quote: Brad Miller

---

a projection staff with 70mm experience (since it is not the same as running 35mm)

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

...projection staff with 70mm experience (since it is not the same as running 35mm)...

---

At the risk of Brad ripping me a new one, what are some of the key differences between running 70mm and 35mm?
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-01-2014, 08:50 PM:
 
Brad,

Even though I doubt I'll be able to get somewhere with a 70mm presentation (non-IMAX), I wanted to thank you for doing your part to try and revive 70mm. Hopefully those locations gross better than digital locations and maybe that will lead to a business case for 70mm done right as a capture and premium presentation format again.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-02-2014, 12:18 AM:
 
I'll probably bounce around and pull a few shifts at all 3 of them. It just depends on how we end up handling the staffing.

I don't have a lot of time tonight to be too detailed here, but I can type pretty fast so I'll rattle off for a bit. (Don't consider this a comprehensive list though.)

Lots of people think to run 70mm all you have to do is change the rollers out on the platter (assuming a platter is used) and flip the rollers around in the projector and change the gate/trap/shoe/etc in the projector head. Sure you CAN do that and run 70mm, but you aren't doing it right if that is your procedure.

In the mag days, 70mm was more fragile than 35mm. With 35mm twists in the film was nowhere near as big of a deal as with 70mm. The entire projector and everything touching the film had to be carefully degaussed in order to ensure the mag tracks weren't erased (the high frequencies would go first, but thumps and such could easily occur). Loop sizes were also more important due to the 70mm slapping more than 35mm. Also the gate tension in particular was far more critical. Too little tension and the picture will bounce, but too much tension and you will strip out the intermittent. In this day and age, a lost intermittent is not a good thing either.

Today's 70mm prints have dts audio, so there is no degaussing concerns, but they are also polyester, which means they are annoyingly tough and also bring static to those not smart enough to use FilmGuard. This is precisely why Paramount reportedly had to replace at least reel 10 on all of the 70mm prints of Titanic (except the one I played). Of those, many had to replace as much as the last half of the movie due to various print damage that is easier to achieve towards the end of a long movie when running on a platter.

So think about this for a minute. On a Christie platter for example, to get 70mm speed at the center ring you've got to hit about 25RPM for it to barely be able to keep up. That's not a big deal for the machine to achieve, but it's faster than 35mm needs to run so if there is static the payout arm has a better capability of slinging the print towards the end of the movie.

But that's not the fun part. On a longer print, like Titanic or Interstellar that runs 3 hours, you've also got sheer weight running against you, which translates into inertia. As anyone that has ever paid attention to the takeup arm will recall, it is common for there to be a slight bounce in the takeup even if only because of a tiny bulge in the film roll where the leader was secured to the center ring. Normally those bulges don't matter much, but when you have a 200+ pound print and that takeup arm starts bouncing more than just the tiniest amount, suddenly each bounce speeds up the platter, then inertia overspins the takeup, then the next bounce is a little harder with more speed, and then the inertia overspins the platter a little bit more. Suddenly you've got the takeup arm crashing into the motor, flipping the film crooked on the roller, scratching, damaging and stretching sprockets. This can actually go on for quite some time without killing the show on screen when running 70mm polyester prints! With 70mm acetate, it would simply snap the first time it hit, the failsafes would drop and that was that.

This is why very careful timing of the platter is critical. Even pre-testing with a 2 hour movie is no good when you are running a 3 hour movie! (Plus each deck is independent, so the 3 hour test show would have to be run 3 times, one test run per deck.)

Using the Century JJ as an example, a mandatory part of converting the machine is to remove the upper 35mm pad roller. The reason this is so critical is because a normal acetate 70mm print will have a certain amount of slap to it, and if threaded PERFECTLY, then yes you can run it without getting the infamous "JJ scratches", but with a polyester print (anything in dts will be polyester), it's simply impossible to run the print with that pad roller and not scratch it. Sure the scratch is extremely light with one pass and most people would not even notice it, but the more time it is played, the worse it gets. The solution is simple, but not everyone does it. Simply remove the 35mm pad roller from the shaft. (Personally I replace it with another 70mm pad roller, but that isn't necessary.)

Now take a look at the lower loop. Again we have the same issue. 70mm slaps more than 35mm, and 70mm polyester slaps WAY more than 35mm. Without some form of slap guard, you WILL scratch the print. On a Century this translates into horizontal lines down the center of the picture where it slaps up against the bottom of the intermittent shoe. (Note it is difficult to even tell that it is hitting the shoe just when looking at it.) Century has studio slap guards that can be attached to the intermittent (if you can find them) which is the ideal solution, but what most JJs have is a little loop stabilizer roller underneath. Many people thread over that roller, but due to the way the 70mm film slaps and curls, it's actually proper to thread under that roller. If you don't have that roller, you will most certainly be inflicting some level of damage. Again it may take a number of shows to truly see it on screen, but it's happening. In this case, the smaller the loop, the better.

I mentioned before that 70mm doesn't handle twists as well as 35mm does. This isn't as big of a deal with polyester prints as the old acetate mag prints, but I've seen many theaters with short lengths between twists actually see tears and film breaks in their acetate shows because of it, and I can't tell you how many prints I've seen where the first couple of minutes have all kinds of nasty stretched sprockets on it. With that being said, it is truly imperative to use LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of leader! There is no excuse not to. Thread it up and motor it down. I prefer to put a solid 2 minutes worth of abort leader on the prints to give the projectionist more than adequate time to verify that everything is running absolutely perfect before they possibly damage even one frame of the movie.

So how do you help prevent bad things from happening? Here is a quick list...

*Align the gate/trap for the particular thickness of film you are running. Just because the 70mm film shuttles when you flipped things around does NOT mean that you are not inflicting unnecessary wear on the sprockets and your intermittent.

*Remove that 35mm upper pad roller (again, assuming Century JJ).

*Get studio slap guards or at least the loop stabilizer roller underneath the intermittent.

*Use the oversized center rings and calibrate your platter speeds down for them. Even a long movie like Interstellar will still fit onto the platter with an oversize center ring, and with the platter only being able to max out at around 17RPM is a very good thing as you get towards the end of the movie.

*Don't forget to re-calibrate your platters. You want to just barely be able to achieve minimum startup speed, and you must ensure there is no "bump" in the speed from zero to high.

*Buff your platter decks. You don't want ANY burrs in the surface. The grooves brought about during buffing also helps hold the print where it needs to be and prevent slinging.

*Run FilmGuard on every show. Yes, every single show. With it you won't see a hint of static, nor even any dust on screen for that matter, and it will also prevent most loop size mistakes from translating into a scratch. This should be a law for anyone running expensive 70mm prints...and particularly with acetate magnetic 70mm prints, it's a godsend. (No shedding, no brittleness, no soundtrack wear and no oxide flaking.)

*Find some Film-Tech safety rings. We don't manufacture them anymore, and no we don't have even a single one left in stock, but find one. They fit over the edge of the platter and make it impossible to throw a print if things start to go bad.

*Watch your loops and use tons and tons of leader. Remember this print cost over $20k, so spend that extra time triple checking everything both turning the mechanism over by hand and also running the leader down for a minute or two at full speed to check the entire film path.

*Don't have stupid twists in your film path. Angle the platter a little bit if you need to minimize them. Extend your projector rollers, and ensure at least the upper one is straight up and down and not angled in the event of a payout bounce from a knick on the platter surface or a splice made with cheap splicing tape.

*If running changeovers, go back to that leader rule. ADD MORE! And whatever you do, don't attach the leader to the takeup reel and spin it until you get to the countdown before you thread. That's the absolute incorrect way to do it. Ensure you have some framelines to thread on at the beginning of the newly-extended leader (even if you have to draw a dozen with a Sharpie over clear leader), thread there and then after you are sure you are comfortable with the threading motor it down to the countdown. The reason so many repertory prints look bad around the reel ends is because people are handling the films too damn close to the first and last frame of action on each reel. (This rule even applies to proper 35mm changeover operation.)

There are other tips to follow, but I wouldn't know how to write them out. It's for more of a one-on-one training session. Those are the main points that everyone should be able to follow via text though.
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 10-02-2014, 12:38 AM:
 
Are you EXCITED?! This is so cool!
 

---

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 10-02-2014, 03:59 AM:
 
More locations than that:

Interstellar 70MM IMAX Film Locations
 

---

Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 10-02-2014, 04:23 AM:
 
No locations outside North America? I'll be in London in December, was hoping to catch it there in 70mm IMAX.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-02-2014, 04:39 AM:
 
That's a site pretending to list the IMAX film locations, not the confirmed 5/70 locations. Furthermore, that site forces me to "upgrade" to Chrome. I'll choose my own browser, thank you.

I really hope there will be a handful of 5/70 prints for Europe too, but I guess that's just wishful thinking for now.

Edit: After several reloads I could actually access the site using Firefox. Screw that. It also lists 5/70mm locations, but it doesn't look to be complete, it doesn't match Brad's list for example.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-02-2014, 02:10 PM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

That's a site pretending to list the IMAX film locations, not the confirmed 5/70 locations. Furthermore, that site forces me to "upgrade" to Chrome. I'll choose my own browser, thank you.

---

That site is the official Interstellar web site. When you go to http://www.interstellarmovie.com/ which is the official web site as listed on Paramount's Webmaster site, you get redirected to https://interstellar.withgoogle.com/

I would imagine that they worked something out with Google to promote Chrome in exchange for development and/or other considerations.

Here is the main "Ways to See Interstellar" page, which has links to all of the various formats:

https://interstellar.withgoogle.com/ways-to-see

The press release about the advance release date for film-based presentations just went out, so I would imagine that some of the information is still a little fluid. Some of the theaters they link to don't have actual showtimes up yet.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-02-2014, 03:36 PM:
 
and I bet you anything, the DCP audio will be 7.1 and Dolby Atmos just to mess with folk who want to see it and hear it both formats (film vs. digital)
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 10-02-2014, 04:24 PM:
 

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

and I bet you anything, the DCP audio will be 7.1 and Dolby Atmos just to mess with folk who want to see it and hear it both formats (film vs. digital

---

quote:

---

Why Theater Owners Aren't Happy About Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' Film Initiative
1:50 PM PST 10/02/2014 by Pamela McClintock

After spending millions to convert their cinemas to digital at Hollywood's behest, theaters are being asked to roll back the clock — that is, if they want early access to Christopher Nolan's Interstellar, starring Matthew McConauhey, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain.

On Wednesday, Paramount and Warner Bros. said theaters still equipped to project 35mm and 70mm film will get Nolan's Interstellar two days early, on Nov. 5, including 41 Imax locations. Many cinemas are bringing in film projectors to play the film, including TCL's Chinese Imax theater in Los Angeles. Some 240 theaters in 77 markets are participating, including 41 Imax locations.

"This devalues what we've done," said Joe Paletta, chief and founder of Spotlight Theatres, a small chain in Georgia that is now all-digital. "I can't afford to get the projectors out of the warehouse for two days, and I don't even have anyone to operate them."

Read more 'Interstellar' Trailer Reveals the Movie's Mission

Nolan, who has a strong relationship with exhibitors, is a fierce advocate of film, and he's got enough clout with studios to make his passion a reality, but theater owners say the Interstellar experiment sends a confusing message. Nearly all of the country's cinemas have been converted to digital as Hollywood studios cease sending film prints. Earlier this year, Paramount became the first studio to stop distributing film, with the caveat that it might send some film prints in certain instances.

Paramount vice chairman Rob Moore said the decision to release Interstellar in film is about encouraging the moviegoing experience, period. In 2011, the studio opened Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol five days earlier in Imax to highlight that format. It also generated intense word of mouth (the film went on to become the top-grossing film in the franchise).

"Interstellar plays spectacularly, and we have a filmmaker who loves film, so we wanted to take a moment to showcase film as an important part of our heritage," said Moore, adding that Nolan will host a special community on Google exploring all formats, and not just film.

But Foothills Cinemas president and CEO Byron Berkley, whose company operates four theaters in Texas, agrees with Paletta. "It makes no sense to step back in time," he said.

For smaller exhibitors like Paletta and Berkley, the digital transition was especially daunting from a financial perspective, although the Hollywood studios have helped to defray some of the cost through virtual print fees.

Read more Christopher Nolan Talks 'Interstellar,' Plugs Film Over Digital in Hollywood Reporter Q&A

Nolan shot Interstellar using a combination of 35mm film and 65mm Imax film.

Of those theaters getting Interstellar earlier, 189 locations will play 35mm prints, while 10 will play 70mm prints. The 41 Imax theaters will play enhanced 70mm prints.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

And these days are which two? Wednesday and Thursday in the 1st week of November...that isn't exactly prime-time real estate.

---

Under normal circumstances that would be true, but this is one of the most anticipated movies of the year and it's getting a ton of "free" publicity for those film dates just because it's "news."

You know darn well that legions of fanboys who MUST see a super-hyped movie such as this as soon as possible will seek out the earliest shows they can (and half of them won't even know if it's on film...they'll think they're watching a DVD, the way they always have).

In other words it isn't an even playing field.

However the nearest "film" venue is over a thousand miles from us as far as I know so I guess we won't suffer!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-02-2014, 07:00 PM:
 
In addition to Brad's list above: does anyone remove the optical slit lens when running 70mm in a JJ? I have not operated any JJs since LED readers became standard, but I always felt that the standard slit lens could easily cause film damage with a slightly warped print. (Obviously, this is a nonissue with the newer JJs that feed 70mm around the outside of the optical soundhead).

And it would seem that Norelco AA-IIs would solve most of Brad's non-platter-related issues with running 70mm on JJs.

(Note that my 70mm experience is limited to running mag acetate prints on JJs and some test material on Norelcos. No platters involved, and I have not run 70mm polyester.)

And I agree with Steve that there will be lots of damaged prints at this engagement. This will mostly play in multiplexes, most of which have long since rid themselves of people who know how to handle film properly (if they ever employed such people in the first place). I would bet that most of these places will drag in a manager who has not run film in a few years to handle the prints, a move which is not likely to end well.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-02-2014, 10:30 PM:
 
Scott...no...I've never removed nor known of anyone to remove the slit lens...nor could I imagine a situation where the film would touch it. The guide in the R50 keeps the film in front of it. However, if the film is warped and the guide is not machined well, it would be possible to scratch the film on the guide.

Interstellar is a "film" event...those that kept or are willing to put in film for it get a 2-day reward...get over it. It is JUST one movie. If it is THAT big a movie, 2-days out of the run won't mean anything and if it sucks...well it won't mean a damn thing either. If you have film equipment...you get two days worth of audience you otherwise wouldn't have...will that possibly cover the costs of keeping the projectors around...possibly paying someone to run them for the duration...those that are complaining are just a bunch of lallygagers.

Personally, I only care about the 5/70mm venues anyway...that is film at its best. Please don't F@#k it up!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-02-2014, 11:15 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

*If running changeovers, go back to that leader rule. ADD MORE! And whatever you do, don't attach the leader to the takeup reel and spin it until you get to the countdown before you thread. That's the absolute incorrect way to do it. Ensure you have some framelines to thread on at the beginning of the newly-extended leader (even if you have to draw a dozen with a Sharpie over clear leader), thread there and then after you are sure you are comfortable with the threading motor it down to the countdown. The reason so many repertory prints look bad around the reel ends is because people are handling the films too damn close to the first and last frame of action on each reel. (This rule even applies to proper 35mm changeover operation.)

