see Star because it is a brand new Todd-AO print but I do not really like it. Also, there are the always interesting seminars and Cineramacana.

I would like to see Brainstorm but I have to be somewhere else on Monday.

I hope that in future editions we will have more restored 35mm prints in scope or VistaVision instead of the cold 2k digital format, which is not suited to display films generated in the analog era.

[ 02-02-2008, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-02-2008, 02:35 PM:

I welcome the inclusion of digital presentation this year. Whether you love it or loathe it, or as is probably the case with most people, somewhere in between, I don't think you should ignore it. I still have serious doubts about the use of digital projection in cinemas at this time, though most of them are not technical. Hopefully the Pictureville will put on the best possible show with it, which is more than is happening in a number of other cinemas, including some well-known ones, from things that I've heard. I think it's a pity that it won't be possible to see a true 4k presentation as well.

Go to see the digital show, and judge it on its merits. Then report back here, and tell us what you thought.

What is it which is being presented digitally by the way? I haven't had a chance to look at the programme for this year yet.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-02-2008, 03:19 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
I welcome the inclusion of digital presentation this year. Whether you love it or loathe it, or as is probably the case with most people, somewhere in between, I don't think you should ignore it. I still have serious doubts about the use of digital projection in cinemas at this time, though most of them are not technical. Hopefully the Pictureville will put on the best possible show with it, which is more than is happening in a number of other cinemas

I just don’t watch old analog films in digital on the big screen, it is a personal choice. I watch them electronically at home or in analog format at cinemas. I think from a historical standpoint and an artistic viewpoint to show those films in digital is blatantly wrong and other art fields would not do something as tacky as this, but there you go, cinema is the 7th art not the first and gets a 7th grade respect not a first grade. The Great Escape is one of the films shown in digital, the other being Blade Runner (The nearly final director’s cut edition).

As for new presentations I have watched two digital films, The Counterfeiters which was quite poor in image quality but God knows where films lose quality these days, it could be the digital intermediate and therefore a 35mm print wouldn’t be much better, or maybe it is the way it was originated. The other one was No Country for Old Men, the colour was very good and the sharpness of some images very good as well, but these are just some of the qualities that make films look good, I personally felt that the steadiness of the system detracts from the enjoyment, still objects remain very still and this is very odd, it is like watching a still image with moving objects in front. Also because the main aim of this “new technology” is to get rid of the projectionists the screen masking was wrong and further to the left to the digital image and so leaving a bit of blank screen (I wonder if the projector was off centre). I prefer proper 35mm prints, properly screened and I will spend my money seeing them whilst they still exist instead of funding the morally dubious and not really amazing 2K technology.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-02-2008, 06:50 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
I think it's a pity that it won't be possible to see a true 4k presentation as well.

The only place you are at present to see this, is at the Odeon Cinema Guildford and I know of only one true 4k being screened abd yes the results are fantastic and blows 2k out if the Hat!.

My personal view on Bradford Widescreen, is that they should try to retain at least 90% of the programme with 70mm/Cinerama or at best a good 35mm print, I fear people will just not go in future (some have already told me) and will you get support from the local Bradford Public to watch Old Films that you see on TV every year?.

Current or Alternative Content releases in D-Cinema I have no issues with, it's just the feeling that costs are being cut for the Widescreen Weekend while there are so many 70mm Films and New Cinerama prints that don't get screened in the UK.

Just hope that the Todd-AO 70mm Festival in Germany remains Total Film and now I should learn some German......

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-02-2008, 06:50 PM:

Don't forget that the WW is not just about the films - there are also excellent lectures, and many fantastic people to talk to [beer]

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-02-2008, 07:02 PM:

And there are some good Real Ale Pubs to visit as well Indian food cuisine [thumbsup]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-03-2008, 03:39 AM:

quote: Ben Wales
My personal view on Bradford Widescreen, is that they should try to retain at least 90% of the programme with 70mm/Cinerama or at best a good 35mm print, I fear people will just not go in future (some have already told me) and will you get support from the local Bradford Public to watch Old Films that you see on TV every year?.

