quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

New Beverly in LA has confirmed 35mm screenings.

---

Well, that would stand to reason .
 

---

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 07-03-2019, 02:04 PM:
 
According to in70mm.com The Grand Lake in Oakland, CA will be showing a 70mm print.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-03-2019, 02:48 PM:
 
I'm aware of two theaters in San Francisco that have said they will
be getting 35mm prints, although there are probably more, and as
Sean said, The Grand Lake in Oakland will have 70mm, and it's
worth the trip over to Oakland to see it there. (And it's an easy
trip to get across The Bay using the BART train from SF)

I'm not mentioning by name the two possible 35mm venues, because,
one of them needs some extensive work to get its' 35mm equipment
back in shape, and I'm not sure they have time to do that by the
release date, although they might surprise me. (I can't help them
- - I'm busy working on two other projects)

- - and the 2nd venue is in much better shape, equipment-wise, but
they have nobody on staff at present who has any idea how to run film.
And I can't help them either.

But you know,there's a lot to do here in SF and Oakland, that doesn't
involve spending time in the dark. No matter what you decide to do,
enjoy your visit to the Bay Area!
 

---

Posted by Jan Eberholst Olsen (Member # 10133) on 07-03-2019, 04:24 PM:
 
Grand Lake seems to be the best choice, thank you very much. Do they have a white screen, or silver? I see that they do dual projection 3D, so hopefully it will be on a white screen?

If I decide to watch downtown in a modern theatre, which auditorium is the best regarding sound/image quality? Would love to avoid a silver screen.

Yes, wife and daughter traveling with me, so this will be the only cinema related stop for me on this trip.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-03-2019, 06:38 PM:
 
The Grand Lake in Oakland is absolutely worth the trouble to get to, especially if you want to see a still-intact example of classic theaters. They have the Golden Age of Cinema thing still happening, curtains, light cues and an organist. Great quality projection from two nicely maintained DP70s, and terrific sound. Of the five unique 70mm showings of 2001 that I saw last year, the Grand Lake had the probably the best on-screen image and certainly the best sound.




 

---

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 07-03-2019, 08:58 PM:
 
The Little Theater, Rochester's only true independent theater left, has issued a release stating that they will be playing a 1st run 35mm print day and date with the digital theaters in the area.

The Little Theater has one large screen, and a separate building right behind it, which is 4 additional screens converted from a previous facility. My mother and her family, who grew up in the city during the 60s and 70s say it used to be a mechanic's garage.

They were the last theater in the area to run new film prints of foreign and art films and fully converted to digital a few years back. I guess they retained two of their film projectors and kept them installed to run repertory films in changeover.

Beyond that, I have zero idea what they've got installed, what condition the equipment is in, and how often it gets used. They've played a few 35mm prints as part of their Saturday Night Rewind series, but a local projectionist told me they sourced most of those prints from a collector in New Jersey and the quality was questionable at best.

Their chief projectionist must be good at what she does, as she was called into service during the 70mm run of Dunkirk in LA or in California someplace, but I plan on seeing it as early as possible before anything heinous could happen to it.
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 07-03-2019, 09:22 PM:
 
Unfortunately it is unconfirmed what sort of a print the Grand Lake is getting. There was talk of a 70mm and then it was 35mm for sure and possible 70mm but were told not to advertise anything film related.

I will followup when I know for sure.

Nice shots of the theatre whoever took them.
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 07-08-2019, 01:51 PM:
 
I have just heard that the New Mission theatre in San Francisco is getting the only 70mm print in northern California. The Grand Lake is still in the running for a 35mm print.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 07-08-2019, 07:39 PM:
 
Arclight Cinemas is getting a 70mm print for Hollywood. They will probably have 2 prints, one at Sherman Oaks as well, that's been the trend so far. Not sure how many prints they're making tho, I know Fotokem is working pretty hard on them, they've got more staff then normal over there.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2019, 11:59 PM:
 
Why so stingy on the damned 70mm prints? Film prints overall are expensive to create these days. How much more does a 70mm print with DTS time code cost over a 35mm print, presumably with either DTS time code and/or on-print Dolby Digital audio? It's not like anyone is having to mag-stripe anything anymore.


The Hateful Eight had a shit-ton of 70mm prints, along with a bunch of 70mm-capable film projector installations. But on this go-round they can't have more than two 70mm prints of a QT movie booked in the Bay Area? What the hell is going on? Are these guys on dope? I don't get it.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-09-2019, 02:50 AM:
 
Around this time, the cost for a 70mm print is anything between $20K and $30K, depending on run time and probably also the number of copies. That is "plain 70mm" without mag tracks. I'm not sure if there is still a lab able to do mag tracks out there.