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

So aside from Brad's theaters, any word on where the people projecting the 5/70 and even 15/70 are coming from?

---

quote: William Kucharski

---

Interstellar 70MM IMAX Film Locations

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

https://interstellar.withgoogle.com/ways-to-see

---

quote:

---

But in other news, I just bought four tickets for the November 8th 6:45pm show at Ziegfeld. This will be my first 5/70mm presentation I attend since 2 years, 2 months and 15 days prior to the 8th. I'm a bit nervous if the Zig crew would handle it properly, but I'm ready for the 5+-hour trip!

---

While the Ziegfeld was traditionally the best place to see most films in NYC, when I saw "The Master" there in 70mm, the print had dirt end to end. I don't know whether that was the fault of the theatre or the fault of the lab. It was very disappointing. Hopefully they'll do a better job with this film. The Ziegfeld, while still owned by Clearview is now operated by BowTie. I think it was still run by Clearview when they ran "The Master". I don't know whether BowTie operating the theatre will make it better or worse.

In the prime of Dolby 70mm, they frequently would add in special equipment, like additional subwoofers. That was done for both Close Encounters and Apocalypse Now. But that doesn't happen anymore.

Frankly, I think the better presentation is going to be the IMAX 15/70 at the Loews Lincoln Square. The IMAX scenes are going to be cropped in the 5/70 presentation at the Ziegfeld. They'll be shown in the full 1.9:1 aspect ratio at the IMAX.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-04-2014, 05:15 PM:
 
That's not much different than running a flat 1.85 movie with a 1.33 aperture plate on a movie where the boom mics weren't visible. The actual intended part of the image to be seen is within the cropped "scope" ratio. The rest is simply excess headroom and such.
 

---

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-04-2014, 05:42 PM:
 


Is this what you meant by loop stabilizer? We thread on the left/top side of this roller

And yes, changeover at the Ritz, we never invested in a 70mm platter system since most of the prints we get can't be built anyway.
 

---

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 10-04-2014, 06:11 PM:
 
Martin, I just contacted Bow-Tie about Interstellar 5/70 at Ziegfeld. I asked if they hired an experienced projectionist for the show and also linked them this thread. I hope they listen.

For some reason, this makes me very very anxious. I just want the money to fly to Dallas and see Interstellar at one of Brad's locations.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-04-2014, 07:49 PM:
 
Are there still any 70mm prints that HAVEN'T been cut, regardless of the rules put onto them?

You don't have the loop stabilizer/studio guides/slap guard/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. You only have that idler roller. Thread the loop under it, not over it. Depending on the position of the framing and the "mood" of the polyester print (I say that because the slapping can vary during a reel) will depend on if the loop hits the underside of the intermittent shoe's pivot point 1/4 inch just above it.

This is the threading BTW.


 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-04-2014, 10:21 PM:
 
Jason...someone doesn't know how a film stripper works...the one on the lower sprocket (in the projector head) will not only not strip the film...it will actually encourage it to wrap the sprocket as it is currently set!

In Brad's picture...only the lower torture...er loop stabilizers are shown...there are another set that go towards the rear to catch the film as it leaves the intermittent sprocket.

Oddly enough, I found that at the Uptown in DC that for 35mm one HAD to go under the loop stabilizer (I believe its part number is RO-207) or you'd get scuffing in the center of the film since the under-cut area for 35mm is so shallow on that roller...the film would curl into it. If you went under...no problem. However, for 70mm...going over was the most stable. Perhaps it was a humidity/loop size difference in the mid Atlantic area versus the south that makes the response the difference.

For those of you with Norelco AA2s (DP70)...WATCH OUT on the lateral guide rollers for the gate...if you set the leaf spring too tight with polyester/sans mag tracks...the film WILL curl and rub the middle of the gate runner plate. Older runners have much less clearance than later castings. Without the mag tracks not only are you spaced closer to the gate, you loose some rigidity and that film can curl VERY easily. Please be careful.
 

---

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 10-04-2014, 10:55 PM:
 
Thanks Brad, you wouldn't happen to have a line on where one could pick up a pair of those would you?
I think we've had a few uncut 70mm prints, Cleopatra maybe, some others with cement splices, but I know what you're saying. Almost 99% of the time now for any print we get (previously built or not) there are explicit instructions not to platter and we do try to stick to that. And that threading thing has been a point of contention that I won't get in to.

Steve - thanks for that, in the manual it looks like it should point towards the center of the axis of that outbound sprocket, correct? And we do have that back set:

 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-04-2014, 11:27 PM:
 
Steve, that's a picture from one of the extra JJs. I do have those under the intermittent in the screening room, but I've never felt they were needed as the film doesn't ever hit them. Loop sizes make all the difference, but there is definitely a big difference between acetate and polyester behavior down here closer to the equator. I've never ran 70mm of any sort north of the Dallas area, so your theory is certainly possible.

Also note depending on the intermittent depends on where the various guides and roller sit with respect to each other and the intermittent. Not sure what was going on with Century during the changes, but the pic I posted above runs VERY quiet and smooth.

And yes everyone please as Steve points out, please be careful. It only takes one pass to ruin a print. Paramount shipped me the only surviving reel of Titanic in 70 for me to test with and it was in DEPLORABLE condition. (Yup that's right, they don't even have a complete print in the US anymore, just this one odd reel.) How it got this bad is beyond me, but we're talking heavy scratches on the base and emulsion side (vertical, horizontal and a standing set of diagonal scratches off center). It's perforations are stretched, and the damage varies throughout the reel. There were no leaders, the film has heat damage, in ungodly dirty and so forth and so on. The condition at the ends of the reels from, well let's be honest, morons who don't know how to handle film...ugh, there are simply no words.

There is simply no excuse for this. If this reel was run for someone that had never seen 70mm they would've joked like we do when talking about old beaten up 8mm home movies. People handling these extremely rare prints have GOT to learn how to do it right. Again, it only takes one pass to ruin a print, but this reel has clearly been mishandled by many different venues. With various theaters installing 70mm so they can have some sort of marketing or booking edge on their competition, and then laying marks on one-of-a-kind archive prints because they don't have someone there that truly knows how to setup and run 70mm is just infuriating. 17 years ago I had the only 70mm Titanic print that went back with zero damage whatsoever (as John Pytlak verified and Paramount backed up in their print replacement report) and I played that for 5 months and 2 weeks (on a platter too). I wonder how many of these Interstellar prints won't leave their playdates in exactly pristine condition, and I wonder how fast they will get destroyed in revival 70mm shows.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-05-2014, 12:32 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

For those of you with Norelco AA2s (DP70)...WATCH OUT on the lateral guide rollers for the gate...if you set the leaf spring too tight with polyester/sans mag tracks...the film WILL curl and rub the middle of the gate runner plate. Older runners have much less clearance than later castings. Without the mag tracks not only are you spaced closer to the gate, you loose some rigidity and that film can curl VERY easily. Please be careful.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Check film coming out of the bottom for scratches with a flashlight (both sides).

---

Ahhh, yes Leo- - A good, bright LED flashlight is worth its' weight in gold when
it comes to finding scratches in a dark booth when running reels or platterers.

While I still run a lot of film, I'm doing almost 100% change-overs now.

But bouncing a good, strong light-beam off both sides of the film at
various points in the threading path is well worth the effort.

Here's a couple of pictures taken several years ago:

Exhibit A: "Good" -


Exhibit B: "Bad"

-jc-
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-2014, 11:58 AM:
 
Jim, exhibit A is not "good". It was ran on one of those damned "boat anchor" Simplex/RCA type soundheads. See the marks from the patented "dirt embedder roller"?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-05-2014, 12:01 PM:
 
someone (not here) mentioned that the sound is magnetic and not DTS - anyone know if this is true?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-2014, 01:15 PM:
 
Someone is wrong.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-05-2014, 02:13 PM:
 
With DTS (Datasat) being used on this (and basically all future 70mm releases), why don't they use the full width of the area between the perfs to get the aspect ratio as close as possible to 2.39:1?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-05-2014, 03:04 PM:
 
Because everyone would then need new plates and lenses, which would be another obstacle.

On the mag front, John Pytlak told me at an AMIA conference many years ago that the production of the chemical needed to bind the oxide layer to the polyester film surface creates seriously gnarly greenhouse gases, and was in the process of being outlawed worldwide for everything except applications that were vital to human life (so basically, you would still be allowed to use it to make vital medicines that couldn't be made any other way, but not for "non-essential" applications like making cool prints of movies). At that time he believed that there was still one facility in Mexico that offered mag striping of 70mm print stock, but anticipated that they would be stopping very shortly.

If that's correct, then we will never be seeing any new mag prints again, sadly, which makes it all the more important that we take good care of the ones that are left.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-05-2014, 03:34 PM:
 
Not only does it make it vital to jealously protect existing 70mm mag prints still in good condition, but if anyone truly wants to revive the 5-perf 70mm format to at least some degree upgrading the sound paired with 70mm has to be added to a long laundry list of things needed to make it viable again.

As far as I can tell every projector manufacturer has scrapped their manufacturing production lines of 35mm and 70mm film projectors and shed any capabilities to make replacement parts for existing film projection setups. If someone wants a couple hundred theaters running a certain movie in 70mm that manufacturing capability must be restored to some degree.

Really. If the movie studios are serious about keeping Kodak and FotoKem around, in part to make backup film-outs of their digital-based movies, they need to include film projection hardware as part of that equation. Making the film alone isn't enough.

The data lossy compression sound formats used with film in movie theaters over the past 20 years are arguably obsolete. In terms of quality they don't compare favorably with a 6-track Dolby SR mag track on 70mm film. Chances are slim for 5-perf 70mm making any sort of sustainable comeback, but if it did it should be paired with modern 5.1/7.1 uncompressed LPCM audio tracks, if not next gen audio formats (like Atmos and DTS MDA).
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-2014, 04:06 PM:
 
Bobby, I don't ever see that fantasy happening, but let's just say for a moment that it did. I think it would be easy to acquire the rights to produce Century JJs (which hopefully would be the model of projector that would be resurrected). There wouldn't even be a need to build the penthouse for it. Just have the 35mm optical soundhead as normal and the 35/70 JJ head as normal and skip the penthouse all together. On top is a standard dts70 reader.

At that point with the timecode track being on the print, dts could make a player that could play uncompressed sound, or even some form of object based sound (Atmos). No mag would be needed (which would also help keep costs down).

Unfortunately that doesn't solve the platter problem or lamphouse problem. Sure Christie could probably start making AW3s again without too much trouble (they could always farm most of it out) and they could probably even adapt their current digital lamphouse/integrator rod/etc setup in their digital machines to make a phenomenal lamphouse (or go straight to laser), but they would never break even, so it will never happen.

Heck even setting up a shop to make projectors again...they would never make break even because they would never sell enough.

But then there is also the need to have splicers, RP91 test loops, rewind benches and other such items that are no longer made. The only thing film-wise that is still being made is analog and basement readers (Kelmar, BACP, Component Engineering) and reels from Goldberg.

Basically I think it's nothing more than a fantasy dream that will never happen. The studios don't really want film to return. I think they are just trying to keep their most valuable directors happy so they will make them more millions.

And like Steve Guttag said, "theaters that sucked at film will suck at digital". With the craft now pretty much killed, how many theaters these days that didn't suck at film before will suck at film now? My guess is damn near all of them.

Film-Tech is however making Century aperture plates now if anyone needs them. Somebody had to step up and do it.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-05-2014, 06:43 PM:
 
Movie studios may not want film to return, but I guarantee their rush to go digital will eventually bite them in the ass in some high profile ways.

I don't think companies like Kodak and FotoKem will be able to stay in business making the occasional film-out archive print every once in awhile. This table scraps approach is no good. Even if those companies can stay in the black I think anyone who cares or cared will get disillusioned and just plain quit.

Digital media SUCKS. The people who sell it are also routinely selling lies, especially when they sell a big hard disc to consumers in the mindset of protecting life's memories. The shit doesn't have any longevity to it at all. Any of us here who have been messing around with computers and digital files for any more than just a few years have been having to deal with this shit. We're leap frogging data we don't want lost from one aging set of discs to another set of discs because we know the shit isn't built to last.

I have a hard time imagining the chore and cost involved in having to archive a lot of movie masters stored on digital media in movie studios. It's a nightmare if you get into the details of it. What do you choose to store and what other assets related to the movie do you risk losing? When movies were generated mostly on analog-based media there was a lot of tangible "stuff" that could be used later in future "director's cut" edits or extras on a DVD disc. Hollywood studios now seem absolutely uninterested in any of that stuff. Now they want to sell the movie as a movie-only item. Low bit rate, no extras, nothing special. Screw Blu-ray and physical media in general.

And maybe that's the real deal. Maybe the movie industry is changing into a "one and done" kind of approach. Release the movie on every platform all at the same time. Make all the money at once. Then forget about the fucking thing. Who cares if the data tapes for some movie get corrupted 7 years from now. No one will even remember that movie anyway.

 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-06-2014, 10:52 AM:
 
I have to wonder how many of the locations listed on the Interstellar web site as running film 5/70 or 35mm are actually going to run film.

I went to the Lafayette Theatre in Suffern NY yesterday to see Gone Girl. I know that they still have their 35mm projectors, although they have not turned them on in over 2 years. I asked the manager about Interstellar since it is listed on the web site as being 35mm at that location, but was told that no, it will be digital. The sound was disconnected from the 35mm and they don't want to spend the money to have it reconnected. I don't know if that is a bullshit reason or not, but that is what I was told.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-06-2014, 12:06 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I have a hard time imagining the chore and cost involved in having to archive a lot of movie masters stored on digital media in movie studios.

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

I have to wonder how many of the locations listed on the Interstellar web site as running film 5/70 or 35mm are actually going to run film.

---

I'm going to do my best Manny impersonation here.

I have a feeling Paramount is going to get scammed a bit with this.

Scenario #1
Theater says "yeah we have 35mm...give it to us 2 days early". Doesn't matter if they have a projectionist, or if their 35mm system is working or even if they have a 35mm projector in the building. They play digital instead, never even intending on running the film print knowing this little scam will work.

Scenario #2
Theater says "yeah we have 35mm...give it to us 2 days early". They have a 35mm system, projectionist, everything needed right down to splicing tape and they have dutifully checked it. When they are prepping the film something breaks and there is no way to run it on film. They play digital instead.

Scenario #3
Theater says "yeah we have 35mm...give it to us 2 days early". They dutifully play it on film and somewhere into the run they lay a nasty scratch down the middle of the entire print. At that point they decide the digital presentation is better than the damaged film presentation and they switch to digital.

