This is topic There's a Brand New 70mm Print of "2001" BUT . . . in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=012067

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-06-2016, 12:46 PM:
 
. . . only Leo gets to run it. Ha!

[URL=http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-american-cinematheque-2001-a-space-odyssey-20161006-snap-story.html]http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-american-cinematheque-2001-a-space-odyssey-20161006-snap-story.html[/UR L]

As part of the ongoing Beyond Fest, on Sunday night “2001: A Space Odyssey” will show at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood with actors Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood in attendance. And while that is cause enough for excitement among movie fans, it is possible the real star of the evening could be the physical print of the movie itself.

The event will be the debut screening for a new 70-mm print that the American Cinematheque will have exclusive exhibition rights to in a five-year deal with Warner Brothers. The Cinematheque will schedule two extended runs for the print per year, one at the Egyptian and one at the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica.

Though Sunday night’s event is already sold out, the print will screen again in December when it receives a run at the Egyptian on Dec. 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 26 and 27.

“We have to show ‘2001’ at each theater at least once a year,” said Cinematheque programmer Gwen Deglise in a statement. “It is one of our most requested titles. Our patrons tell us they want to see it as the director intended, in 70 mm. We decided we needed a new print to satisfy the interest in this title and to insure that viewing it was a satisfying experience.”

As digital projection has become the norm for commercial exhibition, many cinema fans have struck up a renewed excitement at seeing film prints, especially in a city like Los Angeles, with multiple venues still capable of film projection. Many filmmakers themselves have taken a stand not just about shooting on film but regarding how their movies are shown as well. Recently filmmakers Quentin Tarantino with “The Hateful Eight,” Christopher Nolan with “Interstellar” and Paul Thomas Anderson with “The Master” have all had their movies shown in 70 mm.

“Our audience has a keen interest in film prints,” said Grant Moninger, a programmer with both the American Cinematheque and Beyond Fest in a statement. “It matters to them whether they see a film on 35 mm vs. 70 mm or digital. If you haven’t seen ‘2001’ in 70 mm you have not seen the film.”

Directed by Stanley Kubrick, who co-wrote the screenplay with science fiction author Arthur C. Clark, “2001: A Space Odyssey” is generally considered among the greatest films ever made, part philosophical poem, part space adventure tale. Its technical achievements are still a cause of wonder as its deep-rooted questions about the nature of humanity and our place in the universe maintain their enigmatic pull.

The film won the 1969 Academy Award for special visual effects, and was also nominated for directing, art direction and writing. It is on the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress.

For more information, go to americancinematheque.com.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-06-2016, 01:22 PM:
 
I trust that the exclusivity applies to that print only (which they will presumably hold on to) and does not mean that other venues won't be able to book the title in 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-06-2016, 02:03 PM:
 
Mag or DTS?

Regardless, it is probably a good thing that there will be at least one venue where people can go to see a mint 70mm print of this title. At this point, there are probably fewer than a dozen venues in the US that have the equipment and personnel to handle 70mm correctly. If this print were in general circulation, it would probably be trashed pretty quickly, unfortunately.
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 10-06-2016, 03:04 PM:
 
Mag striping hasn't been available in years. I'm of the belief that the mag print of Tron that was struck in 1999 was probably one of the last. One other question I have is does anyone know how many existing 70mm prints of 2001 were or are in circulation and approximately when were they struck? The only one I know for sure was a magnetic one struck in 1995.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-06-2016, 03:38 PM:
 
There were mag prints of Lawrence in 2002. Beyond that, I do not know of any.

Two prints of 2001 have passed through here in the last year or so: a format 41 mag print from the '90s and a DTS print from the mid-2000s.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-06-2016, 04:27 PM:
 
The AFI/Silver just ran a 70mm DTS print of 2001 that was struck in 2014 and it is said it looked VERY GOOD. They too had the stars in attendance for a Q&A after the show.

There are three DTS soundtracks for 2001. The original 6-track, the 5.1 (which is what was shipped with the print) and an 8-channel that is a morph of the two previous versions. It has 5-across, 2 surrounds and subwoofer. I have NOT heard the 8-channel one to know just how it was handled. The XD-10 players at the AFI could have handled it though. Essentially it would work for a normal 5.1 system but with LC/RC on the extra two channels and coming out of the LC/RC outputs. Normally, the 6-channel versions use Ls/Rs outputs for LC/RC and the Subwoofer output becomes Mono Surround. This is a carryover from the DTS6-SV days. The disc is supposed to be silk-screened with the channel configuration. The AFI ran the 6-channel version as that would be historically accurate.
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 10-06-2016, 05:14 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

There are three DTS soundtracks for 2001. The original 6-track, the 5.1 (which is what was shipped with the print) and an 8-channel that is a morph of the two previous versions. It has 5-across, 2 surrounds and subwoofer. I have NOT heard the 8-channel one to know just how it was handled.