Back in the days of mass-produced 35mm film, I guess the costs for the film itself were around $1000 to $1500 on average. Prices will have gone up significantly by now, but I can still order single copies of 35mm features (~2 hours) for around $2500~$3000.

Currently, the only digital audio format compatible with 70mm is good old DTS (the disc based system). It's not likely anybody will come up with a way to sync e.g. Atmos or DTS-X with a 70mm print, although it should technically be doable.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-09-2019, 06:06 AM:
 
Where are you getting your print costs from on 70mm? 70mm film typically costs double 35mm (last I heard, anyway) and the length will be 25% longer so I get it being more than double that of 35mm and even a premium to handle but $20K-$30K is not numbers I've heard before.

The cost would be in getting the first print. That is generating a color timed IN will be where the money is to get that first print. Thereafter, it is straight up duplication (film chemicals and processing). I could easily see it costing $30K to get the first print.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-09-2019, 08:48 AM:
 
What Steve said. The Kodak motion-picture price catalog is here:

https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Product_Information/Kodak-Motion-Picture-Products-Price-Catalog-US-Prices.pdf

2500' of 70mm 2383 is $723.12. If prices are similar to 35mm, the price for a print will be about double that (due to the printing labor and processing), so that makes it about $1500/reel. That makes abut $12k for a print of a 160-minute film at full list price. There is no way that Sony Pictures is paying full list price for anything. There might be some extra cost for shipping and such, but, again, a major studio will never pay full list price.

And, yes, the DTS licensing, optical (or digital) blowup, and 65mm IP/INs will be the expensive part of the process. I have no idea what DTS licensing costs now, but I could easily see the intermediates costing $3-4/foot, plus the cost of the optical work.

If there are really only a handful of 70mm prints, this seems awfully stingy. There are at least a dozen venues in the USA alone that are equipped to show 70mm properly using existing, installed equipment and which would probably be happy to get prints.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-09-2019, 08:49 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

What the hell is going on? Are these guys on dope? I don't get it.

---

quote: Terry Monohan

---

Once A Time was filmed on 35mm film stock. Was not shot in 65mm like Hateful 8, why bother even to blow up a 35mm scope print to 70mm just for a few cinemas to run. It may look a little better then 35mm or DCP who knows, the DTS stereo sound will be the same as the best digital multi track systems around today but probably not as good as a Dolby Atmos® cinema.

---

quote: Terry Monohan

---

I don't seem to remember this curve up problem at the Hollywood Dome till they put in DCP projectors and It has gotten worse. I have been to many large curved screens around the USA and I don't see the keystone problem like at the Cinerama Dome on the bottom of the screen on the far right & left sides of the screen.

---

quote: Mark Louis

---

Here at Alamo we have time and again proven that there is still a great deal of public interest in 35mm and 70mm. We have consistently had higher grosses for movies we've played in those formats compared to their DCP versions.

---

quote: Mark Ogden

---

Someday, if I ever encounter Harvey Weinstein, I will ask him if he ever regretted the money he blew on the 70mm Super Panavision release of The Hateful Eight...

---

quote: Terry Monohan

---

Id hate to see this new 70mm blow up movie at the Pacific Cinerama Dome Hollywood as they seem to have the wrong masking and lens as the scope picture at least on DCP is
curved way up on the bottom right and left of their semi giant Cinerama curved screen.

---

Just for the record: the "smiling" lower masking at the Dome is a relatively recent matter, added specifically for the installation of their current laser projection equipment. Their original digital projectors, whatever they were, used no such masking, and the screen simply used common-height curtains for adjustment between all formats.

For proof, here's a snapshot during the Dome's 60th Cinerama Anniversary celebration in 2012. After a 3-strip film screening, they were aligning the digital projection for the next title with a few of us stragglers still milling about:


A lot of image is cropped off the center bottom of the image, as you can see. None is now with the "smile" shape. Of course we all hope they can remove that mask for film screenings.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-09-2019, 09:34 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Where are you getting your print costs from on 70mm? 70mm film typically costs double 35mm (last I heard, anyway) and the length will be 25% longer so I get it being more than double that of 35mm and even a premium to handle but $20K-$30K is not numbers I've heard before.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There are some benefits to projecting a 70mm print as opposed to 35mm, even if the original source is 35mm. A 5/70mm image will usually be brighter and more steady than a 4/35mm print shown on the same screen.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Back in the late 1990's during the stadium seated theater building boom chains like Cinemark, UA and others were building some giant-sized screens but only equipping them for 35mm. I hated that practice because the projected images would often be soft and unacceptably dim.