Yes, I agree, but I welcome the inclusion of an example of digital as well; I'm not suggesting that it should become a mainly digital festival. I would liked to have seen one 2k, one 4k, and the rest on film.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-03-2008, 05:56 AM:

Ben, it must be difficult for them to please all the delegates. I think you are right that delegates mainly prefer 70mm and cinerama. However, it surprises me how they would prefer a blow-up film like Edward Scissorhands which is not widescreen in conception to restorations in 35mm like the Big Country, which were shot in the larger Technirama 35mm negative. Many of Grover Crisp’s restorations in 35mm of Columbia titles are much better than some of the faded blow-up 70mm prints. Nevertheless, I think you are absolutely right, many people like myself would not like to see “old titles” in digital and the Bradford population would not bother seeing those titles that they can see electronically on their flat screen televisions. I think old films should be preserved in the film domain, if places like Bradford stop showing the 35mm prints the studios won’t be producing any and frankly, who will like to see electronic versions of classic films? Have you seen old black and white films in digital? I have seen clips of Casablanca and they are very different from a 35mm print in texture and I won’t pay £8 in London for that ever.

In all fairness to bring many of those titles from the USA must be very expensive and there might be budget considerations.

I, for one, would like more new 35mm prints or old good 35mm dye transfer Technicolor prints of scope or VistaVision films. Pictureville is one of the best cinemas in the UK and the projection team is amazingly good. I think they should keep the digital examples limited to new films.

Ben, you have seen 4k, would you say it is better than a proper 35mm print? Would you say it is better than a new 70mm print of 65mm material?

Also, have you noticed that in digital, the stillness inherent to the system is a bit odd some times?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-03-2008, 09:21 AM:

The only 4k I've seen is a longish clip from Chinatown which was shown at the AMIA conference in Austin a couple of years ago. My response was similar to that of seeing Paul De Burgh's restorations of the Powell & Pressburger Technicolor films from the '80s - it almost looked 'too' good. I sort of grew up with those restorations, and then, as a trainee film archivist, seeing a nitrate IB print of The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp for the first time was a hell of a shock. The colours were duller than I thought they'd be, and several reels were notably misregistered. The stability of the picture on the slightly shrunk nitrate stock wasn't great, either. Those really dense, saturated colours, good (as 35mm can be on a good print, properly projected) stability and pin-sharp registration was probably a lot better than your average 1943 cinemagoer would have seen.

Likewise, the 10-minute 4k digital clip from Chinatown I saw blew away my memories of all the 35 'scope prints I've seen. The colours had been super-saturated (the transfer had been done from YCM separation elements made as preservation masters and then recombined digitally), there wasn't a spec of dust and the picture looked like it had been nailed to the screen, like a modern video projection. Even more disconcerting to me was the constant light flow - even at 24fps with a two-blade shutter, the back of your mind is conscious of a slight flicker, even though it isn't enough to disrupt the perception of movement. But this constant illumination just looked wrong to someone who is used to the light of film projection. I wonder if you put a rotating two-blade shutter from a film projector in front of the lens of a d-cinema projector, timed for the blades to pass as the DLP chips change the frame, if it really would look film-authentic?

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-03-2008, 11:59 AM:

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
Ben, you have seen 4k, would you say it is better than a proper 35mm print?

Yes, I would say that 4k is far superior than a 35mm release prints, although it would be interesting to compare it on a Modern Film Stock IB tech or on Vision stock.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-03-2008, 03:41 PM:

Leo, as a film archivist what's your opinion on the way pre-digital era films should be shown? Shouldn't they be presented in 35mm when possible? All the clips I have seen of old films in 2k have not satisfied me, I sat through the whole Robin Hood (Errol Flynn version) in digital and left very dissapointed. I have never seen 4k and so cannot comment, it has been interesting to read your opinion Ben, as you know Bradford has only got 2K. I agree that the complete lack of flickering is difficult for those of us with eyes used to film. One of my most interesting film experiences was when seeing a nitrate print of Spellbound, it was really beautiful, no other technology (as far as I know) has managed to recreate that look.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-03-2008, 04:03 PM:

I have seen about 3 2k D-Cinema Films and would say that it did not affect me not seeing the Flicker of film (and I would say in some Cinemas a vast improvement in Picture quality), however you need to bear in mind on what method was a Classic film made in a Digital Format, was it in HD or scanned in true 2K and not upscaled.