Scenario #4
Theater says "yeah we have 35mm...give it to us 2 days early". They dutifully play it on film through the weekend, then when Monday rolls around they say it isn't worth their payroll to keep that projectionist, so they run digital on the weekdays and maybe/maybe not fire up the film the following weekend.
The point is as long as the keys are unlocked, which they will be because the rest of the world will be screaming for them to be unlocked so they can "QC", there is nothing to prevent theaters from just running the digital anyway.

Even if Paramount decides not to provide a key for those advance 2 days, what's to stop the theaters from switching to digital on Thursday night like the rest of the world?

And will there be any theaters that start running shows publicly once their keys are activated since the competition is running it?

And we all know the excuse even as early as Tuesday night will be "oh our intermittent died and we've already sold out every show...you HAVE to give us a key or we have to refund thousands of tickets!" And we know Paramount will do it to save the shows.

Am I wrong?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-06-2014, 03:19 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

The point is as long as the keys are unlocked, which they will be because the rest of the world will be screaming for them to be unlocked so they can "QC", there is nothing to prevent theaters from just running the digital anyway.

---

quote:

---

When presented on regular 70mm film, the IMAX sequences have been optically reduced to 70mm 5 perf film to produce a grain-free, ultra-high resolution image, cropped top and bottom to fill the wide screen. The 35mm anamorphic sections have been blown up optically. Both processes are photochemical, preserving the original analog color of the imagery and combined in a 2.2:1 widescreen presentation. The sound is carried on a separate Datasat disc to produce state-of-the-art 6-track digital sound.

---

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

but at least DTS adhere's to the original 70mm/6 track mixes that had five front channels on the film's that were mixed and presented as such

---

That's only if the DTS player (and movie audio playing on it) is specifically set up to play a 5 stage channel layout. In the 1990s I believe a theater had to install a DTS-6 SV (Special Venue) player in order to deviate from the standard 5.1 channel layout with 3 front stage channels.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-10-2014, 01:51 PM:
 
It can be done without a special DTS player.

We can do it with our 6D (Egyptian) and XD-10 (Aero). At the Egyptian, we have a custom-made switching box to which the 6D's analog output is attached: when the switch is flipped from 5.1 to special venue/5 stage channels mode, it changes the routing of the channels coming out of the player. The player thinks it's playing conventional 5.1, but the channels are actually going to the necessary CP200 inputs for five stage channels. With the Aero XD-10 setup, the CP650 can take care of it as a software preset.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-10-2014, 04:18 PM:
 
At the AFI/Silver...DTS 6-track is just a format:

http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/picview.php?id=4786&category=1



In the event that there was any other "special" formats, we brought the DTS outputs to the patch bays so they could be reassigned as needed.

http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/picview.php?id=4788&category=1


 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 10-10-2014, 05:24 PM:
 
Will be playing in 5/70mm at the Odeon Leicester Square Londonfrom 7th November.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-10-2014, 08:58 PM:
 
How does DTS actually record their "format 40" equivalent (Steve's format 53)?

With a 5.1 mix, DTS encodes the subwoofer and surround information on the same channels and then separates them by frequency range on playback. How does this translate to five screen channels? Is DTS somehow capable of reproducing six full-range channels in this configuration?
 

---

Posted by Allan Barnes (Member # 5178) on 10-11-2014, 02:16 AM:
 
70MM real IMAX in DETROIT at the HENRY FORD MUSEUM... I'll drive 2 hours from Canada for it! HEAVEN

http://www.thehenryford.org/imax/index.aspx?gclid=CMjZ7JiHpMECFaY-MgodMlwA7A
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-11-2014, 02:46 AM:
 
Do it.
 

---

Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 10-11-2014, 05:04 AM:
 
So where's the best place to sit at Odeon Leicester Sq?
How big is the screen?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-11-2014, 11:20 AM:
 
In the balcony towards the front, I'd guess, based on the last time I saw a movie there (which admittedly is over a decade ago).
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-11-2014, 04:01 PM:
 
Yes, DTS is capable of recording all 6-channels. In the older systems, it would be the "SV" version of the player (e.g DTS-6SV). The SV had 6 decoders. The XD10 ships with 8-channels, as I recall and with an option for 16 and the XD20 ships with all 16-channels (I may be off here on the maximum channel quantity...12 versus 16).

Typically, a Todd AO mix will lay out as L, LC, R, RC, R, Surround. Thus one has to be careful to only use that version if they are configured for it...otherwise surround goes to subwoofer and LC/RC go to the surrounds. Even worse, if one is in Todd Ao layout and runs a 5.1 disc...Subwoofer goes to surrounds!

The AFI/Silver runs enough of each type it made sense to put in the infrastructure and format for it to be dial-a-format for 70mm DTS. We did the same thing at the Library of Congress in Culpeper.
 

---

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 10-12-2014, 07:12 AM:
 

quote: Amanda Mundin

---

So where's the best place to sit at Odeon Leicester Sq?
How big is the screen?

---

quote: Allan Young

---

The screen isn't nearly big enough for the size of the auditorium unfortunately, and if you take Leo's advice and sit in the front circle you'll be charged a whopping £22.50 for the privilege. I'd suggest the mid stalls area and even there the sightlines aren't ideal.

---

Last time for me must be about 6 years ago, so I don't know if they dramatically changed their interior since then. I've had seats in the "Royal Circle" or whatever they call it once. The distance to the screen isn't optimal from those uber-expensive seats and you're looking down to the screen at quite an angle. It will only increase once you go further back on the balcony. So, I would not spend those extra pounds for some balcony seat. Last time I was there, I went for "stalls" and I liked it much more. You need to look up to the screen, obviously, but I was sitting much closer for the screen.

Sure, such a cinema is much more than just the movie, the whole "entourage" is quite extraordinary. But since you're going for a unique 5/70mm experience, you should get closer to the screen than usual, not further away .
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 10-14-2014, 07:41 AM:
 
"INTERSTELLAR" will open in Copenhagen (thats in Denmark) Nov 6 in 70MM


 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-14-2014, 11:18 AM:
 
According to the INTERSTELLAR website, the Willow Creek Theatre 12 in Plymouth, MN will be running a 5-70 print.

It's located just off Betty Crocker Drive, and down the street from General Mills Blvd.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-15-2014, 08:04 AM:
 
according to Interstellar's website they denote as all three Smithsonian IMAX screens will be showing this, but it looks like it's only National Air and Space's 'Mall' and Udvar Hazy screens showing it - which is too bad, since National History Museum's screen in my opinion is the best of the three.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-20-2014, 05:33 AM:
 
I guess nobody can answer the question if the 5/70mm Interstellar presentations in the recently remodeled Zoo Palast in Berlin will be in their Original Language or rather the German dubbed version?

You would almost doubt DTS would make custom discs for just a single location, but given the specialty of it all, you never know.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-20-2014, 07:54 AM:
 
I'm sure they will be german dubbed. I mean, that's the whole idea of the DTS disc system. And the only way to actually get these few european 70mm prints financed, showing original US prints with local dubb discs. But if these prints circulate later, there may be chances for european screenings with the US discs as well. Seems that Schauburg at Karlsruhe already secured a screening next year, but don't know wether dubbed or OV, or if that decision has already been made.

Don't know about Copenhagen, they may be more used to OVs there?

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 10-20-2014, 12:00 PM:
 
While at the AMIA confrence I talked to a Fotokem lab guy. A total of 12 70mm 5-perf prints were made.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-20-2014, 12:09 PM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

You would almost doubt DTS would make custom discs for just a single location, but given the specialty of it all, you never know.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

that's the whole idea of the DTS disc system.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

They'll be making foreign language dubbed versions of the DTS 5.1 audio for markets that prefer them anyway, and so the cost of burning the odd copy onto discs for 6D playback or XD-10 ingestion would be close to zero, I'd have thought.

---

quote: Paul Gordon

---

While at the AMIA confrence I talked to a Fotokem lab guy. A total of 12 70mm 5-perf prints were made.

---

USA 70MM 5/70
• CA, Hollywood, ArcLight Cinerama Dome
• CA, Oakland, Renaissance Grand Lake
• GA, Atlanta, CineBistro at Town Brookhaven
• MN, Plymouth, Willow Creek 12
• NY, New York, Bow Tie Ziegfeld
• NY, New York, City Cinemas Cinema 1
• TX, Arlington, Studio Movie Grill
• TX, Austin, Alamo Drafthouse Ritz
• TX, Dallas, Look Cinemas
• TX, Dallas, Studio Movie Grill Royal Lane

INTERNATIONAL 5/70
• Berlin, ZOO Palast
• Copenhagen, Imperial Bio
• London, Odeon Leicester Sq, London
• Milan, Arcadia Cinema

The source.

So, at least two locations have to share a print? Or are there other labs involved? Or is this list incorrect?

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Germans are good in booting, but not in accepting foreign language films. Given the cost, premiere location and booking condition for this 70mm print, even in Berlin it is hard to assume that showing an OV or even subtitled version would make sense economically.

---

CineStar is running an entire multiplex in Berlin in "Original". Sure, Berlin is quite a large market with many foreigners. But, there are quite a lot of Germans flocking to Dutch and even Belgian cinemas in the border regions. Somehow I have the feeling the market for "OV" especially in urban areas is grossly underestimated at times. And times are also changing, people now often have the opportunity to choose their language at home, even on digital broadcasts and not just on DVDs and Blu Rays. I still remember those dual language broadcasts abusing stereo on German National TV and even subtitles via "Videotex(t)" (thank the Queen and BBC for that ), some early stereo sets couldn't handle it and you were stuck with two languages playing simultaneously.

Still, the only things improved by German dubbing are campy 80s TV series like The A-Team and Knight Rider .
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-20-2014, 07:27 PM:
 
Nice find Marcel , its too bad that the Varsity in Toronto is not playing the movie in 70mm. Toronto has a long, rich history of 70mm presentations dating back to the 60s.

What I don't see is that many major chains running the film in 70mm, all of the theaters on the list seem to be smaller players.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-21-2014, 11:13 AM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

So, at least two locations have to share a print?

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

What I don't see is that many major chains running the film in 70mm, all of the theaters on the list seem to be smaller players.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

It's not just burning discs off-course, you also need to encode it. Run the necessary quality controls on it, etc. But I forgot about the 35mm release, which will probably also get a DTS/Datasat release and German language discs, so it's probably not just a single copy.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Believe it or not - there will be no 35mm prints of Interstellar in germany. Zero. Nada.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

It is very true that there is a considerable market for OV, but the costs and conditions for the 70mm screening is such that I don't believe that distributor and exhibitor would risc it with an OV-only presentation. Of course, a few screenings with the US dts discs could actually bring in some additional attendance

---

No screenings in "OV" have yet been announced. It would've made a good combination alongside visiting some old friends . Of course, there still is the Odeon at Leicester Square in London, but I'm quite frankly not really impressed by that auditorium. And whoever decided to destroy the giant screen at the Empire just across the street deserves to be punished for his/her evil deeds.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-22-2014, 05:52 AM:
 
What happened at the Empire Leicester Square? I visited there in mid-1997 and thought that the picture and sound quality there were of top quality. I have not been to the Odeon across the street.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-22-2014, 06:40 AM:
 
They split their monumental "Screen 1" in two, one has become a Digital IMAX screen and the other one something they call an "IMPACT" screen.

You might want to check this blog post for some more info. There are also some pictures of the new "IMAX" screen on-line. Apparently, the current set of digital (IMAX) projectors are not able to use the whole screen...
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-22-2014, 01:27 PM:
 
Ugh. Sorry to hear that they split it. The big house at the Empire was a beautiful theatre and one of my favorites.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-22-2014, 04:59 PM:
 
Yeah, it's quite a loss. I'm rather certain they will regret this stupid move in the foreseeable future... There's a rather high quality YouTube video featuring the auditorium in its final days.

As you can see near the end of the movie, they only had one 35mm projector left in production, the last remaining DP70 was already parked against the back wall of the booth. They seemingly also never upgraded to 4K projection, which you probably would expect for such a high profile, giant screen.
 

---

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 10-23-2014, 11:46 AM:
 
Does anyone here know who they split Screen #1 at the Empire? Did they go down the middle with the bowling look or did they do It the correct way, kept the front section with 650 seats same size large wide screen and put another large wide 600 seat in the upper back part. Are the screens still a little curved. Thanks for the info in advance.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-23-2014, 01:30 PM:
 
The bigger, Digital IMAX screen is located in the part formerly known as "the circle", the stadium seated part in the back. They apparently needed to raise the original ceiling to fit the screen. The end result is a very wide and rather short room. The IMAX surround speakers are the biggest joke, the seats located in the back of the auditorium will be sitting behind them...
The IMAX screen retains some of the features of the original, majestic room, although everything is now dark grey.

The other screen, the so called "IMPACT" screen is located in the front section, where the stalls used to be. The "IMPACT" screen looks like a 13 in a dozen multiplex shoebox theater.
 

---

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 10-23-2014, 08:06 PM:
 
Thanks Marcel for the note. At least they didn't put a wall down the center like so many of the cheap United Artists Theatres did in the USA many years ago. I guess they have no curtains that open and close at the Empire.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-24-2014, 05:23 AM:
 
They just confirmed that Interstellar 70mm is running at Berlin in the german dubbed/dts version exclusively. So indeed DTS created a single disc set. Which probably made this german print even more expensive. They say more than 30.000US$

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 10-24-2014, 01:39 PM:
 

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

They just confirmed that Interstellar 70mm is running at Berlin in the german dubbed/dts version exclusively. So indeed DTS created a single disc set. Which probably made this german print even more expensive. They say more than 30.000US$

---

quote: Terry Monohan

---

I guess they have no curtains that open and close at the Empire.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

They just confirmed that Interstellar 70mm is running at Berlin in the german dubbed/dts version exclusively. So indeed DTS created a single disc set. Which probably made this german print even more expensive. They say more than 30.000US$

---

quote: Daniel Schulz

---

I don't mean to be pedantic, but Datasat is providing the discs for this release, not DTS. Normally I'm OK with the industry shorthand of using Datasat and DTS interchangeably, but the Datasat team is working so hard on this release (35mm and 5/70mm soundtracks in multiple languages, captions for 35mm and 5/70mm and subtitles in multiple languages for the IMAX film prints), that I feel like they should be acknowledged. We did indeed make a single Datasat disc for the German dub, and also for the Italian dub.

---

I didn't know you also do the subtitling for the IMAX prints. You do this for all IMAX prints (the remaining handful that might see the light of day nowadays) or just for the "DMR" features?

We'll give your team the thumbs up for all the efforts to make this possible. Most around here are pretty excited to see this stuff released on 5/70mm and I'm sure many are willing to travel a considerable amount of miles/kilometers/bloits just to see this movie in this format. It's pretty amazing what just the format can do, even without any guarantee the movie will actually be any good at all.

I don't mean to be pedantic either, but isn't *DTS* actually still the official name for this particular "digital audio for film" format, although Datasat is the only company supporting this format? (Probably also the only one licensed by the former mothership to do so?)

Maybe you should sell a bunch of Datasat stickers as an upgrade kit to rebadge old DTS equipment to Datasat .
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 10-24-2014, 04:29 PM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

I didn't know you also do the subtitling for the IMAX prints. You do this for all IMAX prints (the remaining handful that might see the light of day nowadays) or just for the "DMR" features?