---

quote: Aron Toplitsky

---

Leo I was told by Grant that the new 4K Ben Hur looks great. I saw it at The Egyptian a few years back and I think it was a 2K DCP. I have to honestly say, I was not impressed. Unfortunately I just missed the latest showing.

---

quote: Aron Toplitsky

---

Any possibility the studio may one day create a new 70MM print for Ben Hur? That would be awesome!

---

quote: Buck Wilson

---

Wonder how much that cost....

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Is there any information about the source of this print, it's production process, master, etc.?

---

quote: Terry Monohan

---

Seems like at all the 70mm film festivals that show up each year around the world the same old 70mm prints are shown all the time. Many are not in the best of shape these days.

---

quote: Terry Monohan

---

The main thing the classic Egyptian Theatre needs to do before the next tourist season 2017 starts is put back some sort of front neon marquee on Hollywood Blvd. So many tourists go walking past the locked gates or for court and have no idea what the place is and what is showing and times also try to get the fountains working again and fix the leak.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

A little over $18k.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

...the right one had some issues. There was more gate wobble and the center of the image wasn't in focus, but the edges were.

---

That would be #2 (assuming a 2 projector booth). What machines do they have?

Leo: care to chime in?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-23-2016, 09:46 PM:
 
Am I the only one here surprised that a new high-quality 70mm print can be struck for "only" $18K? Seriously, for a film as historically significant to cinema as 2001 that seems like chump change.

I guess it's about return on investment, not preservation. Silly me.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-24-2016, 07:03 AM:
 
Why do you think it should be more? The hard work has been done. They have a printable negative to work with and it is a DTS audio version so the audio comes along for "free." So, what is boils down to is printing 10 rolls (a/b) of 70mm stock.

The cost of making a print if they didn't already have the negative is another thing...if they had to go back and generate a new IN, then yes, a 1-off would be quite the pricey thing, depending on where they would need to source that from.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-24-2016, 11:55 AM:
 
Just a layman's wild guess based on the general state of film production and the time required to make it including (hopefully) good QA.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-24-2016, 01:17 PM:
 
Aero this weekend: I inspected the LOA and Vertigo prints, and projected WSS on Saturday, but I wasn't actually in the booth on Friday or Sunday nights.

I first noticed the heavy vertical base scratching on reels 2 through 8 of LOA while inspecting it for a show in September last year:



My guess would be that another venue built it up into two rolls, pre-intermission (1-8) and post-intermission (9-13), and that the damage was only done to the first one.

I agree - that print has basically had it, and if I were the programmer, I'd be deciding that we're showing the 4K DCP (which is one of the best DCP transfers of a 70mm epic I've seen, second only to Oklahoma IMHO) until a better 70mm print becomes available.

The projectors are Norelco AAs (mk. Is). We do have an ongoing issue with #2, that several of us who have looked at it have not been able to get to the bottom of. It is very noisy running 70mm stock, but not on 35. I've taken all three sprockets off and examined the teeth with a pocket microscope - I can't see any damage at all on the 70mm teeth. Swapping the gate assemblies between the two projectors doesn't move the problem, and neither does turning the sprockets around. There is definitely no perforation damage being caused, because I stop every reel that has been run on that machine two or three times on the rewind to check, and the perfs are always totally clean.

When I arrived on Saturday, the gate bands were very dirty with caked emulsion deposits: I cleaned them with rubbing alcohol until they were spotless, and did not notice any uneven focus at any point during WSS. In particular, the closing credit reel ran on that machine (against the background of the brick wall, to look like graffiti), and the focus looked sharp throughout the frame to me.

But the bottom line is that there is a gnarly issue with that machine, that needs attention from a real expert in Norelco mechanics. The noise says to me that it's got to be something to do with the alignment of film relative to one of the sprockets, causing perforations to catch the side of some sprocket teeth; but it's not bad enough to cause any visible evidence on either the perforations or the teeth.

There are three or four more minor things that also need looking at, and to address them I'm trying to set up a service visit soon, probably in early December when the last round of big festivals of the year and the installation of a laser projector at the Egyptian (during Thanksgiving week) are out of the way. This absolutely has to be done before we play our 2001 print at the Aero: the only reason I've got this lower down the priority list than the Egyptian refurb issues at present is that I know that all four 70mm prints playing the Aero this month are essentially worn out. That's not to say that I would have let them run if I had any fear whatsoever that this projector is actually damaging film: as I say, we're inspecting every reel that runs on it during the rewind for signs of perf damage (with a magnifying glass), and are finding none.

Incidentally, Vertigo was an acetate print (on 5386 stock dated 1997), so maybe the thicker film helped the focus a bit.

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I wonder if this might become the new model for "distribution" of 70mm. Sort of like IMAX...you buy your print and pay the studio to show it. The up sides are no shipping costs after receiving it and complete damage control. The downsides are your costs are all up front and the space to store it though it isn't too bad if stored on cores.