I hope one day at Bradford's Pictureville Cinema can install the Sony 4k D-Cinema,it would however not be as good as real 65mm produced films as was Demo last year in the US.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-03-2008, 04:16 PM:

quote: Ben Wales
however you need to bear in mind on what method was a Classic film made in a Digital Format, was it in HD or scanned in true 2K and not upscaled.

I would imagine it was 2K, the Casablanca clip was most certainly 2K. Light and shadows in black and white do not have the same magic in digital

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-04-2008, 07:07 AM:

Sooner or later we're going to be seeing pre-digital era films screened digitally whether we want to or not. Depending on whose figures you believe, release print stock now accounts for between 90-95% or all 35mm film base manufactured. When the market for that collapses (which will happen as the big cinema chains start going digital en masse), film will no longer be viable for mass-manufacturing, and that'll be the end of release printing. It's possible that film manufacturing capacity will be maintained on a small scale, as a boutique operation for camera negative stock and the intermediate stocks used in preservation copying. But the cost will be astronomical, and the difference in price between making a viewing print on film and a 4k viewing copy on a hard drive will be like the difference between a DVD and a film print now.

I would hope that a few cinematheques and arthouses will aim to maintain screenings on film for as long as possible, but I fear that being able to see things on film is going to get progressively more and more difficult.

So much restoration work is now done using digital intermediate technology (in crude terms, a 'scan survivng element(s) - digitally bugger about with the scanned images - burn out to new film negative' workflow), that it's debatable what we can now regards as original, at least in terms of the restoration itself - the data which comes out of the computer and is projected directly, or going through the extra step of burning a film print.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 02-04-2008, 07:49 AM:

Ben, what's this?: "....while there are so many 70mm Films and New Cinerama prints that don't get screened in the UK."

I'm one of "them", and I work hard to get whatever is new on 70mm and Cinerama for the WSW. So far we have screened most of the new material which has been made available to us.

We have guests who travels to Bradford, BEACUSE we are showing "The Great Escape" in digital.

"The Sand Pebbles" is the first 4K restoration, and I would have preferred to show it in digital, but we had to settle for a brand new 35mm print thanks for Fox in Hollywood.

I remember my first Showscan experience with "New Magic". With 60 frames per second (and each frame only shown once!), it was completely different from anything I've seen before (or since). It had a video-like texture which looked like the real world, but not like cinema. No flicker or stobing, the resolution was fantastic, brightness & sharpness was incredible and depth of field astonishing.

What I'm saying is, 35mm 24 fps pales completely compared to Showscan. 35mm is soo bad compared to what a high-impact system like Showscan looks like. All of us have just gotten used to 35mm the past 100 years.

I embrace digital because it is rock steady, and has the look of 70mm. In a few years when 35mm, 70mm, 2k and 4k can be found in museums, we will all be dazzled by 8k and 12k movies. We have just seen the beginning...and we try to show you the "state of the art" at the Widescreen Weekend.

Looking forward to the beer Ben - skål! [beer]

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-05-2008, 03:47 PM:

Thomas,

You definitely have a point about technologies evolving, albeit change is not always evolution as was proven when they dropped dye transfer prints for Eastman colour prints. In the future they will have hologram-like Cinerama, albeit probably it will be at home with virtual reality.

