Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Compare 70MM with 4K in San Francisco

This is topic Compare 70MM with 4K in San Francisco 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=012378

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-30-2018, 09:02 AM:

The Castro Theatre in San Francisco will be showing 2001: A Space Odyssey next month and they will be alternating between 4K digital projection and a 70MM film print on their "huge" 44-foot-wide screen.

quote:
FRIDAY DECEMBER 28 through TUESDAY JANUARY 1
SPECIAL PRESENTATION ($14/$11)

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY — The 70mm / 4K Challenge
Fri, Sat, Sun 1:00 (70mm), 4:30 (4K), 8:00 (70mm)
Mon 1:00 (70mm), 4:30 (4K)
Tue 1:00 (70mm), 4:30 (4K), 8:00 (70mm)

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of this seminal film, Warner Bros. Pictures released an “unrestored” 70mm print of Stanley Kubrick’s groundbreaking science fiction epic. A true photochemical film recreation, this print was struck from new printing elements made from the original camera negative with no digital tricks, remastered effects, or revisionist edits. This anniversary also brought the release of the film in a 4K restoration. To wrap up 2018 and ring in 2019, the Castro will be screening both restorations daily—choose your preference, compare, discuss! The odyssey stars Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, and the soothing voice of Douglas Rain (RIP). (1968, 142 min plus intermission, 70mm 'Scope/4K DCP ‘Scope)

I wondered if they'd be running the 4k dcp through a 2k projector like so many theaters, but according to the article below they upgraded to 4k after their 2k projector suffered from a stuck pixel.

Bayflicks.net:

quote:
The Castro now has 4K projection

JULY 22, 2014 ~ LINCOLN SPECTOR

Top technology has been an important part of the Castro‘s appeal for a long time. The theater was, I believe, the first rep house to get Dolby stereo, digital sound, and DCP-compatible digital projection. I believe it’s the only local rep house that can project 70mm film, and one of only two that can handle 50’s-style,dual-strip 3D.

And now they’ve added the digital equivalent of 70mm film–4K projection. 4K projects four times the resolution of standard 2K. I’ve never seen a side-by-side comparison of the two, and I’ve heard conflicting opinions from experts on this. But I suspect that the difference is significant, especially if the film was shot in a large format and if you’re sitting close to the screen (as I usually do).

Last year, I was delighted to learn that the Pacific Film Archive had a new, 4K projector. But the PFA has a small screen–too small for an immersive experience. Not so with the Castro’s large screen.

Back in May, I wrote about a stuck pixel that marred the Castro’s digital screenings. At the end of that article, I disclosed that I had "emailed my Castro press contact about this issue, but he could only give me information off the record." Now I can tell you what he told me: that they might simply fix the problem, or they might instead upgrade to 4K projection. Today, he revealed that "We have completed installation of the 4K projector."

I am, of course, delighted.

When can you see the new projector in action? The Castro will screen Double Indemnity off a DCP tomorrow night, but that one is probably 2K (although I honestly don’t know). However, they’ll be screening The Leopard in 4K on August 24, and Lawrence of Arabia that way August 30 and September 1. Both films were shot in large film formats (Technirama and Super Panavision 70 respectively). I suspect that both films will look great in 4K projection.

If anyone here attends, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-30-2018, 10:00 AM:

I saw this summer's 70mm release five times at five separate theaters, and I have seen the 4k version as well. Visually, the 4K version is demonstrably superior to the unrestored 70mm version on several levels. So the real question might be, how does each version make you feel? You may get nostalgic tingles (as I admittedly did) watching the film, and then you might be suitably impressed (as I admittedly was) by the restoration. Trying to argue which is truly the better format, though, is a fool's game. It's all very individual, and that is why I think the Castro screenings might be just stirring the shit, as much as I would be interested to hear the comments.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-30-2018, 10:20 AM:

Fair enough Mark, but I have to ask: Did you watch both formats on the same screen? And if not, were the screens the same size? Were you sitting roughly the same distance away?