---

You also need somewhere relatively cool and dry to store them, even polyester. 2383 might be low fade, but it's not no fade.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-24-2016, 01:57 PM:
 
Great info Leo!

Yes, I did notice the projector #2 being a lot louder as well. When it started up, it was very clear in the theater. I would say your diagnosis of the issue is spot on, which is why the registration isn't good on that unit either. It amazes me because projector #1 is flawless, absolutely perfect image and stability, but #2 had so many issues.

The focus issue you may not be able to see from the booth. I sat a lot closer to the screen and on the LOA print, the edges were clearly crisper then the center on projector #2. To me, it seemed like a gate issue, maybe compounded by the registration problems. It's hard to tell focus when the image is shifting around every frame.

I bet the issue is the intermittent assembly. That's the only "logical" issue, in my book and the only way for it to make so much noise.

On a side note, when did Norelco change names to Phillips? Isn't the Norelco version similar to the later DP70?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-24-2016, 02:29 PM:
 
I'm inclined to agree that the intermittent unit itself could be bad, but if that's the case I am surprised that the projector is not in any way abnormally noisy when running 35mm. We have a spare projector head in storage at the Egyptian, and so could try swapping a new one in. However, doing that is way above my skill level, and I don't know if the mk. I and mk. II intermittent units are interchangeable.

Info here on terminology. All the projector mechanisms were manufactured by Philips in Eindhoven, The Netherlands: they were known as the Philips DP70 outside the US, and the Norelco AA (AAII for the mk. II, single motor version) in the United States (Norelco = a contraction of North American Philips Company, the brand name under which Philips does business in the US).
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-24-2016, 03:31 PM:
 
The noise between 70mm and 35mm could simply be the amount of force needed to drag the film through the pressure plate is much greater on 70 then 35. They compensate for this by making the sprocket larger on the 70mm side. So this puts a lot more force on the gears inside.

Just an guess but I bet the intermittent gears are wasted.

I have friends in Europe who know quite a bit about the DP70's. I can ask and see if the MKI and MKII assembles are interchangeable. I know the DP70 is the best 70mm projector made.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-24-2016, 03:56 PM:
 
The diameter of the 70mm profile is wider because it has to pull the film down five perforations rather than four for 35mm, so it has to rotate through a greater linear distance. The amount of force acting on the film is the same for both 35 and 70, because the entire drive train - motor, transmission components, and intermittent unit - are all the same. Also, keep in mind that the DP70/AA was designed for use with acetate film (and to a lesser extent nitrate, a small amount of which was still in circulation when it was designed), which is thicker and heavier than polyester. So 70mm polyester stock, with no magnetic oxide on it, should not be stressing the gears in the intermittent unit under normal circumstances.

Also, the moment of force is more evenly distributed across the intermittent shaft on 70 than for 35, where it's concentrated on two points closer to the center, so if the gears in the cross box were worn or damaged, I'd expect the noise and picture stability to be worse on 35 than on 70, which is not the case. When it's running 35, you would not be aware of any problem with that projector.

I'm not ruling out an intermittent unit problem, especially as we've investigated everything else we can think of that could be causing the noise. But I'd be a little surprised if that turns out to be the sole cause.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-24-2016, 03:59 PM:
 
(As if Leo needs more armchair repairmen...)

Could it be the pad rollers that hold the film up against the 70mm sprocket (P5-635-21)? I have seen one get chewed in a way that affected picture stability but did not damage the print or the sprocket teeth. That could explain why the 70mm picture would be worse than with 35mm.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-24-2016, 04:21 PM:
 
I do take exception to your characterization of the DCP of LOA...I have found it to be the most embarrassing DCP transfer I've ever seen. It is an absolute (bad) joke. I screened it on a Christie 4K system and even did freeze frames to see if I could tell was was going on. Then threw up Samsara (also 4K DCP) to see if it was possibly a projector/configuration problem...Samsara was razor sharp and a very good representative of a 65mm/4K DCP transfer.

I, for the life of me, can't figure out what you like about the LOA transfer. Oklahoma! was also night and day better than LOA on its 4K DCP transfer. In fact, it probably looked the best of the classic titles that got the DCP "treatment." Though they absolutely fumbled on the audio for it. They didn't think to have a 6-channel version of it as a "VF" for those that could run it. I have no problem with 5.1 being the standard and it is great they made an Atmos version, but one should always preserve the original as the reference. It was an academy award winning mix, after all.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-24-2016, 04:44 PM:
 
Is it wrong to assume in 35mm mode, there is less stress on the assembly then running 70? That's why I figured the issue could be the intermittent because theoretically it puts more stress on that assembly then 35.