---

quote:

---

We'll give your team the thumbs up for all the efforts to make this possible. [Wink] Most around here are pretty excited to see this stuff released on 5/70mm and I'm sure many are willing to travel a considerable amount of miles/kilometers/bloits just to see this movie in this format. It's pretty amazing what just the format can do, even without any guarantee the movie will actually be any good at all.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

I don't mean to be pedantic either, but isn't *DTS* actually still the official name for this particular "digital audio for film" format, although Datasat is the only company supporting this format? (Probably also the only one licensed by the former mothership to do so?)

---

quote:

---

Maybe you should sell a bunch of Datasat stickers as an upgrade kit to rebadge old DTS equipment to Datasat [Wink]

---

quote: Shawn M. Martin

---

The DTS logo has been in a few recent movies' credits: Elysium, Sabotage and Brick Mansions are some I recall.

---

Fair point - but it shouldn't have been. When we hear about one slipping through we try to contact the title house to correct the error.

I guess my point is that all of the equipment and staff for producing and supporting the film-sound-format-formerly-known-as-DTS went over to Datasat in the sale of the DTS cinema division.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-24-2014, 06:18 PM:
 
Keeping the DTS name would have benefited both parties. Familiarity and good will built up for the name benefits the cinema side. Connection to theatrical adds prestige to the home side.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-24-2014, 06:32 PM:
 
Exactly - the fact that the DTS brand is proving hard to kill is a testament to how successful and eponymous with high quality audio it is/was.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-24-2014, 07:02 PM:
 
The Datasat guys have been nothing short of awesome in helping keep film alive...especially 70mm. Regardless of which name they are referred to, a wholehearted THANK YOU is well deserved.

Daniel, Mike, everyone over there...THANK YOU for everything you do. You keep continuously setting the standard for quality service and genuinely caring about what you do.

On a similar note, the discussion popped up off site regarding what this 5/70 release of Interstellar will do to the future of the format if some of the theaters running it ends up hiring a yahoo to play in the role of projectionist or technician.

Think about it. Paramount is spending a ton of man-hours in just trying to get these screens booked. Theaters are trying to get their existing systems running or are racing to assemble systems to meet the date. At this stage the equipment chosen and most importantly, the installation technician, will have a major role in whether the presentation will be first class or not before the projectionist even gets on site.

Next comes the projectionist. The best install in the world will be destroyed with a less-than-great projectionist. The print could be ruined in one single pass. Or alternatively lazy projectionists without proper film cleaning practices will end up with a print littered with dust and dirt (eventually to become scratches).

Issues that happen in these regards will negate the entire purpose of a 70mm presentation. Think about it...even if everything went flawlessly and with sheer perfection, but the lens is of older optical technology or is just the wrong lens for the job, the entire efforts become a waste because an equal or better presentation could've been had with 35mm and quality 35mm lenses.

But worse yet, if the prints get dirty or scratched, the entire thing will be seen as a FAIL in the industry. This could seriously hurt the future of releases in 5/70. Remember these prints cost over $20,000.00 EACH!

Let's hope all of these systems were setup by quality technicians, with good equipment and are operated by truly qualified professional projectionists. Only ONE of the Titanic 70mm prints left the first engagement without any damage 17 years ago. This had better not have a similar outcome.

I loaned my personal equipment to the two SMG locations and the LOOK Cinemas free-of-charge to make those screens happen and I certainly want to see future 5/70 releases. If anyone here knows a projectionist running one of these 70mm Interstellar prints, tell them not to screw it up.

For any of those interested, here are the setups for a few of the 70mm installs. If anyone can chime in on the others, it would be interested to know what everyone is running.

SMG ROYAL screen 8 (Dallas TX)
*New installation (by Brad Miller/Dan Lyons)
*Film-Tech projection staff (Brad Miller/Dan Lyons/Jeremy Spracklen/Dwayne Caldwell/Emma Tomiak)
*Screen size approx 45 feet
*Century JJ projector with water cooling and heat filter
*Christie SLC lamphouse burning 6000 watt bulb
*Christie AW3R platter
*Custom oversize center rings (permits the platter to be calibrated to a slower top speed)
*Film-Tech Safety Rings (prevents the possibility of a thrown print)
*FilmGuard on every pass (wet gate projection and static elimination)
*Dual XD10s
*QSC BASIS sound processor
*QSC 4-way speakers
*Masking and aperture plate dead on with RP91

SMG ARLINGTON screen 2 (Arlington TX)
*New installation (by Brad Miller/Dan Lyons)
*Film-Tech projection staff (Brad Miller/Dan Lyons/Jeremy Spracklen/Dwayne Caldwell/Emma Tomiak)
*Screen size approx 45 feet
*Century JJ projector with water cooling and heat filter
*Christie SLC lamphouse burning 6000 watt bulb
*Christie AW3R platter
*Custom oversize center rings (permits the platter to be calibrated to a slower top speed)
*Film-Tech Safety Rings (prevents the possibility of a thrown print)
*FilmGuard on every pass (wet gate projection and static elimination)
*Dual XD10s
*QSC BASIS sound processor
*QSC 3-way speakers
*Masking and aperture plate dead on with RP91

LOOK CINEMAS screen 1 (Dallas TX)
*New installation (by Brad Miller/Dan Lyons)
*Film-Tech projection staff (Brad Miller/Dan Lyons/Jeremy Spracklen/Dwayne Caldwell/Emma Tomiak)
*Screen size approx 65 feet
*Century JJ projector with water cooling and heat filter
*Christie SLC lamphouse burning 6000 watt bulb
*Christie AW3R platter
*Custom oversize center rings (permits the platter to be calibrated to a slower top speed)
*Film-Tech Safety Rings (prevents the possibility of a thrown print)
*FilmGuard on every pass (wet gate projection and static elimination)
*Dual XD20s
*Dolby CP850 processor
*Klipsch speakers
*Masking and aperture plate dead on with RP91

ALAMO RITZ screen 1 (Austin TX)
*Existing installation (I believe by Richard Tucker)
*Alamo in-house projection staff (Dan Cofer/Jason Metcalfe/Sara Cushman/Ryan Croci/Tiernan O'Rourke/Joshua Brown)
*Screen size approx 45 feet??? (Alamo guys, please verify)
*Century JJ projector with water cooling and heat filter
*Strong Super Highlight 2 lamphouse burning 4000 watt bulb
*Changeover
*Single XD10
*Dolby CP650 processor
*JBL speakers
*Masking and aperture plate within acceptable cropping on RP91


 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-24-2014, 10:44 PM:
 
Amen to Brad's praises of Datasat.

quote: Brad Miller

---

Only ONE of the Titanic 70mm prints left the first engagement without any damage 17 years ago. This had better not have a similar outcome.

---

quote:

---

Sadly, The Master did have a similar outcome ... the 70mm release was plagued by damaged prints and technical problems.

---

quote:

---

quote:
Sadly, The Master did have a similar outcome ... the 70mm release was plagued by damaged prints and technical problems.
Is this actually true?

---

Yes. As I've posted before, when I saw it at the Ziegfeld in NYC a week into its run, it had dirt end to end. Don't know if it was a lab problem or whether someone dropped the print off of the platter. Also, it simply didn't look that good and if I didn't know that it was a 70mm print, I certainly wouldn't have realized it from looking at the screen image. It simply didn't have the brightness, sharpness or color depth I was expecting.

The Ziegfeld is a single-screen theatre that used to be known for its great presentation quality. Many premieres are still held there. (It was originally a Walter Rugoff theatre and opened in the mid-1960s as a modern-day movie palace. It was later purchased by Cineplex-Odeon, then became part of the Clearview chain in 1998. Clearview slowly closed most of its venues in NYC and with only a few left, sold the remaining theaters to Bow-Tie in 2013. Clearview actually still owns the Ziegfeld, but it's run by Bow-Tie).

If they can't do it right, I don't have much hope for theaters elsewhere.

I was so disappointed when I saw "The Master" that I decided that the age of film presentation was indeed over and that digital presentation, for all its faults, was indeed better. Hopefully, "Interstellar" will be done right and far superior, although I'm planning to see it in IMAX 70mm, not 70/5. Frankly, I have my doubts especially in the venues which are slap dashing a 70mm projector together for the presentation (obviously NOT the theaters that Brad is involved with.) How many of the projectionists who will be working the 70mm presentations have ever successfully presented a 70mm film before? The skills needed to load a DCP and those needed to present 70mm properly are entirely different.

When was the last time that Fincher saw a 70mm film projected in a typical commercial theatre and not a studio screening room? He may be expecting quality that he's not going to get.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-26-2014, 07:06 PM:
 
Are you confusing David Fincher with Christopher Nolan?

Fincher has been a big fan of digital and started shooting his movies with video cameras nearly a decade ago (I think Zodiac was his first digital-shot movie). Fincher did have one movie, Alien³ released with 70mm prints, but I'm under the impression he'd rather forget about that whole production experience.


Christopher Nolan may indeed have some unrealistic expectations about how good the 5/70mm shows of Interstellar may be. However, if there is going to be any attempt of reviving 5/70mm the attempt has to start somewhere.

Personally, my girlfriend and I have advance tickets booked at the LOOK Cinemas theater in Dallas for the Noon, Fri. Nov. 7 matinee. Can't take off earlier in the week for the first shows Tuesday evening or Wednesday since I'll be catching up with work after returning from a civic club trip to St. Louis. Later we're going to drive down to Austin and stay with some friends there so we can catch an IMAX 70mm show of Interstellar at the Bob Bullock Imax Theatre. I want to see how the movie plays in both 70mm formats.

I wonder if it will be possible to get a booth tour at LOOK.

 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 10-27-2014, 12:32 AM:
 
Brad, I'm sure I am speaking for more than myself in requesting photos of the setups running film for the picture library.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-27-2014, 01:28 AM:
 
Bobby, I believe I'm running the Friday shows at Look. Just give me a shout.

Sean, of course we will take pictures. Hopefully someone can get pictures of the other sites as well.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-27-2014, 12:13 PM:
 
I mentioned this thread to one of our programmers yesterday evening. He heard from contacts that three of the 15 5/70 prints of The Master came back from their opening bookings and were judged to be in an acceptable condition for further distribution: the rest were too scratched and/or dirty. Those three prints are available for booking, and one of them apparently remains in Europe (though he doesn't know precisely where).

Of course there are unanswered questions here: most importantly where was the line in the sand drawn between acceptable and not (in other words, has the bar been raised substantially higher than it was set when 5/70 was a mainstream format?)? But the fact that out of 15 copies, 12 sustained enough damage during a single engagement to degrade the viewing experience significantly is still somewhat depressing.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-27-2014, 10:13 PM:
 
The Interstellar website has added a page to report problems. I'm thrilled to see filmmakers showing so much interest in the presentation side of things.

quote:

---

THE QUALITY OF YOUR THEATRICAL EXPERIENCE IS IMPORTANT TO US.

---

http://www.interstellarmovie.com/quality/
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-27-2014, 10:39 PM:
 
Cineplex Varsity in Toronto will be playing Interstellar in 70mm
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-28-2014, 11:44 PM:
 
Thanks for posting that link, Geoff. It makes me want to see Interstellar at a theater now even though my only choice is digital unless I go to the Alamo. But I hear that proper masking confuses those guys. IMAX at Colorado Center is certainly out of the question. Who knows... maybe Regal will sell themselves by then and be under more qualified management!
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-30-2014, 02:38 PM:
 
Does anyone here know anything about the Willow Creek 12 near Minneapolis?

I might have an opportunity to travel to MN in a couple of weeks and was wondering if it would be worth checking out a 5-perf 70MM Interstellar showing while I was there...
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-30-2014, 03:30 PM:
 
Well, there's this video and also this video. to give you an idea of their setup.

Looks like an existing theater, probably from the late 80s with an original Simplex 3570 machine that the projectionist has flipped/swapped around to run 70mm on. They haven't handled 70mm in over 20 years, and the projectionist running it may or may not have been around at that time, so who knows how this will go for them.

Speaking of Interstellar and 70mm, this is about the sexiest thing I've seen in a long time.


 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-30-2014, 06:41 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

They haven't handled 70mm in over 20 years, and the projectionist running it may or may not have been around at that time, so who knows how this will go for them.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Speaking of Interstellar and 70mm, this is about the sexiest thing I've seen in a long time.

---

And what theater will end up with lucky number 7? Those locks don't look like a real challenge though, your hands must be all itchy now.

And remember, your name and fame will now always be connected with print #7.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-30-2014, 07:30 PM:
 
They actually put a fake title on the 70mm prints?
 

---

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 10-30-2014, 07:47 PM:
 
I can't imagine it gets sexier than that at all.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-30-2014, 08:29 PM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

They actually put a fake title on the 70mm prints?

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

And remember, your name and fame will now always be connected with print #7.

---

Yeah, until some moron plays the film after me and scratches it.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-30-2014, 08:48 PM:
 
Presumably that's an Imax and not a 5/70 print? If 5/70, each reel can only be about 5-6 minutes long, given the total length of the movie.

As for the security and false names, what a joke. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any 70mm scanners or telecines in existence at all. I've seen a 65mm spirit, but you physically couldn't get 70mm stock through the gate. Whereas I can understand a certain amount of security paranoia surrounding the 35mm prints (standard def 35mm telecines and scanners can be picked up for next to nothing, which is all you'd need to make pirate DVDs), a 70mm print would be quite simply impossible to copy, I'd have thought.
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 10-30-2014, 09:06 PM:
 
Man im so bummed i won't be able to see this in 70mm.

Wish I had it in my schedule to take a trip down to Texas.
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 10-30-2014, 10:36 PM:
 
Des Moines has it in 70mm Imax...

I plan to drive to Dallas for this over a weekend... Want me to come pick you up?

I imagine they'll have it a while, and I trust Brad and his crew enough to not screw it up for the length of the engagement. It'll probably look BETTER after a couple weeks.

Brad should totes schedule a Film-Tech screening night/booth tour!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-31-2014, 12:28 AM:
 
Leo, yes that is a 5/70 print...3 of them to be exact.

Also while there is no telecine, even the most phenomenal CAP coding and digital encryption can't stop someone from pointing a camera at the screen. I think that would understandably be the big concern at this point. So while a 70mm print wouldn't be as easy to copy as a 35mm, it could be done ghetto-style.

Buck, I'm happy to give tours if I know you're coming and I happen to be working the theater on the day you arrive.

Reel 8 will be interesting. As I was inspecting them I saw the timecode simply disappears towards the end of reel 8A...gone...poof! Then it comes back at the start of reel 8B. I can only hope the dts can "glide" over it instead of dropping to total silence from lack of timecode. Surely it can, as somebody must've QC's this before they made the prints. (Its in the negative that way, so it will affect all prints.)

It's interesting also that the image goes right to the sprockets (past where the internal magnetic tracks would sit and also as a result, past where the gates of most machines can even project. It's not a big deal as we're talking a super tiny amount of image there, but at least there won't be any of the random "hard matte edges" popping into the edges of the image like happened with Titanic the way these are printed.
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 10-31-2014, 07:14 AM:
 
Always great to see loads of 70mm cans. Last time I saw that many was when we did a 70mm festival in 2010.