IMO, the neat thing about the Castro Theatre Format Shit-Stir is that all of the other variables are equalized.

[Smile]

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-30-2018, 10:40 AM:

I didn't to that, no, but I must respectfully disagree with the "same screen" argument. All sixteen of the 70mm prints from this summer's release had the same worn-film issues that were inherited from the printing inter-negative: tears, negative dirt, blown out highlights, bad color timing in spots. The 4k FotoKem-Warner restoration repairs all of these issues. I don't know if everything being equal in screening venues is really going to tilt things one way or another, IMHO. The 70mm prints will still have issues, as cool and as film-romantic as they may be to watch.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-2018, 11:17 AM:

You also have to take into account a new 4K digital projector vs. an unknown level of performance from that old 70mm projector. Also will both formats be projected at their industry standards of brightness? Could someone skilled with the 70mm projection system get more performance out of it (and I don't just mean some random tech who can make them run). Does the print copy they will be running have any damage on it (not negative damage, but physical projection print wear)? Heck they could be using an Osram bulb in the 70mm projector making the flicker effect from the 70mm projection really bad. (The light optics in a digital projector will mostly mask that effect.)

I highly doubt it will be a truly fair comparison.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-30-2018, 02:21 PM:

As much as I love film, given the realities of the situation, the DCP will likely look "better".

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-30-2018, 06:02 PM:

We did something kind of like this here a few years ago. At the time, we watched a) a reel from a then-current 70mm Warners 2001 print, from the old IN, b) a reel of an original 70mm print made from the camera negative (the print was completely faded), c) the then-current Warners DCP, and d) the then-current Blu-Ray.

The DCP was horrifyingly bad--worse than the Blu-Ray, even. Clearly, it was poorly made and hopefully will never be seen again.

The then-current 70mm print was considered to be best-looking overall (by far), but it was significantly softer than the original, faded print. An incredible amount of detail was lost in the IP/IN process.

This was, of course, an unscientific process, and the BR and DCP versions at the time were bad examples of what those formats can do.

Curiously, over the past summer, when I got to do some screenings of a new 2001 print, I invited a theatre-owner friend of mine to come to see it. He was familiar with the film, having played it in his theatre in 35mm many times, but had never seen it in 70mm. Somewhat to my surprise, he was not terribly impressed by the improvements of the 70mm format. Go figure.

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 11-30-2018, 08:28 PM:

I can assure all that the Castro has a Christie CP 4230 4K projector with Dolby DSS 200 server with Cat 745 IMB. I was part of the team that installed a few years back. It replaced a Christie CP 2000 XB projector and DSS/DSP 100 server.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-01-2018, 03:17 PM:

How is the audio for this being done? Is the original Todd-AO mix (five stage channels, mono surround, no LFE) being played with both the 70mm and digital versions, the f***ing abysmal 5.1 remix with both, or Todd-AO with one and 5.1 with the other?

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 12-01-2018, 03:57 PM:

They do not have Le and Re. So 5.1

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 12-01-2018, 05:16 PM:

The no volume tiny surround speakers at the Castro Theatre will not do justice to either the 70mm film or the 4K DCP 2001 showings.
The small square box speakers were used when they were put in from the Alhambra Theatre in SF many years ago.
They have no bass or even treble, very flat If you can even hear them.
We have heard things will change soon at he Castro SF but not before the 70mm/4K demo for 2001.
The brand new combo pipe/electric organ that is going in will have large surround speakers with good sound for movies and the organ.
To bad It won't be ready for 2001.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-01-2018, 10:24 PM:

Actually, not very good surround speakers wouldn't be that much of a problem for authentic Todd-AO mixes. There was only one channel of surround, and it was only used very sparingly, to provide a non-directional ambience boost: "dead track" such as a bit of an echo for scenes in large rooms, for example.