It may look like sometimes I am against new technologies. I am not. Digital sound is now very good, but when the first CDs appeared they were worse than LPs, so it took a while until they could be compared to LPs. I think the same applies with 2k digital. I personally think they should have waited until getting a better imaging device. In any case, I am one of those who value the artistic merits of film as a medium and an artistic tool and not just a technology.

As to your reference to museums… well, this is precisely my point, if “museums” like Bradford stop showing the oldies in 35mm then we will not have anywhere to see them and believe me, many of us like to see the oldies on film texture. This is what museums and restorers do, they show us how history was.

As for resolution (only one of the aspects of image quality) I do not know what the maximum the eye can perceive is. I would imagine they will stop there. Many directors of photography will still prefer a rougher look though. Nevertheless, the most expensive and fundamental piece of hardware for 70mm-like cinema does not exist anymore (with some exceptions) and this is a cinema with a large screen. This is a very expensive piece of technology, which I fear belongs to the past, together with film. Well, I must go now, I want to put on an old LP. [Wink]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-05-2008, 04:33 PM:

Perfect analogy. LP playback equipment is still being manufactured by several companies, and so there's no problem playing back existing collections of vinyl. There are even a few coarsegroove 78 cartridges still being made (Audio-Technica do one, for example). Very occasionally, iconic audiophile albums from the '60s and '70s are rereleased on newly pressed, 180g/m2 vinyl LPs. But we're probably talking about 5-10 titles a year if that, and they cost £50-£100 each. Only the most obsessive analogue audio buffs are going to buy them. If you want to buy a newly released album, then in 99 cases out of 100 you have the choice between buying a CD or a download.

That is where I suspect we'll be with film in 5-10 years' time (pessimistic) or 15-20 (optimistic). It will still be perfectly possible to obtain and maintain film projectors, large inventories of legacy prints will remain in circulation and the occasional new 35mm or 70mm print will be struck by an archive, arthouse distributor or studio as a publicity loss leader. But for the overwhelming majority of releases you'll have a choice between digital and digital.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-05-2008, 05:07 PM:

there are in fact 35mm prints of the "final cut" version of blade runner, but since they're simply output from the digital file i wouldn't bother to see one of those either.

there seems to be a lot of talk about what is better than what. colors can be tweaked and whatnot to make an image more saturated, and steadiness can be enhanced. that may be perceived as better even if it is less authentic. but to me, the authenticity is paramount. the work can't be abstracted from its means and its technologies without becoming aesthetically different.

great paintings end up in coffee-table books, but nobody confuses them with the original, and nobody makes the original inaccessible because the picture in the book is good enough or better.

as for lp's, i see new re-issues all the time, for about the same cost as anything else. problem is, though they may come out on heavier vinyl, often they are either poorly pressed or mishandled and have scratches and noise from day one. a used copy can sound much better. our fickle obsession with the latest technologies causes us to forget how to use the older ones properly.

Posted by Dan Sherlock (Member # 4663) on 02-12-2008, 09:09 PM:

I'll be attending the Widescreen Weekend this year for the first time. I'll be the guy that only a few people will recognize with the American accent.

-Dan

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 02-13-2008, 03:57 AM:

Hi Dan

Glad you are able to make it and hope to meet up with you some time during the weekend

Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 02-13-2008, 05:00 AM:

Hi, all.

I just made the reservations so I´ll be seeing you all again this year. Really looking forward to it.

Posted by Jerry Axelsson (Member # 3175) on 02-13-2008, 05:16 AM:

I have a comment I would present in regards to 35mm in comparison to digital screenings.

I have had the chance to screen a few 35mm Ib dye transfer prints of classic titles on modern projection equipment with recent lenses.

I have seen 35mm Ib prints of "What's Up Doc". Both British and US release prints. They look dull and washed out in comparison to the color and look of the recent dvd release. Warner has done a superb job with this title. Can not wait to see it on a recent 35mm re-issue print or Bluray release. I have for the fun of it screened the dvd on our digital pre-show commercial equipment as a test. A 720p setup from Projector Design with a standard $100 Pioneer player. And the overall result was good in comparison to the older washed-out look of the Ib prints. Needless to say that the dvd lacked all resolution, but the look of the film was more pleasing to the eye.