Heres some pictures for the Film-Tech archive.








 

---

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-02-2014, 03:26 PM:
 
I had the good luck (or misfortune) to run a 35mm print of "Interstellar" yesterday. I know this thread has to do with 70mm prints, but this same observation may be common to the 70mm prints, as well -- though probably not.

The issue: in the 35mm prints, the changeover cues are extremely dark in many places, and the first one (the motor start cue at the end of R.1) is well-nigh invisible. I just mention this to all who might be enountering this movie as a single reel, changeover-type presentation, to check carefully for the cue(s). Of course, the 70mm prints may have the cues applied manually instead of printed-in cues from the IN as on the 35s, but the word to the wise would be: confirm that you can see the cues, esp. at the ends of reels 1, and 6 and 7!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-02-2014, 04:50 PM:
 
Paul, that comment should probably have been put in the section on "Feature Info".

So how good was the printing job? Steady/sharp?
 

---

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-02-2014, 05:11 PM:
 
(Maybe one of the moderators will move the posting -- that's above my pay grade).

The printing of "Interstellar" looked fine, to me. 'Course, I was almost 100' back from the screen... Really, I suspect the prints shouldn't have many issues, if for no other reason than that FotoKem (who made them) probably does not utilize those notorious super high speed printers that were common for the mass-producers of release prints (e.g., Deluxe and Technicolor), back in the days of release print runs of 5000 prints for a single title. Colors: typical desaturated tones for many interiors, and nice and sharp.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-02-2014, 06:03 PM:
 
Another small note about the film - apparently the surrounds are not very aggressive.

quote:

---

The most important thing, [Nolan] said, was the volume; he wanted a lot of simple power, and all of it coming right out of the screen. He didn’t put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didn’t want a lot of distraction from the sides.

---

quote:

---

Another small note about the film - apparently the surrounds are not very aggressive.

quote: The most important thing, [Nolan] said, was the volume; he wanted a lot of simple power, and all of it coming right out of the screen. He didn’t put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didn’t want a lot of distraction from the sides.

---

I don't know why this needs to be stated in an article, it simply takes away from the magic of the movies. People should go into the cinema and then draw their own conclusions.

As for his ambitious 35/IMAX film experiment, I really hope it goes well. There will be about 240 screens that run the movie in film, that leaves over 4000+ digital screens without any push from the director. Good thing he checked the sound at a few 35mm facilities but the vast majority of people (97%) will see the movie in digital and that last thing an average moviegoer (usually those are the people that could care less about film/digital) needs to hear is that they should see it in film, but they then realize they can't, so maybe they just won't.

Looks like the early reviews are good to positive but this movie is no slam dunk from what I am reading. This movie with its 169 minute run time, hyped up film push, not outstanding reviews and upcoming competition will really need the word of mouth to work in its favor.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-02-2014, 07:29 PM:
 
I'm glad to know this. It will keep me from thinking that the theater has screwed something up if I don't hear a lot from the surrounds.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-02-2014, 09:12 PM:
 
I'm not too surprised by comments that the Interstellar mix is front heavy. Aside from any philosophy of not wanting the sound mix to distract viewers from the screen, Nolan shot a significant amount of the movie in IMAX film format. IMAX theaters, at least in their current configuration, are not very good in terms of surround sound quality. By putting most of the sound behind the screen the surround limitations of those giant screen IMAX theaters won't be quite so noticeable.
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 11-02-2014, 11:29 PM:
 
Man Buck that would be awesome to road trip down there!! It would be a blast!! Unfortunatly my schedule wouldn't permit it.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-03-2014, 12:04 AM:
 

quote: Geoff Jones

---

I'm glad to know this. It will keep me from thinking that the theater has screwed something up if I don't hear a lot from the surrounds.

---

Or maybe it is just damage control by Nolan, anyway it should not matter if you are really into the movie you should not be distracted by whether the surrounds are working or not. You should be totally into the movie.
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 11-03-2014, 12:27 AM:
 
Jarod I work 365 days a year and am finding a way! Make it happen!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-03-2014, 12:58 AM:
 
Printing quality is good and the 70mm cues are hand scribed, so plenty noticeable for that one location running changeover.

(It's a joke Steve. I know other rep houses will need the cues.)
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-03-2014, 02:25 AM:
 
We ran a preview screening of one of the 35mm prints yesterday. The cues were lab cues printed from the IN, and were very faint. Several of the reels ended with very dark scenes, and some of the cues were not at all easy to spot.

If we get one of those prints back again in a few months' time, I'll be very surprised if someone hasn't put Clint Phare cues on it, or worse.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-03-2014, 03:04 AM:
 
Easy solution: Just use your hole puncher! [duck]

Now that we've heard that the sound mix focuses on the front channels, I guess it's true it's just a 5.1 mix?

quote:

---

He didn’t put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didn’t want a lot of distraction from the sides.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Easy solution: Just use your hole puncher! [duck]

---

That's effectively what a Clint Phare scriber is, if you press too hard.
 

---

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 11-03-2014, 12:35 PM:
 
70mm cues are hand scribed like Brad said, very easy to see which is nice.

I didn't hear it but apparently there was short DTS dropout midway through R8, did anyone else hear this?
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-03-2014, 12:37 PM:
 
Yeah, those are the "emulsion scratcher" kind... Not that I would want to advertise scratching a print on purpose, but at least they keep the structure of the film itself largely intact. I guess that holes do have some potential to tear in over time.

I've a vague recollection of somebody telling me about actual hole punchers for 35mm. So, I did a quick Google on it and it turns out Arri actually produced hole punchers as cue marking equipment, the post about it lead me right back to this forum actually .

quote: Jason Metcalfe

---

I didn't hear it but apparently there was short DTS dropout midway through R8, did anyone else hear this?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Reel 8 will be interesting. As I was inspecting them I saw the timecode simply disappears towards the end of reel 8A...gone...poof! Then it comes back at the start of reel 8B. I can only hope the dts can "glide" over it instead of dropping to total silence from lack of timecode. Surely it can, as somebody must've QC's this before they made the prints. (Its in the negative that way, so it will affect all prints.)

---

 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-03-2014, 01:01 PM:
 
Reel 8 played through without issue, despite there being no timecode for a good stretch. No doubt another couple of feet of film it WOULD have dropped though. I think they got really lucky.

That being said, all through the movie there are awkward drops to total silence. I don't understand why.

This is a proper example of sound design in the film...people are in their spacecraft and talking. Lights are beeping. There is ambient sound of the room. All of a sudden a hole bursts in the spacecraft and the camera changes to an external shot...SILENCE! In space there is no sound, so this makes total sense.

This is a WTF example of sound design in the film...people are in their spacecraft and talking. Lights are beeping. There is ambient sound of the room. Then there is a shot of the outside of the spacecraft...SILENCE! So far so good right? This makes sense. Then they go back to a shot inside the spacecraft...SILENCE! WTF??? Then they cut to another angle inside the spacecraft...ambient noise is back. This made no sense at all and gave the impression there was a dropout on that shot, but there were no dropouts. I sat there and watched one of my 70mm prints and the timecode never blipped nor did the sound drop during those examples.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-03-2014, 03:40 PM:
 
How did the "Starts Friday" ads look in the Sunday newspapers of cities playing Interstellar in 70mm?

I was in St. Louis late this past week and through the weekend because of a civic club convention. Traveling on I-44 all freaking Sunday eliminated any chance of picking up a National edition of the Sunday New York Times. I really wanted to see how the Interstellar ad looked in that paper, mainly to see if they revived some of that 1980's ad style with a full 1 page or 2 page ad and a big familiar 70mm logo.

If anyone has yesterday's Sunday editions of the NY Times, LA Times or Sunday papers from Austin, Toronto or other cities showing Interstellar in 70mm please check them for those ads. Please share images of those ads here or in a thread the moderators find more appropriate.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-03-2014, 03:46 PM:
 
I could not find any ad for INTERSTELLAR in the NY Times Sunday paper. There was a feature article on the director in the Magazine section.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-03-2014, 04:15 PM:
 
Does the Sunday NY Times still have the separate "Arts and Leisure" section? The movie ads should be in there, unless the movie theaters and movie studios stopped buying ad space in the paper.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-03-2014, 04:59 PM:
 
This week, the Sunday NY Times had the traditional Arts & Leisure section along with a feature section highlighting upcoming movies. INTERSTELLAR was mentioned, but with no ad.
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 11-03-2014, 05:01 PM:
 
I hear ya Buck! Unfortunatly my schedule hang up is health related as I just had back surgery and Im doing PT that I can't get out of.

We have got to get together sometime in the future at KC maybe and meet up and see a couple flicks.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-03-2014, 05:23 PM:
 

quote: Jason Metcalfe

---

70mm cues are hand scribed like Brad said, very easy to see which is nice.

---

quote: IndieWire (my italics)

---

Many independently owned movie theaters around the country just upgraded to DCP, but now they're putting their 35mm and 70mm projectors back together in order to screen "Interstellar."

Christopher Nolan has been vocal about his support for film, so it wasn't a huge surprise when Paramount and Warner Bros. said they'd release "Interstellar" two days early (starting November 5) on 70mm, IMAX and 35mm. Then, on November 7, the film will open wide in 4K and IMAX digital screenings.

"To see Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar on the big screen is an unforgettable movie going experience," said Rob Moore, Vice Chairman of Paramount Pictures, in a statement. "From IMAX to traditional film and digital projection, we are pleased that audiences will have the opportunity to see this awe-inspiring film in a wide variety of formats and we are very excited to be making the film available two days early for moviegoers."

Ironically, earlier this year, Paramount became the first studio to stop sending film prints out to theaters.

Paramount lists the theaters playing the film in various formats (IMAX 70mm film, 70mm film, 35mm film, IMAX, 4K digital, digital) on its web site. But while film purists are thrilled, many theaters have expressed annoyance with the plan which, in some cases, means reassembling their 35mm or 70 mm projectors -- or missing out on the early audiences flocking to see the buzzed-about film.


CineMagic's 35mm film

Some theater owners are miffed at the mixed messages Hollywood is sending -- first, they are pressured to convert to expensive digital projection systems and now they must scramble to outfit their theaters with 35mm or 70mm projection systems (you can see where the film is screening in various formats here).

"This devalues what we've done," Joe Paletta, CEO and founder of Spotlight Theatres, a small chain in Georgia that recently went all digital, told The Hollywood Reporter. "I can't afford to get the projectors out of the warehouse for two days, and I don't even have anyone to operate them."

However, a handful of independently owned theaters around the country are seeing the return to film as an opportunity to reassemble their projectors and draw audiences.

Nick Kuechler, the manager at Portland's Cinemagic Theater, said he recently spend a few days cobbling together a "new" 35mm projector "with the best pieces from different theaters." But as a former technician, the job was a pleasure and Kuechler is confident it will pay off financially.

"By giving 35mm a couple of days to open early, it's not a gamble," he said. "Even people who don't care about the format will want to see it. For a couple of days, we'll be one of the only places in town to see it. At the very worst, we're not going to lose any money."

In fact, Kuechler thinks the opportunity to screen "Interstellar" in 35mm is "pretty cool. They gave us a way to justify it financially, beyond it being a little pet project."

His projector is now in "to stay," said Kuchler, although he added that "I don't know how often I'll get to use it."

Other small theaters are scrambling to assemble film projectors and, in some cases, are seeing it as a way to "eventize" the movie even further, even going so far as to post videos of their print preparations on YouTube. Willow Creek Cinemas Twelve in Minnesota posted on YouTube that they are "honored" to be opening "Interstellar" on 70mm and shared the below to showcase some of the preparations they've made to screen the film.

---

quote: Paul H. Rayton

---

For example, when "The Maze Runner" opened back last summer, I looked for the so-called co-op display ads which feature the movies' artwork and, typically at the bottom, a list of the local theaters which are showing it. None, not a single ad.

---

quote:

---

And Maze Runner was not the only movie from this past summer with no display advertising presence. I guess the powers that be in the movie advertising realms don't think newspapers are read by their target audiences (late teens & twenty-somethings) any more. Makes me feel really old fashioned 'cuz thats where I look for my movie info!

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

I truly hope that picture is a joke! But sorry to sound like a moaning minnie - cobbled together Frankenstein projectors for the opening of a mega-blockbuster?! I also hope that the two film preview days go well for everyone, obviously.

---

Certainly not bad for their first run on a cobbled together Frankenstein platter. I would expect more blood, limbs scattered around, etc.

But yeah, you could ask yourself if it's really that hard to come up with a more sophisticated picture, showing off 35mm film...
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 11-04-2014, 05:43 AM:
 
Here is how big Interstellar is on the IMAX platter. Its almost over the edge.

http://youtu.be/oKaMFlvTQz0
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-04-2014, 08:16 AM:
 

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

But yeah, you could ask yourself if it's really that hard to come up with a more sophisticated picture, showing off 35mm film...

---

quote:

---

DIGITAL
The digital presentation of INTERSTELLAR has been created from 4 and 8k scans of the photochemically- color graded film elements, fine-tuned in the digital realm to maximize the color and contrast attributes of digital projectors, and dust-busted to achieve the cleanest and most stable image presentation possible. The film was mastered in 4k for the highest digital resolution currently available.

---

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-04-2014, 08:50 AM:
 
That "ways to see Interstellar" page has 4K listed as one of the d-cinema options. Unfortunately I rarely ever see 4K mentioned at a movie theater web site unless it's AMC promoting its Sony 4K projectors. The movie studios and theaters never tell the movie going public directly whether a movie's DCP was rendered in 2K or 4K. They just say "digital" and that it. Well, my TV set is "digital" too, I suppose that makes it every bit as good as the theatrical experience.


I used to pick up a copy of the Dallas Morning News at the convenience store down my street on some occasions, such as checking movie ads for a road trip down to DFW. I tried to pick up a copy this morning and they didn't have any. It turns out the store stopped carrying copies of the Daily Oklahoman from Oklahoma City and Dallas Morning News years ago.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-2014, 01:08 PM:
 
To the cowardly geezer who emailed me from a privacy address, by "hand scribed" cues on the previous page I did not mean someone took an exacto knife and drew little circles in the film. I also never said 70mm versions of the Clint Phare scriber never existed. Of course they were done with a 70mm Clint Phare or similar scriber. Duh!

Do you feel better now Mr.Anonymous "real IATSE operator"?

Get a life.
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 11-04-2014, 02:55 PM:
 

quote:

---

Buck I missed from your posts that you said weekend. I read it incorrectly as weekday. Duh on me lol. I think I could do it this weekend or next!! Or absolutely a weekend when Brad is there.

---

quote:

---

Of course they were done with a 70mm Clint Phare or similar scriber. Duh!

---

quote:

---

quote: Jason Metcalfe
70mm cues are hand scribed like Brad said, very easy to see which is nice.
Not for the audience!

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Do you feel better now Mr.Anonymous "real IATSE operator"?

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

I suspect, therefore, that the photo is a sarcastic joke.