Not having the left and right extras is a bigger problem, and a huge pity. Todd-AO sound did not follow the Dolby rule of all dialogue coming through the center channel. In the meeting scene on the space station towards the start of the movie, for example, an actor's voice pans from L > LE > C > RE > R as he paces across the room. Dialogue between two people at opposite sides of the frame come from L and R. All of that subtlety is lost in the 5.1 remix. I get that they had to do a 5.1 mix for consumer media and theaters that don't have LE and RE (i.e. most of them), but the audio mix is such an important part of that movie, that I'd personally rather see a digital projection with the Todd-AO audio than 70mm and 5.1.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-04-2018, 10:51 PM:

Will the admission price entitle the purchaser to see two screenings? If not, the staggered showtimes make this seem like a cash grab since it'll require interested parties to see it twice in order to do the comparison. And it's not even a fair comparison, in my opinion, since, among other things, the two versions aren't of the same generation.

Too bad the Castro can't/won't alternate between the two versions in a single screening, which reminds me of a great format comparison I attended that did just that: a special industry screening of Clint Eastwood's "Space Cowboys" where the odd reels were projected on film and the even "reels" were shown digitally. (Or maybe it was the other way around.) This was in 2000 in L.A. at the former Hollywood Pacific.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-05-2018, 01:24 AM:

Giant 44 foot screen??? [Eek!]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-05-2018, 07:14 AM:

Wouldn't the only way to do a sort-of valid comparison be to set up a synchronized split screen presentation where both sides are set up to spec by a skilled technician?

The only decent comparison I personally have of 4k vs. 70mm is the Soarin' ride at Epcot. The old Soarin' was IMAX 48FPS (with the California film) and the new version is 4K laser (I think Christie and unknown frame rate) but a different film.

The 4k laser is brighter and more uniform light. Resolution seems equivalent. At least from the very close viewing distance there are no noticeable breakdowns in resolution or visible pixel grid. However the IMAX film version definitely had a more organic "feel" to it. Also the IMAX lenses compensated for the curved screen. The new lenses don't and, if you aren't sitting dead center, things get crazy, distracting curves.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-05-2018, 09:28 AM:

quote:
Giant 44 foot screen??? [Eek!]

Yes, I had the same reaction. That's why I added the quotation marks in my original post.

(The Castro Website has a photo with the caption: "1,400 seat theatre with a huge 25'x44' screen").

I understand that this event isn't perfect... but it's pretty damn unique. I've never heard of a public comparison between projection formats like this.

I guess the consensus is that they shouldn't even bother?

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 12-05-2018, 10:43 AM:

I was thinking a way the SF Castro Theatre can add width to their screen without coming out front as there is some little backstage room, just put in a curved screen and have it go and curve on the sides and move way back on stage, you could add 20 feet on the sides with the same amount of front proscenium.

They would have to move the projection booth downstairs for any keystone problems plus get the correct curved lens both for film & DCP.

Now the Castro can add 'A Huge 64 Foot Screen!'

There would be so many people complaining I bet like the old silent people and 1.33 film classic crowd.

You could still have the masking that moves at top but all the images would have a slight curve to them.

Just like the old RKO Golden Gate Cinerama in SF did when they showed 70mm 2001 on a giant curved screen on their stage.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-05-2018, 11:18 AM:

I agree that it would be fun to go to see irregardless the size of the screen.

Mark

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 12-05-2018, 08:25 PM:

The problem is that it's an apples and oranges comparison because the 70mm is the unrestored version and they're not sourced from the same originals.

A better comparison would have been between the 70mm Ultra-Pan version of "The Hateful Eight" and the DCP.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-06-2018, 02:26 PM:

Actually, the best test would be a modern film like Dunkirk. I'd love to see an A/B comparison of the imax sequences on an imax screen film vs digital.

Posted by Jean-Pierre Gutzeit (Member # 7275) on 12-23-2018, 03:54 AM:

I agree. The best way to test projection systems would be using a brand new 35mm or 65mm production. Otherwise I was not very impressed by DUNKIRK: to flat, greenish and grainy. A direct 70mm print of MURDERER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS possible could help, but there were only versions won from the Digital Intermediate, no direct prints).

A very difficult situation, I think.