Scott's idea of the rollers is very interesting. I just don't know how that would effect the SOUND of the machine.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-24-2016, 05:26 PM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

When I arrived on Saturday, the gate bands were very dirty with caked emulsion deposits: I cleaned them with rubbing alcohol until they were spotless, and did not notice any uneven focus at any point during WSS.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I do take exception to your characterization of the DCP of LOA...I have found it to be the most embarrassing DCP transfer I've ever seen. It is an absolute (bad) joke. I screened it on a Christie 4K system and even did freeze frames to see if I could tell was was going on. Then threw up Samsara (also 4K DCP) to see if it was possibly a projector/configuration problem...Samsara was razor sharp and a very good representative of a 65mm/4K DCP transfer.

I, for the life of me, can't figure out what you like about the LOA transfer. Oklahoma! was also night and day better than LOA on its 4K DCP transfer. In fact, it probably looked the best of the classic titles that got the DCP "treatment." Though they absolutely fumbled on the audio for it. They didn't think to have a 6-channel version of it as a "VF" for those that could run it. I have no problem with 5.1 being the standard and it is great they made an Atmos version, but one should always preserve the original as the reference. It was an academy award winning mix, after all.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

Pardon my naivety, but don't the 70mm pad rollers always engage with the sprocket, even in 35mm mode? Or does that whole assembly swap out for the two formats?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

In regards to the #2 DP70 projector of Leo's, keeping in mind I am not a total expert with the DP70 model, my suspicion based upon the info presented above is that it will likely be one of these things:

*Azimuth of gate to trap (or gate/trap assy to film path) is off.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

*Intermittent sprocket lateral alignment is not centered with respect to gate/trap.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

*Gate/trap tension is too great. Remember this will cause the film to buckle very slightly in the gate (not usually visually noticeable, but will cause the center of the projected image to be out of focus).

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

*Hooked sprocket teeth, likely on the intermittent sprocket, but could be any of them.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

*Intermittent show pressure is too great or the alignment from shoe to intermittent sprocket is off.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

As a super quick test I would also put the #1 70mm kit into #2 (with junk film of course) and see if the operational noise level drops to normal as a quick test to rule out something within the actual 70mm kit for the #2 machine.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

Hey Leo, what would it take to get new prints of Vertigo and LOA made? Do you think if the money could be raised, the archives would let the source materials out to have another print made like they did with 2001?

---

That's a decision for programmers and leadership to make, not me. LOA would certainly be seriously expensive (I'm guessing in the region of $30k) on account of its length. But there again, we have never attracted a crowd of less than 350ish, even for the now worn out Sony print #4, and frequently sell the Egyptian out. My guess is that a lot will depend on ticket sales for the week-long 2001 run in December.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-25-2016, 06:42 PM:
 
Leo, I would have to have a DP70 in front of me to remember all of the adjustments. It's been almost 20 years since I spent any serious time with that model, but if one was in front of me I'm sure I could remember. (That being said with the general love for the DP70 there should soon be someone else chime in here with the expertise to share their knowledge.)

I doubt it would turn out too good with booth acoustics, but is it possible to record 15 seconds of each projector running 70mm and email me an audio file? (I could also post it here.) Just don't get TOO close with the mic when recording and make sure the mic is in the same relative position to each projector. (You could likely just do a cell phone video.)

On the lateral intermittent sprocket alignment, is it not possible to get your head in there at such an angle to see the centering of the sprocket teeth in relation to the sprocket holes in the film? Could you stick a newer cell phone in there that has a good macro focus ability and snap a picture maybe? Alternatively (and I've never done this, but it's an idea) perhaps you could put a strip of acetate film in there, make sure to pull it down a dozen frames by hand to make sure the film is straight, then manually pull on the film with the machine at a standstill to try and force the intermittent sprocket teeth to make some stretch marks on the sprockets for a frame (which you can then inspect for centering outside of the machine).

Sam, I am very glad to see someone else has noticed the JJ gate clearance issue! Most people I talk to about this tell me there is no such problem (while I plug up my ears when they roll the projector, cringing at the extra stress on the film and intermittent).

I would have to say every JJ I've worked with needed more than a mere .040 inches of extra clearance relative to 35mm. Granted I didn't go around measuring, but I'm curious if that was a general rule you calculated, or if that was the measurement from one sample JJ you serviced back in the day?

On turret JJs I've been able to make things "better" by adding a few layers of electrical tape behind the 35mm gate, but I've never been able to add "enough" to get the 35mm clearance just right.

My procedure typically puts me at needing to leave the 35mm gate tension just barely enough to hold a film reasonably steady at 12:00, with some films needing to run between 1:00-3:00 on the dial. During that setting of the gate/lens holder assembly I also have to pay extremely close attention to the focus on screen since it is like a Kinoton lens turret in the fact there is wiggle room in all directions, but once you start tightening things down things tend to drift a little bit away from where you had it (so you have to pre-estimate to get it to land dead on where you need it). If that gate isn't sitting just right then focus (top to bottom) will definitely be compromised. It gets even more fun with dual projector setups, where I have to get in and shim the mount for side to side even focus.