---

quote: Mark Louis

---

Here at Alamo we have time and again proven that there is still a great deal of public interest in 35mm and 70mm. We have consistently had higher grosses for movies we've played in those formats compared to their DCP versions. When we ran Phantom thread in 70mm in our three 70mm houses, all three were were in the top 10 list of highest grossing screens and Brooklyn was #1.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Yes, I know I'm going "wild" here, but to be honest, I don't see much benefit for a 35mm to 70mm blowup compared to a good 4K RGB laser projection of a proper 35mm scan, even if the picture is in scope and we're losing a bunch of pixels and brightness in the process. We can also have the benefits from a full, uncompressed PCM soundtrack then, compared to compressed DTS.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

While I agree that 35mm on such huge screens had a whole lot of issues, the lack of 70mm projection equipment can be somewhat forgiven, especially for those locations that only showed first-run content. How many 70mm releases where there back in the 1990's? I count three, of which one is a documentary.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Only a tiny minority of theaters have 4K RGB laser projection. Let's not forget very few contemporary movies are fully produced in 4K resolution; most are still 2K.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Taking the current de facto post production work flows into account, I'd rather watch a 70mm blow-up of a 35mm-sourced movie that went through a 100% analog work flow than a digital TechniScope derived version of it. I might feel different about it if d-cinema audio/video standards were remarkably different from the tech available for home.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The early 1990's had quite a few 70mm blow-up releases. Things didn't start falling off until the 1993-94 time frame. Nevertheless, doing 5/70mm in these new giant-screen stadium seated theaters would have been easy.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Isn't the end-result what counts, even if the technology in your living room and that in the cinema has a lot in common those days?

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

A good 4K scan of a 35mm film will get you any relevant information of what is in there. If you present it back using a high-contrast, digital projection system like an RGB laser setup, you get an extremely stable image and lose essentially nothing of what was in the 35mm frame.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

We were talking late 90's and things were pretty dire back then. I'd say from 96 on, there were like 2 or 3 movies a year getting a 70mm blow-up, but they got like 3 or 4 prints for the entire world, usually only reserved for the high-profile premiere locations or special screenings.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Today, with so little perceptible difference in image quality between the theatrical d-cinema version and HD version on home video, I have little desire to even drive across town to see a given at a local theater, much less drive 100 or 200 miles to the nearest theater equipped with laser projection.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Not with 'scope movies. And the 2.39:1 ratio is by far the most commonly used one these days. You can scan a 4/35mm film negative in 4K and get most of the image detail. But then the post production folks throw away half the image when squeezing it down to what's effectively a TechniScope 2/35 image. They don't expand the full 4/35mm image out wide the way a 35mm projector's anamorphic lens would do. They delete detail to acheive the proper aspect ratio.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The fall-off of 70mm print production by distributors in the late 1990's is not all the fault of the distributors. The movie theater chains helped create that situation.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

The problem with 5 perf of course is that doing a photochemical blowup costs a lot of money. When dolby stereo and eventually surround sound came out, the need for 6 channel 70mm soundtracks was negated. We went backwards technology wise until the digital audio age which solved many of the issues 35mm faced.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Sure, but try to keep a realistic view on things. I know many people with pretty big TVs but none of them is set up in a way that closely resembles a proper cinema setup. Also, there are more factors than just image and sound for going to the movies.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Also, history has the tendency to paints stuff rosier than it really was. The quality of many 35mm screenings back in the multiplex heydays was often so bad, that even a good VHS recording could compete with the experience.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Even a good 4K scan of a scope 35mm image retains the information. It's not that a 35mm frame suddenly grows more grains, because an anamorphic lens was used to compress the image. The problem is with the projection, where scope simply looses too much light and some vertical resolution.

But I'm personally a proponent of introducing "non-square pixels" (or pixels, with a "virtual" aspect ratio) into the DCI format itself. That way, the extra vertical resolution of the DCI imagers can be used, in combination with an anamorphic lens. There is also no need to stretch the image across the DMD in that case.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Well, there was probably a shared responsibility here. What I want to add is that from my perspective, I've seen quite some theaters that maintained their 70mm equipment and even some new developments that still put in 70mm equipment into their new houses back in the late 90's.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

70mm DTS prints are easier to produce. It's just image and time code, nothing else. Had the movie theater chain executives used a few brain cells they could have ran with that and ended up with a 70mm format whose prints only cost 2.5 times what an ordinary 35mm print would cost (rather than a 10 to 20 fold price increase per print). But no, 35mm with 3 different brands of lossy compressed digital sound is a perfect replacement for 70mm. That was the mindset until IMAX came along and started making up their own rules.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I'm sorry, but what the hell does "proper cinema setup" mean when I'm watching a movie (or any kind of program) on a huge 65" flat panel TV screen in my living room?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