---

quote: Rick Raskin

---

Jeez, most of the audience won't even see the cues or, for that matter, if they do, have any idea of what they are. And for sure they won't care.

---

They're there so you can tell the sheeple what they are and make you look wise and intelligent in the process .
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-04-2014, 07:11 PM:
 
I would be very disappointed to see one of the very last movie releases on film and not noticing the cues.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 11-05-2014, 01:27 AM:
 
Cool Buck If Im free Im game!
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 11-05-2014, 08:08 AM:
 
By all accounts, the 70mm IMAX invitation only press screening at the Metreon
in San Francisco was a DISASTER.

First-hand accounts I got last night from people who were actually there was
that the dialogue was almost unintelligible for the first half of the movie.

As for the 2nd half of the movie- - NOBODY SAW IT! !

About 2hrs into the movie, the sound went totally dead for several minutes
before they finally got around to stopping the film. After a considerable
amount of time, they got it running again, but it was badly out of sync.

So they stopped it again to fix it. When it went back on screen the
sync problem was even worse. This was repeated a couple of times.

After appx 45min of dicking around with the projection equipment
during which the film was started & stopped multiple times, they
finally canceled the screening. But by then most of the people had
walked out anyway.

The movie reviewer in this mornings SF Chronicle wrote:
"Yesterday, I was at a screening of INTERSTELLAR, anticipating a long night
of writing the review in order to get it up online and to our sister Hearst
publications in time for their deadlines.

The movie is 170 minutes long, and around the 135-minute point, right in
the middle of a major sequence, the sound went out. And stayed out.

For the next 45 minutes, people struggled in the control booth to
resuscitate the movie. During one of the two long breaks, I tried to
convince the publicists to run the rest of the movie in silence.

I was on deadline. If I didn’t see the rest of the movie, I couldn’t review it"

. . . and a couple of paragraphs later:
"Anyway, they couldn’t get the sound to work and we were all sent home. "

Link To Complete Story
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-05-2014, 08:37 AM:
 
Nice going IMAX!

I'm not familiar with this site at all. Is this one that has gone to Liemax and then is now running film just for this engagement or is one that is normally a 15/70 theatre? Just trying to figure out why it chose this event to have issues. Clearly, IMAX does not normally have this sort of problem in the day-to-day 15/70 theatres so I'm wondering if it was bad luck, bad sound pressing or just a rush job of getting it going.

How about the 5/70 sites? Any press screenings from them? I'm sure the ones in Texas should be awe inspiring.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-05-2014, 09:36 AM:
 
70mm ran flawlessly at the Grand Lake Oakland last night to a full house. I'm still sorting out what it's all about . Dialog was difficult, very busy mix. Seems intentional as whatever was said seems to get covered a little later.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 11-05-2014, 09:49 AM:
 

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

Dialog was difficult, very busy mix.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It makes me wonder if the theater did a QC screening to make sure everything worked properly. A canceled show, particularly in some sort of VIP screening, is indeed a disaster. However, I would consider it more of a "total" disaster if the film print had been chewed up in the projector.

---

quote:

---

Per Previous advisement, you are authorized to cut the locks from the containers at this time.

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

Does the timecode light go out on the player and the reader when it happens

---

These pictures should clearly answer that question. This is what I was commenting about a few pages back from my bench inspections.

The timecode drops towards the end of reel 8A...


And then it returns at the start of reel 8B...

 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 11-05-2014, 07:08 PM:
 
Brad - I noticed from your pictures that the sprocket holes on the left intrude into the picture. Is that normal for 5/70? If so does this mean image is reduced for when projected? Is any of the DP's composition compromised?
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-05-2014, 07:26 PM:
 
Went to the 8PM screening Tuesday night at the Indiana State Museum IMAX in Indianapolis, IN.

I verified they QC'd the print when the staff was raving about how good it was during the walkup, which was reassuring. They also said they turned up the sound while introducing the film. The audience roared with applause.

The image was terrific. I've missed seeing film, especially large format. A visually stunning presentation.

The audio was appropriate for the film, save for dialogue being buried in the mix. At times, you could not hear what they were saying during sequences of loud music or effects. This may have been a deliberate artistic choice, but one that I felt was not needed.

I highly encourage people to see this at least once in 15/70 if you can. I'd be curious to get to a 5/70 screening if there were any nearby to see if the image is as engrossing.

Forget if it was mentioned, but the studio has setup a site to report problems here.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-05-2014, 08:20 PM:
 

quote: Mark Campbell

---

I noticed from your pictures that the sprocket holes on the left intrude into the picture. Is that normal for 5/70? If so does this mean image is reduced for when projected? Is any of the DP's composition compromised?

---

quote:

---

I've missed seeing film,

---

quote: Mark Campbell

---

I noticed from your pictures that the sprocket holes on the left intrude into the picture.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

For the DTS-6D, the default drop-out according to the manual is six seconds, that is not much. However, it may be possible that DTS could have individual programming for features without a fallback format. Maybe the DSV allows for longer breaks.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

My understanding is that the program code used to decode the audio is actually on the CD rather than the firmware of the unit (the dts.exe file), and loaded every time a CD set is booted.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

In fact, in the case of 70mm, I can't think of any argument against letting the sound run wild either until the end of the movie or until it can read a timecode again.

---

Mostly agreed, although I would probably make it expect timecode at the start of each new reel, since there would likely be a sync problem with either changeovers (probably not frame-accurate) or platters (reference frames left on heads/tails).

Interestingly, many cinema projectors run at pretty much dead-on 24fps (long story, but I have actually tested this), so DTS running without timecode would probably be just fine even for a minute or so.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 11-06-2014, 03:26 PM:
 
Just FYI>

Somebody forwarded me this link to a blog of reported Interstellar 'sound issues"
and show crashes from around the globe. Many complaints about the sound mix.

I can't make any comments on the sound mix, since I had to watch 'Interstellar'
in MONO last night. (Don't even think of asking me why . . ! )

I'm not going to attempt to cut-&-paste the blog here since it's constantly
being updated, but HERE'S THE LINK
 

---

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 11-06-2014, 04:32 PM:
 
I actually went out with a friend to see Interstellar at Angelika Mosaic last night. They screened a 35mm print and had Dolby SRD installed. The projectionist last night I believe was Andrew Jorgenson (I hope I spelled your name right) and the print was pristine with just about the tiniest of scratches. For the most part, a normal person could mistake it for a digital show, or wouldn't know the difference. Aside from some framing issues, it was a clean presentation.

Interstellar has, I believe, the greatest sound mix in a Nolan movie yet. During the loud parts, I was able to understand 90% of the dialogue (two or three lines I only felt were obscured). What really impressed me, considering the complaints on the Internet, there was a segment that lasted 40-60 seconds in either Reel 5 or 6 (I'll refrain from spoilers) which had an enormous, loud, deep LFE bass that just keeps going, and going, and every little bit of dialogue, sound effects, and music was heard clearly during the aural quake.

I don't really blame Nolan on this, I would blame IMAX for their speaker system sounding as the equivalent to what a flat-screen TV's Dynamic or Vivid setting looks like.

35mm Picture & Sound quality: A
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-06-2014, 06:18 PM:
 

quote: Connor Wilson

---

Aside from some framing issues, it was a clean presentation.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

"Some" framing issues? Did it run out of frame or was it just "slightly" out of frame for a while?

To me if it's EVER out of frame AT ALL, then it's not a clean presentation.

---

quote: Connor Wilson

---

the print was pristine with just about the tiniest of scratches

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Interestingly, many cinema projectors run at pretty much dead-on 24fps (long story, but I have actually tested this), so DTS running without timecode would probably be just fine even for a minute or so.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

For those of you complaning about the sound mix... have you EVER heard a Christopher Nolan movie with a good sound mix? Think about it. I bet you haven't. Dude loves awful sound. Remember Bane in the first Batman Rises trailer? People bitched and moaned so much saying they couldn't understand shit that he brought up the dialog levels a bit for the actual release (I read somewhere that he went back and "cleaned it up" or something). Dude wants his dialog probably -3db to -5db of where it should be. He's just a weird fellow and not the best person to finalize a sound mix. Theaters might want to adjust the center channel volume up a tad to take into account for Nolan's dialog mixing ineptitude. Dude also can't shoot or edit a fight scene for shit

---

The sound mix for Interstellar really sucked. I agree that theaters should adjust the center channel. I tried watching The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises on bluray the other day, and I couldn't stand the mix. It did not sound like a normal movie.

Yet Inception won Oscars for the mix and editing
 

---

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 11-07-2014, 08:42 AM:
 
Brad

Since this is a 4K DCP, was the Barco a 4K or a 2K? Saw a 70mm print in Atlanta on Wednesday and was looking forward to seeing it on my 4K Barco when I get back into town today to compare.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-07-2014, 08:45 AM:
 
Here's your NY Times full-page ad from this morning's paper, Bobby. They didn't put much effort into it. They don't even post the show times.




 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2014, 01:53 PM:
 
Denver, Colorado Center 9 IMAX 70mm film. Today 12:00 pm (known as "noon" in some languages). Disaster. Movie started late. Paramount logo came up. Then black. Lights came up. Audience refunded.

Full disclosure: I was not there, but Jen was. She said that they told the audience there was an error and hoped to have it fixed by the 3:30 show.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-07-2014, 03:27 PM:
 

quote: Mark Campbell

---

I noticed from your pictures that the sprocket holes on the left intrude into the picture. Is that normal for 5/70? If so does this mean image is reduced for when projected? Is any of the DP's composition compromised?

---

Mark... The image below is a frame of 70mm test-alignment film. The gray-shaded portion represents the recommended area of the frame to be projected.


 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-07-2014, 03:29 PM:
 
Just heard from some friends who attended 70mm Varsity that the image quality was below expectations and that there were some issues with understanding some of the dialog in the second half of the film.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2014, 03:31 PM:
 
Correction. Audience was NOT refunded. Audience was issued passes. That's pretty shady if you ask me. $18 ticket and if you use your pass anywhere else you waste money.

It has been reported on the Interstallar online report page.
 

---

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 11-07-2014, 05:31 PM:
 
"Just heard from some friends who attended 70mm Varsity that the image quality was below expectations and that there were some issues with understanding some of the dialog in the second half of the film."

Funny, as I've been getting great feedback on the visual presentation at Varsity 8. The sound part I can understand though.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-07-2014, 07:26 PM:
 
Joe that's absolutely terrible...

At my showing, I talked to someone who came down from Fort Collins, an hour and a half each way (more with traffic). It wouldn't surprise me if there were folks at Jen's showing who had come from that far or farther.

We can send spaceships to Saturn but the idiots at Regal (and the other screwed up locations) can't run a damn film? Sadness.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-07-2014, 07:48 PM:
 
Would an NY Times ad like that normally have showtimes in it? I don't see anything wrong with the ad, personally...it tells something about the film, makes people want to go see it, and tells them where it is playing and it what format. I suppose that it could have included 35mm sound formats, but I haven't seen that in a newspaper ad in years. And does anyone--even the people here--realy care whether a film is being shown in SRD or DTS?
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 11-07-2014, 09:10 PM:
 

quote: Geoff Jones

---

We can send spaceships to Saturn but the idiots at Regal (and the other screwed up locations) can't run a damn film? Sadness.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Movie started late. Paramount logo came up. Then black. Lights came up.

---

Did they blow a lamp? I've heard that those 15K lamps in 1570 machines can be a bugger to change.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-07-2014, 09:47 PM:
 
Would be interesting to see a thrown 15/70 print. Of all 15/70 prints to throw, this would make the biggest mess.

Are those little screw on under-side clamps REALLY strong enough to keep it from launching if the platter went screwy?
 

---

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 11-07-2014, 10:24 PM:
 
It would look a little something like this.


 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-07-2014, 11:24 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

If anyone has yesterday's Sunday editions of the NY Times, LA Times or Sunday papers from Austin, Toronto or other cities showing Interstellar in 70mm please check them for those ads. Please share images of those ads here or in a thread the moderators find more appropriate.

---

From today's Los Angeles Times....






 

---

Posted by Matthew McBride (Member # 6598) on 11-08-2014, 07:31 AM:
 

quote: Jason Whyte

---

It would look a little something like this.

---

Oh my. That would not be a fun task cleaning that up. Not to mention all the potential damage that could happen.
 

---

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 11-08-2014, 10:00 AM:
 
Saw it Thursday night at Grand Lake in Oakland, screen 1. 70mm changeover on AA-IIs. Looked beautiful; bright,steady, no scratches or dirt. One lab splice in last reel. Sound was very good except for overpowering music in the mix. First two trailers were digital, then switched to film.
This is my favorite local theater. No commercials, presentation is always topnotch.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 11-08-2014, 10:17 AM:
 
Grand Lake is playing off a platter. It is capable of changeover operation but not running that way.
 

---

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 11-08-2014, 11:12 AM:
 
My bad, sorry.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-08-2014, 01:44 PM:
 
There is a lab splice in every reel on every 70mm print at the AB join. I'm assuming you saw an additional lab splice in the last reel??? Or did you have a quick blip in the audio at the AB splice and assumed that was the only lab splice? (There is missing timecode on the negative there.)
 

---

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 11-08-2014, 02:46 PM:
 
That's the only lab splice I saw go through. It may very well have been the AB splice, but there was no audio blip. There was absolutely no dirt or signs of handling on this print.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-08-2014, 03:53 PM:
 
So it was mid-frame?
 

---

Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 11-08-2014, 04:07 PM:
 
Yes
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-09-2014, 09:09 AM:
 
I like the way the Fandango app puts this: presented in . . . um . . . film! I remember a time when that wouldn't have been the remarkable thing.


 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 11-09-2014, 10:53 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

It's official. Here is the list:

Studio Movie Grill Royal (Dallas TX)
Studio Movie Grill Arlington (Arlington TX)
Look Cinemas (Dallas TX)
Alamo Ritz (Austin TX)
Cinerama Dome (Hollywood CA)
Grand Lake (Oakland CA)
Zeigfield (New York NY)
City Cinemas (New York NY)
Cine Bistro Brookhaven (Atlanta GA)

---

We can add to this list the following international locations:

Odeon Leicester Square (London)
Imperial Bio (Copenhagen)
Zoo Palast (Berlin)
Arcadia (Milan)
Grand Mercure (Elbeuf, France)
Cineplex Odeon Varsity (Toronto)
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-09-2014, 12:46 PM:
 
They take about a hour to change with 2 people
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 11-09-2014, 01:07 PM:
 
Could explain the lost show.
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-09-2014, 01:24 PM:
 
Anyone know how the presentation quality is at the Cinebistro location in Atlanta?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2014, 01:38 PM:
 
If your profile is still accurate, that location is in your neighborhood. Go check it out for us.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2014, 04:37 PM:
 
Here are some pictures of the LOOK Cinemas 70mm setup.


The booth used to be just barely big enough to fit the Barco projector (on a super tiny pedestal), two sound racks and a skinny tech. We had to enlarge it appropriately to make a workable environment for the 70mm film. (The rear wall of the booth used to be where the rear of the digital pedestal was.)