Anyway, once that gate/lens holder assembly is locked down and I have perfect focus with 35mm in all 4 corners I have found 70mm will fall right into place in regards to focus...but the gate ALWAYS closes too far for running 70mm without exerting extra wear.

On the turret JJs there really is no choice but to loosen the gate mount when switching formats, but on single lens JJs you can use my old allen wrench trick from my days at GCC Northpark. In a nutshell, get yourself a set of metric allens and there is a place you can position it to prevent the gate from closing too far. The nice thing is with a set of allens, you have repeatable precision in 1/2mm increments. This came in handy back in the day when we would run a morning trade screening in 35mm, then switch to the normal 70mm engagement (which may have been dts70), then at midnight run the older 70mm print for a midnight movie (always mag and thicker than dts70). I would simply label the tail of the print with the size of allen wrench to use. We NEVER had the slightest problem with 70mm, the projectors purred very quietly and the image on screen was spot on flawless as various people who attended there can testify.

I had one H8 JJ in Houston that was so tight I found I couldn't turn the projector down by hand with film in the gate. It was so damn tight I didn't even want to risk damaging anything and I just optimized it for polyester 70mm since that's all those stripped-down machines will ever run again. I also had another one with horrible top to bottom focus requiring adjustment and another couple which weren't too offensively far off, but definitely needed some easing up. Regardless none of the JJs in my H8 territory were aligned properly. (I've always felt this was an area of JJs that few people seemed to have much expertise with, and the H8 run further proved that theory.)

I never thought about tapping the gate plate with a stop screw. Pretty interesting solution. Do you have photos? That might be a good idea for some of these venues that run 35mm and 70mm and just flip things around and pay no attention to what they are really doing to the prints.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 10-25-2016, 09:44 PM:
 
Did not measure the coke can shims but i kept adding them top and bottom until I got where I wanted. It was not back in the day, it was just last year at the Castro where they have all sorts of issues running a different print every couple of days.

As to the origin of the mismatch, Lonny mentioned that something about differences in gate parts on JJ and JJ2. The original JJ apparently had a sprung gate like the Century Model H projector. It was a terrible design as both the gate and the bands could both move and change the focus point when a splice came through, so was replaced by a solid gate. That supposedly led to the depth mismatch between 35 and 70 when the JJ2 came out.

Don't think I have a good picture of the setscrew detail but it was down toward the bottom where it would could catch the edge of the trap. Nothing fancy, just a 10/32 screw with a locknut.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-25-2016, 10:09 PM:
 
Leo: My comment on the cost of the print wasn't meant to be snarky. I think what you guys are doing is fantastic. I would have naively guessed more like $50K for the print. I was thinking Jeez, someone with deep pockets and a love for film (think Scorsese, Spielberg, Lucas) could commit $1M toward striking new 70mm prints of many historic movies and keep 70mm going for many years in venues like yours, and it would be pocket change to them.


 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-26-2016, 09:53 AM:
 
Thanks Brad. We've got two big festivals about to hit us at the Egyptian, as a result of which I'm not scheduled to be at the Aero again until November 20, so please forgive me if the next update on this isn't instant. Step 1 will be to try swapping pad rollers and bands, and if that doesn't help, I'll make that video/audio recording as a step 2 (will probably use my D-SLR: its built-in microphone will certainly pick up the difference between the sound of the two machines).

David - I've wondered if one option for us might be to approach a major donor or foundation with a pitch for a big project to have our own 70mm prints made of all the major classics for which good printing elements (i.e. INs and DTS track negs) exist, and thus are printable without seriously expensive back-end restoration first, with an undertaking to play one at each theater, say, once every two weeks on a year-round rotation. Daniel Schulz writes in another thread:

quote: Daniel Schulz

---

The occasional 5/70 release serves to keep the machinery humming on standby so it can be revved up for the release of Dunkirk.

---

It seems to me that over the last year we've seen small run 5/70 releases of some frankly forgettable movies. If there is an informal industry agreement to ensure that FotoKem has enough business trickling in to keep its 5/70 release printing operation viable, surely a better way to do that would be to find some way of financing new prints of the widescreen classics that we know have a long term audience? It's like the difference between popular and classical in the music business: the rock/pop album typically achieves 95% of its sales in the first week of release and then disappears without trace, but a classical album will sell slowly but steadily over 30-40 years.