As much as I like a big crowd reaction to an important moment in a movie I really cannot stand the fucking constant disruptions from inconsiderate assholes in the audience. I wish every movie theater had a zero tolerance policy on the damned mobile phones.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

A sub-par 35mm presentation in a theater was still showing something effectively in high definition. No home format back then could equal that. Compared to a crappy 35mm presentation a good home video setup might have sported better color and contrast but the detail-resolution level would not have been for shit. Throw in some pan and scan vomit for good measure. That was VHS back in the day

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

That gets back to the concept I think movie studios and theater should have been using from the outset: use 1.25x anamorphic lenses in conjunction with DCPs covering all of the pixels of 2048x1080 or 4096x2160 d-cinema projector imaging chips. It would have been similar to what DVD offered with 16x9 enhanced widescreen.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

All it would have took was a few key people between the theater chains and distributors having a simple conversation. We could have had a LOT of movies in the late 1990's through the 2000's released with 70mm DTS prints. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The fall-off of 70mm print production by distributors in the late 1990's is not all the fault of the distributors. The movie theater chains helped create that situation. They goofed big time in a lot of their new stadium seated megaplex sites by not installing any 70mm capability in their giant screen houses. The theater chains removed the necessary infrastructure for showing 70mm.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Even a good 4K scan of a scope 35mm image retains the information. It's not that a 35mm frame suddenly grows more grains, because an anamorphic lens was used to compress the image. The problem is with the projection, where scope simply looses too much light and some vertical resolution.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

You are incorrect on this one. 35mm Scope starts with more information than 4K can capture. 4K is about the resolution of 35mm 1.85, not scope.

---

Sure, scope uses almost the full frame available on 4-perf 35mm. Still, there is an ongoing discussion about how much information there is in 4 perf 35mm. It also depends a lot on the type of film used and the process it took from camera to film, so it's not all that clear cut.

If you ask IMAX, there is sufficient "hidden" information between the grains to blow it up to 15perf 70mm... now, that's one nice fairy tale...

In reality, 4K is enough to come sufficiently close to the "human perceivable resolution" of 35mm film, both for flat and "scope-done-wrong". It will be difficult to do an unbiased A/B test though, since everybody of us will almost spot immediately if something is a digital or analog projection.

I think we can all agree on the fact that scope is actually done wrong in DCI. What used to be the bigger format, now is essentially the format with less light and less resolution.

While anamorphic lenses solve the brightness issue, the resolution issue can only be solved by changing the DCI standard to allow for "anamorphic pixels" to be in the actual DCP.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-13-2019, 12:09 PM:
 

quote:

---

Someday, if I ever encounter Harvey Weinstein, I will ask him if he ever regretted the money he blew on the 70mm Super Panavision release of The Hateful Eight, one of Quentin Tarantino's least successful movies. All those projectors and lenses that he scavenged and refurbished, the print costs, the logistics, for what? This thing wasn't exactly Lawrence of Arabia. The expenditure on the theatre level as well, between $40 - 80,000 per screen, I remember reading at the time. I hope they got some of it back.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I remember it quite differently. And I put the blame 95% on the distributors, not the exhibitors. The distributors didn't want to strike 70mm prints anymore and therefore exhibitors stopped putting in the equipment if they weren't going to get the prints. An exhibitor isn't going to spend upwards of 3-4 times on projection equipment for something they aren't going to get. A 70mm projector was significantly more expensive than the 35mm counterpart, not merely double. Even in the heyday of 70mm, the number of 70mm projectors made was a tiny drop compared to 35mm.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Now you can probably blame the exhibitors for not complaining and DEMANDING (from people that will do what they want anyway) that they wanted 70mm for their largest screens and perhaps, the likes of AMC/Regal could have forced the issue. But when have they ever been about doing the right thing for quality's sake? They lead the way against masking in the digital era, for crying out loud.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Sure, scope uses almost the full frame available on 4-perf 35mm. Still, there is an ongoing discussion about how much information there is in 4 perf 35mm. It also depends a lot on the type of film used and the process it took from camera to film, so it's not all that clear cut.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Mark, do you know any details about where Alamo might be building new locations? I've heard rumors they were going to open a theater in the Oklahoma City area (specifically in the new Chisholm Creek development). But I've seen no official word about it from Alamo on their web site.

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

Why wasn't a film projector installed in the "Big Show" auditorium at Alamo's new Westminster, Colorado location?

---

quote:

---

Go Alamo Brooklyn!

---

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD will be shown in 35mm at the Gateway Film Center in Columbus, OH.