These are the existing sound racks, which were taken apart and reworked to permit the dual dts XD20 players to be installed that you see near the top of the left rack. Yes this is an Atmos system.


The sound racks were moved from their original location and totally rewired (by me) to get rid of the previous rat's nest from a previous installer. The 70mm console had to be put on wood blocks to get it just high enough so we could align the crazy lens setup for such a large screen with such a short throw.


Yes that is a 1.26 magnifier from the DLP world in front of that lens. It was the only possible way to be able to fill the 65 foot screen with the crazy short throw, which we accomplished right down to the 0% cropping mark on the RP91 target film. Alignment of the lensing was terribly critical. 1/4 inch in any direction and vignetting occurs. (The RP91 was still able to resolve the thinnest lines in the target.)

Because of the lensing (and port window size) limitations, the projector had to literally be that close to the wall, as such we had to remove the two soundhead doors.

Yes we removed some of the optical soundhead parts, as we felt the clearance was too tight to be comfortable.

Also due to the low ceiling, the film had to be brought downward then back up via rollers so as not to make the twist on the film too extreme.

Quick trivia, this projector came from Datasat's screening room. It was projector #2. I purchased them a couple of years ago.


A shot of the platter's film path. Of course no presentation is complete without FilmGuard.


Film-Tech Safety Rings are used to protect the print from sliding (although the film has not even slightly shifted) and extra large center rings were assembled so the platter could be re-calibrated to a significantly slower maximum speed than with normal rings.


This is the auditorium, complete with motorized leather recliners.


The screen is 65 feet wide, it reaches 9 inches from each side wall of the auditorium and this entire front end was redone for 70mm (and also to benefit future digital showings). The motorized masking is curved and bunches up on the side walls, hence the ability to create a properly masked screen that still reaches wall-to-wall when in scope.

The preshow and trailers for Interstellar in 70mm are presented via the Barco in flat. At the feature the masking opens up to scope and an automated digital to 70mm film changeover occurs. There is a 60 second preroll on the 70mm (not the usual 8 seconds). Preshow is presented as a collapsed mono signal. Trailers open up stereo with left, center and right. Then the feature kicks in the full 5.1 system (surrounds and subwoofer). Appropriate volume changes between formats are also automated.

The 70mm system is my personal equipment on loan to LOOK Cinemas free of charge. LOOK however did spend quite a pretty penny on construction costs to make this happen on their end.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-09-2014, 05:41 PM:
 
That's Awesome Brad!!
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 11-09-2014, 05:41 PM:
 
FANTASTIC!! I love it!

That sound rack work is beyond worthy of http://www.reddit.com/r/cableporn

I also love the light up Film-Tech rack mount things
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-09-2014, 06:51 PM:
 
Very cool, Brad. And kudos to you for letting them use your gear.

One question - are those motorized recliners completely silent? There are some scenes in Interstellar that are...
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2014, 07:45 PM:
 
I haven't noticed the motorized recliners making any noise, but even if they did I doubt most people are futzing with them halfway through Interstellar. I would think most people would get a setting they are happy with well before the movie starts.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2014, 10:39 PM:
 
The recliners do make a bit of fart like noise from the leather or what ever material the seats are made of rubbing as the foot rest is extended or retracted. But this could also be a combination of the person moving around in the chair and maybe being a little on the heavy side. My girlfriend and I experienced this first-hand watching Interstellar in 5/70mm there at LOOK Cinemas this past Friday. Some fellow off to the right in our row was messing with his seat during a quiet scene. I whispered to Cynthia, "chair fart."

The projection quality was great, even if the image quality of the movie itself wasn't as great as it should have been. The sound mix was indeed muddy and even unintelligible in some parts. Christopher Nolan and his crew made some odd artistic choices with regard to the movie's sound and visuals. Even though it hypes 5/70mm and 15/70mm Interstellar isn't really the best showcase for either of those formats.

Cynthia and I watched Interstellar again Saturday evening in Austin Bob Bullock IMAX theater in Austin. Sold out show. I'm happy to say the 15/70mm projection was flawless. I have a theory that museum-based IMAX theaters do a better job showing IMAX movies than multiplex theaters. I chose this theater, instead of watching it a few miles down LBJ Freeway in Dallas at Cinemark's theater, because the Bob Bullock IMAX theater is one of less than a handful of true IMAX theaters in this region that has been showing IMAX film prints continuously. I was concerned Cinemark's crew might not have their 15/70mm IMAX film handling chops up to snuff.

Thanks to Mike and Mark for posting images of those Interstellar ads. I glanced at a NY Times issue earlier this morning at a Starbucks location and saw a huge 2 page ad for Interstellar. I'm somewhat disappointed they handled the 70mm and 70mm IMAX listings in such a PLAIN fashion. No classic 70mm logo or anything with any visual pizzazz.

To answer another question about showtimes in those NY Times ads, it really depended on the movie. Some of the "Starts Friday" ads in the Sunday paper would just have the movie theater name and phone number. In some cases the showtimes would be provided. The "Opens Today" ads in Friday issues would sometimes include showtimes for Manhattan theaters, but then only list theater names and phone numbers for locations outside Manhattan.
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 11-10-2014, 01:50 AM:
 
Awesome Brad!! Truely top-notch. Those Film-Tech back lit soundracks look super cool!
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-10-2014, 04:35 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

I'm running the 70mm at Look Cinemas tonight and now that it has finally been released digitally this evening, went to the other large auditorium to do a side-by-side comparison of the 70mm vs. digital on a Barco 32B.

---

I've seen it on a DP4K-32B and a DP2K-23B. I'm not (yet) able to compare it to 70mm or even 35mm, as there's no film around here. I'm certain the 70mm version, if done right, will look brighter and will have more contrast than any current digital presentation does have to offer though.

The 4K presentation looked rich and detailed. Although there's obviously no aspect-ratio switcheroo in the regular DCP versions, you could still easily see the transition between the IMAX film and 35mm footage in the 4K presentation as the increase in detail and lack of film grain is almost instantly noticeable in many scenes. This was much less apparent in the 2K presentation, unfortunately, a lot of detail gets lost there.

The biggest downside of digital projection as of now, is the lack of true black, which becomes rather obvious for movies set in space. Space should be a dark place, not a place with an omnipresent grey hue. Also important to enjoy this, is proper masking. This movie must really be a pain to watch on those oversized three-letter "premium" common-width screens.

The movie is highly popular around here, drawing more public than any of those summer blockbusters up until now. But the runtime makes it hard to pack two shows on a single night into a single auditorium. As a result, the movie gets booked into smaller auditoria (usually not equipped with 4K projectors) for the later runs. That really is a pity, as those who will see it there, will get a sub-par visual experience.
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 11-10-2014, 08:29 AM:
 
Caught the film in 15/70mm in Toronto at Scotia Bank Place. Good presentation, loud but not painful loud. IMAX footage is crazy, 35mm not so much. Could hear the projector in the silent sections. Not a very good movie though 2001 blows it out of the water.
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 11-10-2014, 12:26 PM:
 
Los Angeles Times, Sunday 11/9/2014, Section D pages 8 & 9 - (big shock: just like the 1 page ad, only bigger!):



No, they didn't make the film options jump off the page at all.

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

...I have a theory that museum-based IMAX theaters do a better job showing IMAX movies than multiplex theaters.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

The biggest downside of digital projection as of now, is the lack of true black, which becomes rather obvious for movies set in space. Space should be a dark place, not a place with an omnipresent grey hue

---

The 70mm showing I saw had blacks like a.69 DLP.
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 11-10-2014, 07:03 PM:
 
I like the use of 15/70 IMAX leader. Nice touch.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-10-2014, 07:51 PM:
 
Nice pictures.

Brad--thanks for making this happen. Anything to promote film done right in general and 70mm done right in particular gets a from me.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2014, 08:11 PM:
 
Nobody makes 5/70 leader anymore and getting a frame line every 3 pulldowns is plenty good enough to do the job. A big thanks to the super nice IMAX projectionists who sent me a few boxes of scrap leader.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-11-2014, 07:39 AM:
 

quote: Geoff Jones

---

are those motorized recliners completely silent?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

I doubt most people are futzing with them halfway through Interstellar.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Some fellow off to the right in our row was messing with his seat during a quiet scene.

---

MURPHY'S LAW!!!


 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-11-2014, 06:02 PM:
 
Murphs* Law from now on...

* Who names their daughter Murph anyway? Or was it just for this one "funny" line in a 169m movie?

quote: Andrew Thomas

---

The 70mm showing I saw had blacks like a.69 DLP.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

So it was mid-frame?

---

Maybe I'm going slightly bananas, but I actually noticed something which looked like a lab splice in the DCP version today in one of those early corn-field scenes. You'd expect something like that to be digitally removed, but maybe Nolan liked the idea of leaving imperfections in the DCP, just like the slight "film jitter" which is clearly visible in the studio logos and credits, which would otherwise have been taken care off digitally.
 

---

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 11-12-2014, 12:59 AM:
 
Early in the movie there's a very tiny hair in the VERY top left of the frame in one shot. Also saw slight film dirt every now and again...and I was watching a DCP.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-16-2014, 03:41 PM:
 
Here are some pictures of the SMG Arlington 70mm setup.


A shot of the equipment setup from the right side.


A shot of the equipment setup from the left side.


This roller exists purely to assist with keeping film off of the floor during threading. Once the film path on the right side of the digital projector has been fully threaded, the operator can walk to the left side of the digital projector, grab the film off of this roller and finish threading the projector.


This is a shot of the completed threading path. As anyone who knows anything about film, no presentation is complete without FilmGuard. And as always Film-Tech Safety Rings are used to protect the film from sliding and extra large center rings were assembled so the platter could be re-calibrated to a significantly slower maximum speed than with normal rings.


The 70mm playback is via dual XD10s, located here in the digital pedestal. The output enters a QSC BASIS 922az where it is injected into the auditorium's BASIS system via cobranet audio. Note the two rollers above the electrical wireway to permit people to walk right up to the windows and not accidentally "walk into the film".



The 70mm projector is a Century JJ with the penthouse removed. As this site will never run magnetic 70mm film, it made threading a bit easier.

Just as with LOOK Cinemas, the preshow and trailers for Interstellar in 70mm are presented via the digital projector in flat. At the feature the masking opens up to scope and an automated digital to 70mm film changeover occurs. There is a 60 second preroll on the 70mm (not the usual 8 seconds). Preshow is presented as a collapsed mono signal. Trailers open up stereo with left, center and right. Then the feature kicks in the full 5.1 system (surrounds and subwoofer). Appropriate volume changes between formats are also automated.


Reverse shot of the 70mm projector and threading.


The 70mm system is my personal equipment on loan to Studio Movie Grill free of charge.
Matthew is very excited about the presentation.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-16-2014, 09:39 PM:
 
It's a Beautiful sight!
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 11-17-2014, 10:06 AM:
 
Fantastic Brad great stuff!
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-17-2014, 01:09 PM:
 

quote: Ken Lackner

---

Anyone know how the presentation quality is at the Cinebistro location in Atlanta?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

If your profile is still accurate, that location is in your neighborhood.

---

Why do you think I was asking?

quote: Brad Miller

---

Go check it out for us.

---

Unfortunately, I won't get that chance. After listening to the recording to verify that they have one set of showtimes in 70mm, I showed up at the theater only to find out that after running it for a few days, the print was horribly damaged and rather than showing a print in that condition, they're just showing it in digital. They will not be getting a replacement print, apparently, due to its cost.

I don't believe I've ever seen 5/70. Looks like I may never get the opportunity.

Brad, can you put one in at the SMG in Alpharetta?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-17-2014, 01:48 PM:
 
Yeah I found out that sadly the Cinebistro in Atlanta trashed their print beyond playability in less than a week. Reports were that they scratched it starting with day one, and every day they ran it the print suffered more and more damage (supposedly different kinds of damage, not just the same scratches getting worse). They should've hired a professional with 70mm experience, not a tinkering hobbyist to run it.

There is no way to install 70mm at either of the SMG locations in Atlanta. Both were constructed with retarded mini-booths. Never again. However rumor has it there are many different airlines now offering non-stop flights to Dallas from Atlanta. Just sayin'.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-17-2014, 01:54 PM:
 
For those who have seen one of the 70mm presentations of "Interstellar"... What 70mm trailer(s), if any, were shown?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-17-2014, 01:55 PM:
 
The only one printed up was Inherent Vice, of which not all locations received.
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-17-2014, 02:01 PM:
 
I'm actually not opposed to hopping on a plane to see this thing. But how long will it be around? I'm afraid I won't be able to for several weeks.

Ah, forgot about the mini-booths. I've seen the pictures. Whose idea was that, and what purpose were they trying to serve?

I won't cast judgement on someone I don't know, but I wholeheartedly agree that a professional should have been hired. Makes me sad.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-17-2014, 02:04 PM:
 
Movies these days don't last very long. They blow their wad right out of the gate and anyone who doesn't see them in the first couple of weeks just waits for the bluray. I highly doubt Interstellar will still be on screen in 5/70 in a few weeks. I could even see some locations killing it off this Friday when the Hunger Games movie opens.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-17-2014, 02:57 PM:
 
Considering it's not even the massive blockbuster they were hoping for (#2 the first week, #3 the second, combined with so-so reviews) despite all the fuss'n'bother, I'm sure you are right.
 

---

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-17-2014, 08:57 PM:
 
"Interstellar" will be getting the boot on Friday out of the Cinerama Dome, here in L.A., to make space for "Hunger Games: Mockingjay". Haven't seen whether their 70 print will move over to somewhere in the adjacent Arclight complex, but I have my doubts...
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-17-2014, 09:47 PM:
 
On the subject of Inherent Vice, I suspect that there could be 5/70 prints made. There is definitely a DTS/Datasat version of the audio mix, because the 35mm print we showed at AFI had a timecode and we got a set of discs. We didn't actually play them, because the studio wanted the SR-D track played in the end, but what is the point of doing a DTS/Datasat mastering if you're not going to make any 5/70 prints, especially if the 35mm ones have SR-D already?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-17-2014, 09:53 PM:
 
Not every existing 35mm system out there has a functioning SRD system. I'll bet there are a number that do have dts though. In the end how much can it really cost to have Datasat master a track?
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-18-2014, 12:01 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Considering it's not even the massive blockbuster they were hoping for (#2 the first week, #3 the second, combined with so-so reviews) despite all the fuss'n'bother, I'm sure you are right.

---

I think what killed the box office for the North American market was the whole 70mm, 35mm, IMAX-70 differentiation ad campaign. Aside from the record setting IMAX (70mm/digital combined) grosses, everything else has performed under expectations. I would be plenty pissed off if I was told over and over again by the Nolan, the critics, Paramount etc that "I have to see Interstellar in film" only to find out that it was pretty damn difficult to see the movie in film on the opening weekend or the weekend after. Also, after being continuously told that film is the way to see it, parting ways with $13 for a digital presentation is a bit insulting.

Are you planning to pick up Interstellar at your theater?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-18-2014, 12:42 PM:
 
Yes, we're opening Mockingjay this weekend and probably will slot Interstellar in leading up to the Hobbit movie.