Personally, I'd far rather that the industry helps to keep FotoKem's 5/70 operation on life support by ordering a slow trickle of new prints of LOA, WSS, 2001, South Pacific, Oklahoma, and the other 15-20 DTS 70 restorations that we know will pull a decent house in the few 5/70-equipped venues dotted around the world for decades to come and are a far better showcase for the medium, rather than 10 prints of Star Bores Episode 25: The Farting Menace that will be gathering dust after the opening week, only to be seen again by the hardest of hard core 70 geeks.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-26-2016, 11:37 AM:
 
Just an FYI, Fotokem's large format lab is in no trouble. They make almost all of the IMAX dome prints in the country, so they're churning out new large format prints daily. The 5/70 business is pails in comparison to the 15/70 business.

Striking a print off an already DTS prepped IN is easy and inexpensive. For films that don't have the DTS IN already, it's a very expensive process to take the analog elements, mix them for DTS and spit out a new soundtrack. I fret that cost is a bridge too far, but new prints struck off the DTS IN, isn't that bad. The big question remains, how good is the IN? I'm not sure how they made the DTS IN for LOA, but it was not using modern film socks. I don't know how they performed the original 1988 restoration, but I assume a new IP would have been made from the camera negative that is probably deteriorated. That process would need to be done all over again for it to truly show what's in that negative, as I'm certain it's nowhere near as noisy/grainy as the print I saw. That circulating print was probably made on early 90's (pre vision) print stock. Kodak didn't update their 70mm print stock until the late 90's. I believe Titanic was one of the first 70mm released films shot and finished on Vision.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-26-2016, 11:52 AM:
 
The print of LOA you saw on Friday was on 2383 stock dated 2004. 2383 superseded 5386 for 70mm print stock around 2000. I have never seen any 2386 70mm (though I have encountered several 2386 35mm prints made between around 1997-2000), so I'm guessing that the 70mm print stock production line moved from acetate to polyester, and the new emulsion, all in one fell swoop.

Pix and sound negs are separate elements that pass through different printer gates in a single pass, as a general rule and in a typical continuous contact printer used for release printing. So I'd guess that the DTS timecode IN was probably combined with a pix IN dating from the 1988 restoration to make the 2004 batch of DTS prints. As you say, the question is what sort of condition that pix IN is in, and if further, good quality prints could be struck from it without needing to go back to an earlier generation.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-26-2016, 06:05 PM:
 
Yep, you're right... they probably struck prints off the 1988 IN, that makes perfect sense. So what they'd need to do is go back to the IP and make a new IN with the combined soundtrack on new stock. Even better would be to make a new photochemical IP from the original camera negative on modern stocks. They COULD do this by simply scanning the camera negative in 8k and lasering it out at 8k to create a new IN with modern stocks. I doubt they'd be willing to go through all of that effort, but since the DCP is not 8k currently, maybe there is a chance they'd restore it digitally and have a beautiful file that would only need to be lasered out to film again for projection. Putting it back on film is expensive, but a lot less then a full photochemical restoration. Digital restoration @ 8k isn't too bad, there won't be much loss along the way.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-26-2016, 06:44 PM:
 
Probably no-one would want to go this route, but is it even possible to mag stripe a 70mm print these days?
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-26-2016, 07:13 PM:
 
No it's not. The glue was found to be too toxic, so they don't make it or the mag stripe anymore.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-26-2016, 09:39 PM:
 
How do they make mag fullcoat, then? It is in the current Kodak MP catalog....
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-26-2016, 11:45 PM:
 
Not sure how they make full coat, but it's not anything like mag striping. Remember, the glue has to survive through chemical baths with mag stripe, but it doesn't with full coat.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 10-27-2016, 01:03 AM:
 
I was under the impression the striping was the last operation on a developed and printed reel before actually recording or "sounding" it.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-27-2016, 01:26 AM:
 
Full coat is basically the same stuff as magnetic tape, only with a slightly thicker polyester base.

I don't know the details of the chemistry, but would guess that coating the entire film surface with nothing else on it is a simpler process than just coating a small part of it with one side having photographic emulsion it, the base side possibly having had an anti-halation layer on it and the base having absorbed some processing chemistry.

The reason I'd heard for 70mm mag striping being no more was that one of the chemicals involved was seriously bad for the ozone layer, and therefore had been banned under international treaties for all uses apart from a small number of medical applications for which there was no viable alternative.
 

---

Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 10-27-2016, 03:50 AM:
 
There’s one thing we have omitted until now, the interplay between film pitch and sprocket diameter. With polyester film the hole pitch should be .1870" ± four tenths or 4,75 mm ± a hundredth. As I see the situation most combined 70-35 sprocket drums are made for triacetate stock which includes a reduction of the contact diameter by one to two per mill. Polyester-base film hardly shrinks, so sprockets ought to be employed that have the full diameter of 1.190" or 30,234 mm. Polyester-base films are somewhat thinner than AC films. Due to that the loops behave differently at slipping off the teeth. They should be set smaller, too. I wonder what a caliper or micrometer reading might reveal.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-11-2016, 04:18 PM:
 