Normally, a 70mm film print of the 35mm or 65mm original negative is far superior to a 4K DCP, a discussion superfluous here.
Unfortunately, however, the overprinted "2001" in all versions available since 2018 (Imax DMR 4K and Imax 70mm, 70mm Todd AO, Blu Ray, UHD) was very inadequate and processed incorrectly. Loss of details in shadows and lights, wrong colors, bad grading/color correction, intensified coarseness of the grain structure, contrast reduction. Impeccable were only the 35mm and 70mm prints of 1968, now faded. Somewhat flawed is the Blu-ray disc from 2008, but it still partially reminiscent of the original look of the colors and contrasts from the 60s, although the sharpness and clarity is not optimal. It's a lost film we never more will see as made for the Todd AO production level. Very pity: the digital restorations of MY FAIR LADY, SPARTACUS or BARAKA are far superior to this "2001" disaster.

Posted by Helmut Maripuu (Member # 2281) on 12-23-2018, 03:08 PM:

Is it possible to use laser instead of Xenon lamp in 35 and 70 mm projectors. what is the difference in the picture?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2018, 04:58 PM:

And your goal would be what with the laser light source?

In digital, with xenon we are using a prism to separate the light into the primaries. Having an RGB laser system starts you with what you want.

For film, the film itself is the "filter" for the light. So the purer-white (or color temp) your light source, the better. Etandu would be better with a laser light source but you still need the full spectrum before it hits the film. The realities are also that nobody is going to develop much for film projection, at this point, let alone something that would be that cutting edge/expensive.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-25-2018, 11:10 PM:

So far, all three of the alternatives (laser phosphor, RGB laser, and the Samsung "big TV") to xenon illumination for digital projection have proven to be simply too expensive to threaten the market dominance of the xenon arc, especially for smaller screens.

However, if and when that changes, and the production of xenon bulbs declines, the remaining users of film projectors may be forced to look for an alternative.

That having been said, it seems that LED technology is already close to the ballpark to being a viable alternative for that application. I've seen an LED retrofit replacement for the 900w xenon lamphouse in a Fumeo 16mm projector, and it looked pretty darn good to me. If that can be scaled up to be a viable replacement for larger bulbs, my guess is that it would be a lot cheaper than using lasers.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-26-2018, 05:58 PM:

Interesting side question with laser projection:

To begin my question, I used to,with an old slide scanner, scan 35mm frames for personal collection. This slide scanner would scan images using a very light blue light source.

Thus, I notice that frames from Eastman stock came to life due to the added blue light from the source due to the faded cyan dye.

Thus, wonder, with laser, if the light can be attenuated to more blue to help on projecting faded 35mm prints...

thx - Monte

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-19-2019, 08:44 AM:

Funny you should say that, Monte. Many a faded prints cam out way over the years and I wound up actually used a Rosco light-cyan gel in the lamphouse (Peerless Magnarc) to improve faded prints. Of course it never actually restores the color in any meaningful way, so it's barely an improvement, but for what it is worth, it did give an apparent improvement by muting some of the magenta.

First I tried gel in front of the lens, but that was useless because it wasn't optical quality. Ideally, there should have been optical filters like the Wrattan filters made specifically, with correction curves and densities for the level of fade in the print -- optical filters that could be place over the projection lens. Barring that, I placed the gel in the Magnarc lamphouse far enough away from where the light focuses enough to burn it. As it was, the gel would only last for two 2000' reels before it bleached too much to be useful.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-21-2019, 01:04 PM:

This approach is already used in archival film scanning. The German company MWA-Nova were (AFAIK) the first to do it - incorporate LEDs of the three primary colors into the illumination array, and thereby enable pretty much any color temperature to be set on the light source. The thinking is that color correcting in the analog domain before capture will achieve a better result than having to do it all in software after capture. Their competitors - Lasergraphics, Cintel, etc. - are now all taking this approach as well.

In the hands of a skilled operator, this can achieve spectacular results: I've seen footage that looks like a b/w print tinted pink put through one of these, and the resulting digital movies look like they were shot yesterday.