I have seen older hyped 35mm Ib Panavision titles like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"-1969. Again a rather mediocre experience.
I also have the chance to see lab/pristine 35mm prints of older MGM Ib titles. Such as "Anchors Aweigh", "Three Little Words".
They looked quite good, but suffered from registration issues and so forth. Most of the dvd releases of older MGM titles really shine in comparison.

The only classic which almost lived up to the hype in terms of quality was "To Catch A Thief". I saw an original 35mm Ib VistaVision print of this title a few months back on a medium sized screen. And this print had nice vivid colors and sharp detail. Would have loved to see this title in Radio City Music Hall or another grand theater. The recent dvd release of TCAT really matches the 35mm Ib look. Bravo Paramount!

As for top 35mm printing. I would have to say that 35mm Ib prints of "Apocalypse Now" is some of the best I have seen to date.
Nice vivid color, sharp detail.

I'll guess that Bluray discs will look ok in the place of an older beat-up vintage print of a 35mm title, or in some cases better than the original release if hooked up to decent hd projection.

What do you guys think about this?

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-13-2008, 08:01 AM:

FWIW I think "comparisons" between film and digital video are meaningless, I really do. I think it's a dead-end.

I think it's much better to view film and digital as separate media with their own strengths and weaknesses.

As for IB prints, I too have seen Apocalypse Now in IB and it was superlative, easily beating conventional prints. And that was IB "done right". These processes have come a long way since the 1950s and ironically - with declining print volumes in the future it might actually become feasible to do full IB release of a title again [Wink]

(And, to keep on topic, I will be glad to discuss these and other theories over a pint in Bradford [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-13-2008, 03:42 PM:

quote: Brian Guckian
I will be glad to discuss these and other theories over a pint in Bradford

I hope Dan and other Newbies can join us at "The Castle" [beer]

is a fine venue to enjoy some Real Yorkshire Beer and not just that Tetley Water they call Beer [Eek!]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-16-2008, 01:29 PM:

It's now looking likely that I will be able to make it to Bradford, for the first time since 2005, but I will probably have to leave before the end.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-19-2008, 02:07 PM:

I can now confirm that I will be there, but I'm not sure which shows I will be attending yet. Leave from work was booked today, any Friday ths week is pay day, so I will book coach tickets and hotel room then.

Hope to see some of you there.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-20-2008, 03:18 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
Hope to see some of you there.

I look forward to see you there, I am staying at the Midland Hotel where the Bar stays open late [beer]

Posted by Dan Sherlock (Member # 4663) on 02-26-2008, 10:05 PM:

I will also be staying at the Midland.

Getting together at "The Castle" for some good beer sounds good to me. [beer]

Where is it? Which day? What time?

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 02-27-2008, 01:34 AM:

Only a few days left to go, until the annual large format, wide and big screen gathering

2008 coverage can be found here: http://www.in70mm.com/widescreen_weekend/2008/index.htm

Widescreen Weekend home is here:
http://www.in70mm.com/widescreen_weekend/index.htm

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-27-2008, 02:59 PM:

I'll definitely be there for the Saturday afternoon and evening - looking forward to a beer and a curry (oh, and I've heard that there might be a film show or something like that, too).

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-07-2008, 06:37 AM:

I arrived in Bradford yesterday afternoon. Have just seen 'This is Cinerama, and will be at all four shows in the Pictureville Cinema today, not sure about tomorrow and Sunday yet. I'm sitting just outside the Pictureville at the moment.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-07-2008, 05:32 PM:

I'll be there for The Sand Pebbles tomorrow, and a beverage afterwards with whoever can be persuaded.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-08-2008, 02:03 PM:

So far this year I have met Ben, Leo, Gunnar and Dan; maybe some more tomorrow.

Whatever the problem is with my head which has neen causing the headaches and other things since October affects my balance, and on the way out of the building this evening I slipped on the wet grass outside, and couldn't stop myself going over. Rather muddy, and a bit bruised, but no damage done.