---

quote: Stephan Shelley

---

New Mission has Century JJs, CP650 daisy chained into a Trinnov Ovation 1, DTS XD10 (I think), silver screen. No platter just reel to reel.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Those theaters who actually follow their policy and do have the guts to effectively warn and eject people should also clearly advertise it. At the very least it would help me to choose the correct theater.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

if you could bring in $156M against a $44M investment

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

The facts are, we have no way of knowing how much extra revenues that 70mm pulled in (if any, for that matter)

---

quote: Mark Ogden

---

It didn't matter that the picture was little more than a three-hour version of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles...

---

Actually, the plot structure is very, very, similar to that of a British murder mystery novel published in 1939:



...which might at least partly explain your comments about the racism in H8 (though I suspect that the real explanation is more simple: Tarantino has a bit of a Touretty streak when it comes to the n-word, and doesn't really get that after about the 100th utterance of it, the viewer is no longer shocked, but just bored and irritated).

Even in 1939, that title was considered problematic, and the book was hastily renamed And Then There Were None, and reprinted.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-13-2019, 05:12 PM:
 
I'm quite aware of gross versus net costs.

As I recall, on the H8 the cost of showing the movie (projectionists, technicians for install, projectors) was covered by the studio. Exhibitors would never fork over enormous sums for a 1-off. About all the exhibitor had to do was provide the space for the projector with port(s) and yes, ensure they could get the print in the booth). The only ones that paid for the projectionist, that I'm aware were the reel-to-reel houses that also didn't get the free equipment (except lenses...which technically were on loan)...so less money for TWC.

The opening weekend give one a sense of what the 70mm venues did relative to the others since they had an exclusive and even when it went wide what the take/screen was can give an indicator of the draw of 70mm versus just seeing the movie somewhere. Naturally, it would be better to have the numbers of the 70mm venues as compared to the 35mm to see how big a draw it was on this title. It wouldn't tell you how many EXTRA people you got to the theatre (you could merely be competing with yourself).

Was it worth it, not even TWC would know unless they could know how many people they drew in that they wouldn't have without the 70mm prints and how those that saw it or heard about it and how that affected their home viewing choice (did they buy the Blu-ray/pay for streaming). You'd need that information to make a better calculation as to the 70mm value.

I think you'll be waiting a long time (read never) to find out from Harvey. A better tell would have been had TWC continued and if they were to continue to release in 70mm (figure the business would continue to do things that made it more money)...but again, we won't know. We do know that WB thought enough about 70mm to buy the equipment from TWC and they too would have better knowledge of how the 70mm venues performed compared to others and any ripple effects of releasing in the format.

While it would be easy to show that the UP70 from shooting to presentation was a considerable outlay (and I strongly question the Ultra Panavision part as I didn't see it adding anything to movie and quite probably lowered its overall quality as compared to normal SP70 not to mention smaller images since most people had to reduce height, not gain width). You cannot declare it lost profits unless you can show that releasing in UP70 didn't bring in at least the money it cost. Neither you nor I have those numbers.
As for Columbia (Sony)...they struck 5 prints that we know about in 70mm of a 35mm (and 16mm and 8mm) origination movie. Why? As others have pointed out, it isn't for the sound. Picture wise, I think it will look better in commercial theatres than the 35mm prints. As for costs, they spent a fair amount of money to get those 5 prints since they had to pay to get the 65mm IN.

I strongly suspect that IF QT stated he was shooting in 65mm that Columbia/Sony would have still green lit the movie. And if that happened, the odds of a wide release in 70mm would have been likely. However, being shot in 35mm (primarily), what is the point of a 70mm release, by and large? The big venues will be all too happy to play it digitally. The 35mm venues will be able to play it in "film" for the warm and fuzzies.

I never got the impression that QT was the 70mm crusader that Nolan and PTA are. He is a FILM guy, for sure but other than H8, when has he mentioned that he wanted to shoot in 65mm? And for a period piece, I could see him rationalizing shooting in lower formats to create a look that 65mm would destroy. Shooting in 65mm also alters one's needs in terms of lighting, depth of field and the physical space for the camera/equipment.

I just don't think you can draw conclusions about Sony's position on 70mm based on this title which, again, they are striking/stuck a handful of prints anyway for likely dubious benefits. I would presume that the venues that are getting them are known for their film projection and have rather largish screens...in which case, I can see 70mm to overcome typical projection systems trying to blow the image up that big and get enough light out there.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-13-2019, 05:51 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There wasn't a lot of theaters equipped with 70mm, but I think there were enough systems to go around for a giant screen house in a new $30 million megaplex to get a 70mm system. The Dallas-Fort Worth market was ground zero for the stadium seated theater boom. Out of new stadium seated theaters getting built there in the late 1990's maybe half a dozen or so houses had these giant sized screens. There were more than that many older screens there equipped for 70mm.