Well, saw the new print of 2001 last night at the Egyptian. Got to hang out in the booth and talk with Mike, someone I already know. What a great print and awesome presentation. It was just flat-out perfect in every way. Unfortunately, the IP used to make the new print from, isn't in the best of shape. It makes me wonder what elements they used to make it, because it had the digital audio timecode, so it MUST be something newer. For any cinephile, it's well worth the visit and of course, seeing good 70mm is hard these days.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-11-2016, 05:34 PM:
 
DTS timecode is a anamorphic stretched 25mm negative printed on a second printer pass normally
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 12-11-2016, 06:50 PM:
 

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

on one of JJ equipped H8 locations, I had no time for this but still
needed to back off the tension, so I drilled and tapped the gate plate so I
could use a set screw to hit the trap, making a crude but effective stop.

---

quote:

---

Don't think I have a good picture of the setscrew detail but it was
down toward the bottom where it would could catch the edge of the trap.
Nothing fancy, just a 10/32 screw with a locknut.

---

You can sort of see Sam's JJ gate/trap mod in these pix:



 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-13-2016, 10:53 PM:
 
Spoke to Mike this morning: apparently every 2001 show so far has attracted a crowd of 500 plus. This is great news, meaning that the print should pay for itself quicker than budgeted for, and that with any luck, doing this again with other "known crowd draw" DTS 70 titles should be viable.

Thanks to Barco school and a gnarly show at our other theater over the weekend (which involved hooking up a rental HDCAM SR player and all the messing around that required) last week, I haven't got to play it to a paying audience yet: my turn on Saturday!
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-14-2016, 01:46 AM:
 

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

Striking a print off an already DTS prepped IN is easy and inexpensive. For films that don't have the DTS IN already, it's a very expensive process to take the analog elements, mix them for DTS and spit out a new soundtrack.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

The first reel of the Hateful Eight I was told is purposely made with registration issues built into it. No other reel has those issues, only the first one.

---

Yes, AND those flaws were in the digital version of the 70mm roadshow version (this opened in Bakersfield AFTER the regular first run engagements had closed. It was very odd to see jitter on the overture slide at the beginning. Conceptually, it made no sense, since I have never seen that much jitter in other movies scanned from film sources (70 or 35).
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-19-2017, 05:21 PM:
 
Directors conceit?
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-20-2017, 07:30 AM:
 
One of the 70mm KONG prints has moved over the the Gateway Film Center near The Ohio State University in Columbus.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-21-2017, 01:03 PM:
 
Tyler - I'm not aware of any registration issues with either of your projectors. We certainly had other challenges at the Aero last weekend, the main one being that a coil fried in one of the Simplex/Zipper changeover shutters actually during Friday's show (as in, the the "over" button was pressed and the outgoing machine failed to close), meaning that changeovers in one direction had to be done by means of a contortion act involving one hand on the button and the other on the lamphouse dowser of the outgoing machine. But myself and another projectionist worked the H8 show on Friday: running an RP-91 loop as part of the setup process, both before and after the anamorph was fitted and aligned, neither I nor she could see any significant problem with the projected image. I'm guessing that it must have been Quentin's deliberate jitter that got you.

The major Aero problem that I really wish I could solve now is that the color temperature from the two projectors does not match - one of the machines is slightly whiter than the other. Only a real expert with a sharp eye would notice it on color, but it's more obvious than I'm comfortable with across the changeover with a b/w print. We use exactly the same model of bulb in both (Ushio 4kW), and both lamphouses were bought new from Kinoton at the same time (so no difference in the reflector model, presumably), and both lamphouses have an individual extract fan on the roof of the same power. The port glass, rectifiers and lenses are also all of the same model and bought at the same time, too.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 03-21-2017, 10:46 PM:
 
Hey Leo - Yea the saturday show of The Master, the left projector had a pretty noticeable set of issues. The film is so dark in areas, you may not see it from the booth unless you sat down and watched the entire reel. It may not actually be "registration" it may simply be a shutter calibration issue where the pulldown process is happening before the shutter blocks the light. I would bet that is more of the issue, rather then the intermediate or gate. However with that said, I did notice soft focus issues on the bottom center of the image, which led me to believe it could be a gate issue.

On one of the reels, something happened that I can't explain. On the same projector, the center of the image was washed out for the entire reel. The corners were crisp, but almost the entire image was completely white and washed out. I couldn't explain it and I heard lots of yammering in the booth after the reel change, and the problem didn't come back.

The douser issue was kinda funny, as someone whose spent quite a bit of time in the booth, with older manual douser projectors, I chuckled when the douser started closing on it's own mid reel. I was the only person who got up and stared walking to tell'em, but it was fixed shortly after.