Yesterday I saw the digital version of 'The Great Escape', and I was not impressed; the film didn't look sharp, it looked about the quality I would expect from a very good 16mm blow-up being shown on too large a screen, and the grain on flat areas such as the sky looked strange. I think it's probably the least good of the digital transfers of classic films that I've seen, or seen clips from. Anmittedly, I haven't seen many, but this certanly looked better when I last saw it on 35mm a few years ago than it did on digital yesterday.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-09-2008, 09:51 AM:

I hereby claim the prize for the first WW '08 pics to appear on Film-Tech...

Yours Truly and Paul Rayton...

Brian Guckian.

The Sand Pebbles looked great, though I do wish Candice Bergen would consider washing her hair every now and again. It seemed to get greasier and greasier with every passing shot, so much so that by the end of the film I was less interested in Steve McQueen's heroic sacrifice than wanting to force her into the nearest shower at gunpoint!

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-10-2008, 09:57 AM:

Just come off the motorway in North London; should be home in about a hour and a half. An intresting time in Bradford this year, saw 'Windjammer' for the first time, also my first experience of Kinopanorama, and 70mm (2001) on the curved screen. Couldn't get a ticket to 'Hamlet', but I have seen it before. As I said before, I was unimpressed with the digital 'The Great Escape'; somebody told me that 'Blade Runner' was much better, but I didn't see that, I was just too tired last night.

I brief clip of something, I don't know what it was, was shown in digital on the curved screen yesterday morning; Darren, if you happen to be reading this, what was it? It looked a lot better than 'The Great Escape' did. Was it intended for curved screens? Can the Christie be set up to compensate for the curvature?

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 03-12-2008, 05:11 AM:

[QUOTE] It looked a lot better than 'The Great Escape' did. E]

I belive it was scanned from the best available 35mm release Prints and not Restored as it made out to be - just some of the concerns you find with D-Cinema, not everthing is a good as it is made out to be with it!.

The screening of "Blade Runner" looked ok on the Flat screen and it was a near sell out for that one.

My favourite Higlights for this year was "The Sand Pebbles" and "Brainstorm" in 70mm on the curve.

The most odd film was "Honeymoon" that started out as a Travelogue and ended in a most strange Ballet film with a poor ending that made no sense [Confused]

.

Good to meet up with some fellow Film-Tech members at Bradford and while I was at Bradford I covered 600 miles from Home and visited 3 Home Cinemas, with 2 with 70mm Projection while I was on my travels.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 03-12-2008, 06:30 AM:

Audience on Stage picture(s)

And Duncan's speach for Bill

More images in the days to come - took close to 500 images!

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-14-2008, 06:13 PM:

Been busy since I got back - a BIG thank you Thomas for a marvellous event - it just gets better and better and was most educational. Always something new to learn, and great to see everyone there.

Incredible print of Star!, with a fine talk by Andrew Oran from Fotokem on the work involved. Also great to hear from him of 65mm shooting by Scorsese and Bond 22.

2001 with Q&A by Jan Harlan was a highlight for me as I'm a big Kubrick fan. But lots more to enjoy and much fruitful conversations and discussions. THE place to be last weekend!

Keep up the great work [thumbsup]

(Was I really that inebriated!)

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 03-16-2008, 06:06 AM:

quote: Ben Wales
I belive it was scanned from the best available 35mm release Prints and not Restored as it made out to be

So what was the point in that? Presumably better, and more suitable, elements exist, so the whole expensive transfer process will have to be done again. Why not show the best available release prints now, and do the digital transfer properly in the first place?

There is a finite amount of money available to make digital transfers, a finite amount of equipment exists, and there are a finite number of people with the necessary skills to do the work. This exercise was simply a waste of all three.

Did you notice the 'hair in the gate' at one point?

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 03-18-2008, 03:58 AM:

Pictures

Captions to follow in a few days