---

quote:

---

Exhibitors put in stadium seating (like they are putting in recliners) because that is what the audience wanted. Exhibitors are relatively simple people. They want to make money in a business that seems to go out of its way to deny them profits so their customers can bitch about how much they charge for sugar water and popcorn while they drive away in their Rolls Royces back to their mansions (they put up such good acts about such things).

They didn't put in 70mm because there were NO PRINTS BEING MADE or if there were, they were in such limited supply that unless you were in a major market, you weren't going to get one of the 5-15 prints. It is a pretty big gamble to spend a lot more money with no return on the investment. How many extra tubs of popcorn do you have to sell to cover the extra cost of a 70mm installation over a 35mm one? (Hint: A lot!).

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

As for masking. IMAX back when it was IMAX always filled their screen. As such, it was masked. It is only when they wanted a piece of the Hollywood pie did they present movies in a non-masked fashion.

---

quote: Mark Louis

---

Just opened Westminster, CO and LA in two weeks. Followed by Manhattan, Staten Island, Orlando, several in Texas, St. Louis, Washington DC, Arizona and North Carolina. No official word on Oklahoma yet.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I liked it that QT chose to film the The Hateful Eight entirely in 5/65mm. But I hated his choice of Ultra Panavision. The choice seemed like a stunt or ego-driven challenge just to see if he could pull it off. But the choice completely ignored how modern movie theaters are designed. Most have taller, common width screens where ordinary 'scope is shown letter-boxed. There are very few common height, Cinerama style theaters in operation. I would have been much happier with a regular 5/70mm show, and slightly taller image than regular 'scope. That would have been a lot better.

---

quote: Mark Louis

---

We of course can run 35mm over at Littleton and seriously considered it for Westminster in the PLF house and another smaller auditorium. Still under consideration but I did change some specs for our PLF and decided to just concentrate on D-cinema for now.

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

Please do reconsider. And don’t stop with 35mm, put a 70MM projector in there.

---

quote: Mark Louis

---

The vast majority of our screens that are over 35' wide are native scope screens and all of our screens have movable masking. My PLF spec is a minimum 66' wide screen that must be native scope.

---

quote: Mark Louis

---

Brooklyn is cooking for sure! OUaTiH will be there in 35mm and we're working on getting another 70mm print from Sony for that run. We'll have 9 more D-Cinema screens there by mid 2020.

---

quote: Mark Louis

---

Sorry, should have clarified. We are considering 70mm on the PLF in Westminster and 35mm on a smaller screen. Our new venue planned for Cedar Park, TX will have 70mm on the PLF screen.

---

quote:

---

Maybe you can get 70mm installed just in time for Christopher Nolan's Tenet, which is almost certainly going to be released in 70 mm in 2020.

---

quote:

---

Maybe you can get 70mm installed just in time for
Christopher Nolan's Tenet, which is almost certainly
going to be released in 70mm

---

... and if you really rush, maybe you can get 70mm installed
in time for Todd Phillip's JOKER release this October
 

---

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 07-22-2019, 08:56 AM:
 
I mentioned Tenet because I have no desire whatsoever to see Joker, even on home video.

To bring this full-circle, the premiere at the Cinerama Dome was in 70mm, and the regular run will be in 70mm in the dome and 35mm in an additional theater.

If you're in the Los Angeles area, I can't imagine not going to see it at the Dome if for no other reason than the meta moment of seeing the Dome projected in the Dome.
 

---

Posted by Mark Louis (Member # 10632) on 07-25-2019, 04:48 PM:
 
911! We were just finishing our test run of 70mm in San Francisco and on the last reel our drive shaft coupler between the projector head and sound head on the Century JJ broke. First show is in less than 2 hours. Any one have JJ parts in San Francisco? We need the sounhead to drive the take up reel.
 

---

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 07-25-2019, 10:25 PM:
 
Reporting back from the first public screening here in Rochester at The Little Theater.

Movie was alright. A little long, and a little over-indulgent in Tarantino-isms.

I had the bar set pretty low based on previous memory of 35mm presentation at The Little before they converted to digital, and this was about what I expected.

The print looked to be running in a 2 projector changeover booth with optical sound. Not sure what formats were on the print, no one seemed to have any info for me on that.