I suppose the other thing is, not everyone is into space-themed movies either. From its promotion, this movie comes off more like almost a documentary than an adventure film, so people outside the Nolan-sphere may not have been as drawn to it. I know I have lost some enthusiasm for seeing it since the reviews and comments have started to come in. And we've had almost no requests for it, which is telling.
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 11-18-2014, 12:44 PM:
 
Based on the turn-out for Interstellar at my theatre, if you don't play it you won't be missing out on much.

The few that are coming to see it seem to like it, though....
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 11-18-2014, 01:44 PM:
 

quote:

---

On the subject of Inherent Vice, I suspect that there could be 5/70 prints made. There is definitely a DTS/Datasat version of the audio mix, because the 35mm print we showed at AFI had a timecode and we got a set of discs. We didn't actually play them, because the studio wanted the SR-D track played in the end, but what is the point of doing a DTS/Datasat mastering if you're not going to make any 5/70 prints, especially if the 35mm ones have SR-D already

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

I think what killed the box office for the North American market was the whole 70mm, 35mm, IMAX-70 differentiation ad campaign.

---

quote: Jason Whyte

---

The 70mm projector in Toronto's Varsity #8 is still sitting there, ready to go. I was there recently for a screening of THE DROP and it's still an amazing room. Same theater that premiered Star Wars in the city!

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

I highly doubt Interstellar will still be on screen in 5/70 in a few weeks.

---

Cineplex is pulling 70mm from the Varsity this Friday for Hunger Games. Hopefully someone will pick up the print somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 11-19-2014, 02:08 AM:
 
"Did the screen numbering change upon the expansion? I believe the Varsity was only a twin in 1977/78 when the original "Star Wars" played, so how did screen #1 (or #2) become screen #8? (And FWIW, "Star Wars" ran there in 35mm. It was for a time scheduled to play in 70mm at the University, but that deal fell through as did similar deals in Montreal and Vancouver.)"

Varsity opened in 1974 as a dual screen cinema with #2 being the largest theater, as you know. In 1997 six screens were added to the north side of the theater and those cinemas were numbered #1 to #6, making the original #1 and #2 now #7 and #8. A further expansion in 1998 added four VIP screening rooms, but those have their own VIP numbering #1 to #4. The entrance to the cinema was also moved to a different place, too, making access to #7 and #8 rather far.

You can still make out the older, two screen cinema on the layout of the theater today on how the screens and hallways are set up. The other addition was a bizarre wheelchair ramp/entry system that takes you all the way around to the back of the theaters, and you enter in through the front of the cinema through the exit doors (The now-closed Granville 7 in Vancouver also had this on a couple of their screens).

I know this answers your question the long way, but I like this cinema and talking about it.
 

---

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 11-19-2014, 05:55 AM:
 
Missed it at the Varsity. Can't think of any other theatres in Ontario that can still do 70mm 5-perf other then the TIFF Lightbox who may pick it up for a couple days. The Mayfair Theatre in Ottawa is playing it next week in 35mm (so the reps are already getting prints).
 

---

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 11-19-2014, 09:14 AM:
 
We've got at least another week or week and a half, I think, at the Alamo Ritz.
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 11-21-2014, 11:45 AM:
 
It's official - Arclight's Cinerama Dome has moved Interstellar 70mm to a different screen, so it's still possible to see it in dig, 35, and 70 at that location.

Remarkably enough, both AMC CityWalk Imax and TCL Chinese Imax survived the Mockingjay inquest and are still showing 15/70 Interstellar.

Some of the SoCal 35mm locations have expired, most notably Vintage Vista (one of the last 35mm general holdouts), although looking at theater websites and Fandango it's pretty inconclusive as to which are digital and which locations from the Interstellar 35mm web page are still film.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-21-2014, 12:25 PM:
 
Pictures of the 70mm setup at Studio Movie Grill Royal in Dallas TX:



Equipment wise this is virtually identical to the SMG Arlington (pics on previous page). The main difference here is the platter is on the non-operator side due to the lobby wall.



Just like at the other sites, preshow and trailers are being ran off of the digital projector with an automated changeover to the 70mm.



Film-Tech Safety Rings, large center rings, FilmGuard and so forth just like the other 70mm sites of ours. Dual dts XD10s into a BASIS for audio just like at SMG Arlington.



Loaded and waiting on the changeover cue from the digital system.

The 70mm system is my personal equipment on loan to Studio Movie Grill free of charge.

Now where are pictures from the other 70mm sites???
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-21-2014, 12:57 PM:
 
Again, nice pictures. It will be an empty room after the film equipment is gone again...

quote: Bill Brandenstein

---

Remarkably enough, both AMC CityWalk Imax and TCL Chinese Imax survived the Mockingjay inquest and are still showing 15/70 Interstellar.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

As far as I know, there is NO IMAX release of this year's Hunger Games movie, not on film and also not in Digital. Last year's release had footage shot on IMAX film in it. I guess they didn't want to compete with Interstellar.

---

The new Hunger Games installment may not be in "IMAX," but its TV commercials are spamming a few of the surcharge priced, house label big screen theater concepts. Exodus: Gods and Kings is doing the same thing.
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-21-2014, 01:31 PM:
 
Brad, why are two XD-10s required?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-21-2014, 01:33 PM:
 
They aren't. The second player is so if the primary one should fail it defaults to the backup the same way that if dts fails mid-show it would revert to analog (or some other form of digital like SRD) to keep the show running.

It takes a lot to damage the timecode on a 70mm print, so the weak point is the player itself (even though they are quite robust). Remember older players are reading the data live from a spinning disc. The XD10 and XD20 are reading the data from a hard drive, but both CDROMs and hard drives DO fail, sometimes without warning.

Its just an extra (optional) step in the setup of the system to help ensure nothing goes wrong. Think of it like those safety rings around the print on the platter. Odds are we could just tuck the tail and have nothing go wrong, but if the option is there to take an extra step to ensure the safety of the print and shows, why not? These prints are already crazy-scarce, so they really do need to be treated with every precaution possible by knowledgeable projectionists with lots of experience unlike the Cinebistro "projectionists".

I wonder if Cinebistro will simply stick with digital going forward or if they will try to play the next movie in 70mm as well? And did Paramount make them pay for the print they destroyed?
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-24-2014, 08:14 AM:
 
That's a really cool idea. I had no idea the XD10 could do that. Is it designed to do that out of the box, or did you come up with that scheme?

I completely agree with using safety rings, etc, to ensure nothing goes wrong. Probably not going to be necessary, but take the precaution anyway.

I assume the question about Cinebistro is a rhetorical one. I don't work there or know anyone who does. And what next 70mm title??
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-24-2014, 09:05 AM:
 

quote: Ken Lackner

---

And what next 70mm title??

---

quote: Stephan Shelley

---

Any place else running Norelco AAs?

---

The Aero in Santa Monica uses a changeover pair of AA mk. Is, and the Egyptian in Hollywood has AAIIs, both venues with DTS 70 readers.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 12-11-2014, 08:08 AM:
 
Interstellar finalized the 70mm run here this Tuesday. Around 34.000 tickets sold for Interstellar in 70mm. At one point it had sold 20% of all Interstellar tickets in Denmark.
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 12-11-2014, 04:13 PM:
 
Very nice Thomas.
 

---

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 12-11-2014, 05:50 PM:
 
How many theatres are sill running interstellar 5/70 in the us, i`m holding till 12/18 maybe thru christmas.
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 12-11-2014, 06:19 PM:
 
Today is the last day for 70mm Interstellar in Oakland. Will be running it in Digital through next Tuesday. I am running a 35 mm studio promotional screening Sat. of Inherent Vice.
 

---

Posted by Phil Ranucci (Member # 3820) on 12-11-2014, 09:21 PM:
 
Thomas,
With all of those amps in the booth I'll bet it gets nice and toasty!
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-12-2014, 04:40 PM:
 
David, Arclight Hollywood is still running its 5/70 through at least 12/18, even while all the Imax screens appear to be giving Interstellar up for the Hobbit on 12/15.

EDIT! STOP THE PRESSES! I checked this a couple of days ago and what I said above appeared to be true then, but Interstellar 5/70 is definitely gone now. With what Mark Lensenmayer noted at the "Inherent Vice" thread, that makes sense.

in 70mm at the Egyptian tonight in Hollywood with Nolan in person! (sold out)
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-12-2014, 08:58 PM:
 
The Egyptian in Hollywood is getting Interstellar in 70mm for a one night shot. They'll also be screening "Lawrence of Arabia" in 70mm...
 

---

Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 12-17-2014, 06:08 PM:
 
I saw Interstellar today in 5/70, in Odeon West End, London. The presentation was good (focus uniform and dead-on), and the print was pristine except reels 2 and 3 where there were numerous thin scratches right in the middle of the screen. They were thin enough to only be distracting in the brightest scenes, fortunately, and once it cleared up the rest of the print was like new.

I visited the booth afterwards and the projectionist admitted that the damage had happened there but they had no idea how. The projector was a Vic 8.
 

---

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 12-20-2014, 08:55 PM:
 
How many theatres left world wide playing 5/70 interstellar ? i think i`m the only one left in the U.S, here at willow creek in plymouth mn could`nt find a web listing on it.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-21-2014, 12:58 AM:
 
You're still running it? Is anyone still buying tickets?

How is the print holding up for you?
 

---

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 12-22-2014, 12:08 AM:
 
Brad, It`s our 5th highest grossing for this weekend. as you know with the simplex 35/70 it`s hard to keep a print perfect. I`m at 136 passes as of tonight, still looks good on the screen. had to make a lot of adjustment to the projector head, so it run this thinner base film so it would have a steady picture ,there was some light scratches that came from the lab, called technicolor never did get an answer.you have to look hard to see them. I have 2 other great guys that work with me so there always somebody running it with experience. we stay with the print at all times ,i`m really surprised how well the time code holds up,i`m using 2 readers & 2 players, this is my first experience with 70 dts the last 70 i ran, was a 70 mag of far & away here at the willow in 1992.interstellar could land up being our longest running 70.you know of anybody that has any of these simplex 35/70 for parts.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-23-2014, 02:39 PM:
 
Second runs are starting to be announced. 70mm print will be playing at the Wexner Center for the Arts (Columbus, OH) on March 6 & 7.
 

---

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 12-27-2014, 10:39 PM:
 
Did well over the christmas holiday, coming up on it`s 8th week
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-31-2014, 07:19 PM:
 
There's a one-off screening at the Aero, Santa Monica on Saturday. The print isn't there yet, and so I don't know which one it is or what sort of shape it's in.

As it's a sellout I expect it'll be back.
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 12-31-2014, 08:08 PM:
 
As I remember it was print 4 in Oakland
 

---

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 01-02-2015, 02:30 PM:
 
There was a post on instagram of a theatre still running a 70 of interstellar, anybody know what theatre that might be. I thought i was the last one at willow creek in plymouth, mn. looks like i`ll be running it thru 1/8 or maybe 1/15.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-04-2015, 09:54 AM:
 
I showed print #6 yesterday evening at the Aero. It's still in very good shape. The print has has been plattered, but has been reassembled by a professional, with neat and firm tape splices, only the scribed lab cues and hardly any visible sparkle at the starts and ends. There was no audio problem with the reel 8A-B transition, either (running a changeover pair of Norelcos, penthouse DTS readers and an XD-10 running software version 101.17).
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 01-04-2015, 03:59 PM:
 
Anyone know who previously had print #6?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-04-2015, 04:55 PM:
 
"visible sparkle"? You mean negative dirt?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-04-2015, 05:43 PM:
 
I mean positive dirt on the actual print, of the sort that accumulates on the first and last few feet of each reel. There was almost none. It looked like a new print on the screen - the only evidence that it wasn't was some handwriting on the leaders and the very carefully made splices on the heads and tails. Whoever had this print previously took very good care of it. There are no leftover labels on the shipping boxes to indicate who.
 

---

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 01-05-2015, 08:25 PM:
 
interstellar in 5/70 held over another week at willow creek in plymouth, mn. now till 1/15. it`s still our 6th highest grossing out of the 12
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 01-11-2015, 01:18 PM:
 
Great Lakes Science Center OMNIMAX Theater opens this Thursday, January 15.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-11-2015, 02:10 PM:
 
How does it look on the dome? I was under the impression that the DMR films were really not playable on dome screens due to the distortion--is something like Interstellar (at least partly filmed in native 15/70) going to look better?
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 01-13-2015, 08:53 AM:
 
Jeffery the explanation of the Omnimax system in the link you posted was about the best explanation of equipment ive ever seen a theater have.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-13-2015, 09:35 AM:
 
Not when they are claiming that OMNIMAX / IMAX film is 3 times larger than conventional 35mm film. In reality it is 3 times the size of standard 70mm. That in turn is over 2.5 times the size of Scope/35mm and over 4.5 times the size of 1.85/35mm. So IMAX* is more than 7.5 times the size of the larger of the two most common 35mm formats.

* OMNIMAX projection uses a somewhat smaller area of the 15 perf 70mm frame.
 

---

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 01-15-2015, 02:43 PM:
 
Today is our last day of our 10 week run of 5/70 interstellar at the willow creek in plymouth,mn. print still looks great
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2015, 03:06 PM:
 
Did you shoot any video? Regrettably I never got around to on my prints.
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 01-15-2015, 03:28 PM:
 

quote: Steve Kraus

---

Not when they are claiming that OMNIMAX / IMAX film is 3 times larger than conventional 35mm film. In reality it is 3 times the size of standard 70mm. That in turn is over 2.5 times the size of Scope/35mm and over 4.5 times the size of 1.85/35mm. So IMAX* is more than 7.5 times the size of the larger of the two most common 35mm formats.

---

quote: Jason Metcalfe

---

For what it's worth the digital IMAX projectors are "temporary", with laser light source coming in the near future

Also, I was under the impression that Interstellar was going to be the last 15/70 feature, which I think was a contributing factor to their renovation

---

The Bob Bullock location will get a laser light source in the future, from what I understand the IMAX solution for laser projection is custom for each individual location in that the larger the screen, the more lasers are built into the system. This would be different from Dolby Cinema or other set ups where it is a one size fits all approach. So far there are over 65+ IMAX laser Interstellar-ations to be done. There are also more than 400 Xenon installation pending as well. So as far as we know, the Bob Bullock laser installation could be a while away.

quote: Jason Metcalfe

---

Also, I was under the impression that Interstellar was going to be the last 15/70 feature, which I think was a contributing factor to their renovation

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

But it is in the best interest of IMAX not to supply prints as what they really want is to sell new digital units.

---

quote:

---

£22.50?! Bugger me with a soldering iron! I last saw a show at the Odeon, Leicester Square in the early '00s, and I think the tickets were £9.something.

---

quote: bold pro-IMAX claim

---

So far there are over 65+ IMAX laser Interstellar-ations [Wink] to be done.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

$40 for a movie ticket? I really am going to laugh if Star Wars: The Force Awakens turns out to be a turd.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

My own fear is, it's going to have one of those incomprehensible six-arc stories like we get with almost all action movies these days, as opposed to the wonderful straightforward stories of the original three films. I'm hoping against hope that isn't the case.

---