I was impressed by the print, it just needed a cleaning. The right projector was amazing, absolutely flawless image, zero issues. That darn left projector, you know the one that makes all the noise, that thing really needs some work. I didn't go to the Interstellar screening on sunday because frankly, I was upset with the projection. I want to see GOOD 70mm projection because frankly, it's hard to find these days. I don't mind working at the theater and seeing mediocre presentations, but when I'm a paying customer, it's hard ya know? All I wanna do is go into the booth and figure out what's wrong. I know you guys have limited budgets and parts... well, forgetaboutit... still, it's hard to attract customers, especially with 70mm screenings (film buffs mostly) if the projection isn't stellar as well. I feel bad for your situation and would love to help, but I think you've got things covered.

In terms of the color difference, it's for sure noticeable. I was thinking it has to be an issue with the reflection calibration, as the brightness between the two projectors is different. I bet if you threw a test pattern on the projector and spot meter on the screen, you'd see the difference in luminance right away. The Kinton stuff is so odd. I spent a whole evening with Jim over at UCLA discussing his Kinton experiences, he wasn't very impressed with their products. He said they needed a lot of setup time to get right and the projection units still have issues now and again, thanks to the Germans over thinking things as always. Someday, I wanna get my hands on those suckers and mess around with'em because they can do some neat things. Anyway, I bet it's just the alignment between the housing and the back of the projector or the reflector, it's gotta be something simple like that.

P.S. You guys do a great job and I don't mean to be a grouch about the issues. I just think the house could be one of the best in town with only a few small tweaks...
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-05-2017, 05:48 PM:
 
The American Cinematheque has announced that they have exclusive access to a brand spankin' new 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia that it will premiere on the 15th at the Egyptian Theatre. Also, word on the street is that Boston's Somerville Theatre has ordered their own 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey in time for next year's 50th anniversary of that film. Glad to see these developments, but I wonder if a trend is developing where studios would take a "if you want a decent print, buy one yourself" stance with what few 70mm equipped rep houses remain.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-05-2017, 10:09 PM:
 
If the studios are showing willingness to support the "buy one yourself" route (by granting the necessary licenses and making the dupe neg available for printing) in cases where the math can be made to work at the exhibitor's end, I don't think that's a bad thing.

I don't work for the American Cinematheque anymore, but I don't think I'm breaking any confidences by recalling that when I did, we felt that we were taking a leap into the dark with the 2001 print, and did so mainly because that looked like the one and only way of getting a reasonable 70mm print available for the public to see regularly again. We brainstormed a list of other potential titles to think about if were possible to do that again: Larry was at the top of it, despite it being about the most expensive movie possible to make a new print of (because of its length). The Sony print we had been showing three or four times a year at both the Egyptian and the Aero had worn out to the point at which the baked-in dirt on lighter scenes in particular was becoming a significant distraction.

It's great news to hear that not only does the Cinematheque believe it to be viable to do this again, but also that another major art/rep/archive theater is going to do a buy-one-yourself 70mm print.

The only other project I know of that used this approach to putting good quality film prints of important classics on regular display was the British Film Institute's "360 Classic Films" project that ran at the Museum of the Moving Image in London, during the decade or so it was open (late 1980s to late 1990s). The idea was that they would play one classic movie for every night of the year that the museum was open. From what I remember, they only managed to acquire prints of around 100 titles before the place closed. Some were donated, some were cash purchases from studios and other archives, and others were printed from the BFI's own preservation masters. Because the prints were only ever handled by professionals in a well-maintained booth, they stayed in good shape. I don't know what happened to them after MOMI closed.

The one worry I have is that this new 70mm LoA print will, according to the Cinematheque's email, derive from a digital intermediate output from the latest restoration, so the viewing experience won't be totally analog. It'll be the equivalent of listening to a vinyl LP cut from a digital original, with a DAC feeding the cutterhead's preamps. All the previous filmouts from DIs I've seen have reminded me of watching a Bluray, but with added dirt, scratches, and picture weave. You can easily tell that what you're seeing is not totally analog. It would have been nice if they could have struck more prints directly from the element used to make the 1988 restoration prints, but there must have been powerful reasons against doing that. But personally, if I'm going to see the end output of a digital restoration, I'd prefer to see a DCP. If the restoration is a photochemical workflow, I'd want to see a print.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-05-2017, 11:04 PM:
 
Has the DTS mix of Lawrence been fixed yet? The one that I have heard sounds awful, due to (apparently) having been de-noised to the point that essentially all of the "room tone" is gone.

In any case, the list of venues with their own 70mm prints of 2001 at the moment is as follows:

Egyptian
Seattle Cinerama
Music Box
Somerville (not yet screened)

Are there any others?
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-06-2017, 05:58 AM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

It would have been nice if they could have struck more prints directly from the element used to make the 1988 restoration prints, but there must have been powerful reasons against doing that

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

They'll be asking, "what's the big deal about 70mm? I don't see a difference."

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I think there is little point to outputting a 2K or 4K DI to 70mm other than giving projectionists more practice handling 70mm film.

---