- the print was super unsteady from start to finish (not sure if everyone is having this issue, figured I'd note it)
- the left channel of sound dropped off on the changeover to reel 2 for the entire duration of the reel
- reels 3 and 5 were flat out, out of focus
- a misthread caused a nice big wave of distortion in the right sound channel on one of the last big changeovers
- honestly, the sound was pretty awful throughout the duration of the film, even when it was working
- the cues at the end of each reel were these ridiculously large hand drawn marker cues

Honestly, had I enjoyed the movie more, I don't think I would have been tuned in as aggressively....but I had plenty of time to assess the situation. It was not a great first impression. This venue benefited greatly from the switch to digital, and honestly I think I'd like to see it again at the local.......multiplex.....
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 07-26-2019, 12:15 AM:
 
I went to go see it today in 35mm and they didn't run it in film because after checking the print earlier in the day, they found distortion and audio issues on the dolby digital soundtrack. This most likely means, all of the 35mm prints are going to be bad.

I was planning on seeing it in 70mm, but the film is so uninteresting, I don't think it's worth seeing it a 2nd time right now.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-26-2019, 12:44 AM:
 
WARNING - PLOT SPOILER AHEAD

I read the plot synopsis, and apparently it's a sort of "what if" the murder of Sharon Tate had been stopped just before it happened.

If that's the case, I'm not sure that I want to go see it, even if perfectly presented from a gorgeous 70mm print in the perfect theater. I love new perspectives and interpretations on historical events, but pretending that one flat out didn't happen ... as a fan of documentaries more than any other movie genre (you're in a darkened room, with your entire attention on the big screen: therefore, if someone wants to present a complicated case to you, that takes time and a lot of information to push through, a theatrical movie is their best chance), I don't think I'd be able to do the disbelief suspending necessary.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-26-2019, 08:06 AM:
 
How'd you feel about Hitler being killed in Inglorius Basterds?
 

---

Posted by Paul Finn (Member # 10726) on 07-26-2019, 08:43 AM:
 
Do the 35mm prints have Datasat digital time code along with the accompanying CD/USB program audio, in addition to the SRD soundtrack?

Thanks, Paul Finn
 

---

Posted by Kieran Hall (Member # 10268) on 07-26-2019, 09:02 AM:
 
There's a photo doing the rounds online posted by the Belcourt Theatre that has the shipping cases newly labelled as "quad track" -- not sure how seriously I'd take this, though!
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-26-2019, 09:02 AM:
 

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

they found distortion and audio issues on the dolby digital soundtrack.
This most likely means, all of the 35mm prints are going to be bad.

---

quote: Mark Louis

---

Sorry, should have clarified. We are considering 70mm on the PLF in Westminster and 35mm on a smaller screen.

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

Why not install a good dual-format projector in the Big Show auditorium so that you can show both 70MM and 35mm?

---

quote:

---

Please bring 35mm and 70MM to the Big Show auditorium in Westminster and put more classics in there!

---

quote:

---

And why wait? Denver audiences are missing out!

---

quote: Paul Finn

---

Do the 35mm prints have Datasat digital time code

---

I let myself in to one of the local theaters running it in 35mm and
took a quick look at the print this morning before they opened.
> No DTS. Just SR (cyan) & SRD
> Print was on Kodak 2383 film stock
> Leaders said: "PhotoKem Digital" on them
> They shipped it on on the GOOD plastic reels- not those really
cheap "split reel" type with the non-standard core in the middle.
> - and the reels were shipped in fairly new METAL film shipping cases;
not those horrible hybrid cardboard/plastic things they used for the last decade.


I'm curious about the cue-mark comment made a few posts back.

>Does anyone know if the film has lab-cues on it?

The theater I was at had their print platterized, & I didn't want to
disturb it to look & see. (And I won't have time to watch a show till Sunday)
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-26-2019, 07:01 PM:
 
From Indiewire: Big problems at the Arclight Hollywood last night and this morning. 70mm died halfway thru the midnight show, first show this morning digital all the way. Back to full-on 70mm with 3:00 show this afternoon. No other details, but at least one person had a good riposte. Bravo!


 

---

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 07-26-2019, 07:46 PM:
 
Saw he movie this morning 7/26 at the 11AM (was to be 70mm showing) at the New Mission in San Francisco. As many of you know they have had problems with their 70mm projectors for two days now.
The manager of the Drafthouse New Mission Theatre sent out nice e mails this morning to tell everyone with 70mm tickets that the projectors are waiting for parts and the new 70mm film will be shown on a digital format today.
This is probably the only movie circuit in the USA 'Drafthouse' that lets the ticket buyers know about the 70mm problem today. They gave everyone a rain check and most of us watched the movie in DCP and It looked and sounded great on their large wide scope screen with curtains that work.
We enjoyed all the pre show trailers/shorts that Drafthouse always does a good job with.
Will try to see it in a few days in 70mm film once they get the old 70mm projectors working again and I hope they get some spare parts this time.
Thanks Jim C for the film print can info photos I think you will enjoy the movie either on 35mm,70mm or DCP.
You need to go to work for Drafthouse New Mission Theatre in SF, I bet with you working for them the old 70mm projectors would be working again with your connections for spare parts and pre run test maintenance.
Lets hope they can get the 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood' 70mm blow up prints working, as It is the only 70mm showing at this time in Northern CA and It has been locked up in the cans since Thursday!
 

---

Posted by Mark Louis (Member # 10632) on 07-27-2019, 09:29 AM:
 

quote: Terry Monohan

---

Will try to see it in a few days in 70mm film once they get the old 70mm projectors working again and I hope they get some spare parts this time.

---

quote: Stephan Shelley

---

BWT Mark those parts that came from Oakland were from my personal stock that an old projectionist and mentor gave to me before he passed away. I was also the one that made the arrangements for the loan of parts from the Presidio Theatre in San Francisco.

---

Thanks Stephan! Real life saver!
 

---

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 07-27-2019, 05:48 PM:
 
I received word from a Facebook friend that The Little made it 3 or 4 reels onto their print before they tossed in the towel and finished the film in digital today.

It’s going to be a rough engagement....
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 07-27-2019, 06:10 PM:
 
Your welcome Mark. I come from an era when theatres would help each other out in emergency even if they were competitors. If the theatre did not have the part needed the projectionist(s) knew who to call and where to find the needed parts.
 

---

Posted by Mark Louis (Member # 10632) on 07-27-2019, 06:13 PM:
 
Getting great feedback about 70mm at New Mission. Other than an additional gear lash adjustment possibly needed on one machine, shows are humming along nicely. In addition to aforementioned Stephan Shelley and Matt Leach, shout out to Sam Chavez, Frank Lee and Matt Pire who were also integral in saving the day. Knowing passionate people in this industry makes all the difference!

Concerning 35mm, I'm reliving my film past with many reports now coming in about possible equipment issues. Now that we're getting more than a few hours on these puppies, noisy intermittents, image unsteadiness, sound drums dragging and sound processor issues are some of what I'm hearing. Hold on to your butts! It's going to be a hell of a ride!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-28-2019, 05:43 AM:
 
Note, that coupler (I "think" its part number was CG-639 or CG-629...it's been a while). That is what we ran on at the Uptown was the original coupler. Wolk was the only one that was supplying that coupler in later years; Strong never supplied it as a repair part.

Under the various stewardships of Century, it changed to a flex shaft that didn't survive very well and then to a helical type flex shaft and I think that was its last incarnation.

What normally did in the original rubber type was "grease" running down form the projector head via the vertical shaft and soaking the rubber and causing it to pucker up become too soft. The penthouse one (exact same coupler) never suffered from these issues. Its only real stress would be whatever tension was on the supply reel.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-28-2019, 10:28 AM:
 
Agree with Steve about the cause of the failure, but oil from the intermittent plus grease flow downward to deteriorate the coupling. This does not happen with the magnetic penthouse as gravity is our friend here.

A number of folks on the west coast converted the projectors from direct drive to standard drive as the little shaft seemed awfully wimpy. Which in part is why there are some spare parts available.
 

---

Posted by Mark Louis (Member # 10632) on 07-28-2019, 10:45 AM:
 
I sourced a replacement Gear Grip Flexible Rubber Shaft Coupling from Guardian in Michigan City, IN, and had it shipped in case we couldn't find an original vertical shaft in time. Rubber had definitely been softened over time.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-28-2019, 08:43 PM:
 
The metal parts never wore out (unless the tech went crazy on the set screws) so only the rubber part would be needed. In many ways, I preferred the rubber coupling to the later incarnations and definitely didn't like the flex shaft thing.
 

---

Posted by Mark Louis (Member # 10632) on 07-28-2019, 09:06 PM:
 
Actually, the metal hubs are die-cast zinc and were noticeably out of round. On the second machine the sleeve didn't fail. Instead, the hub actually started slipping on the shaft as it became oblong and the set screw slipped passed the flat spot on the shaft.
 

---

Posted by Tim Androes (Member # 9010) on 07-29-2019, 12:49 AM:
 
Steve...are the parts you reference different from R31-73 flexible coupling assembly and R50-373?
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-29-2019, 01:25 AM:
 

quote: David Kornfeld

---

From what I was told, one digital master was created & used for all formats (looks 4K to me), so 4K DI to 4K DCP, 4K 35mm IN, 4K 70mm IN. There are the usual problems from going this route, which are especially apparent in the darker scenes. Also, spoiler, 4K is not nearly enough for a full scope frame, but what do I know.

---

quote: Emiel De Jong

---

Were the 70mm release prints of Hateful Eight not also from a 4K DI

---

Hateful Eight was photochemical from end to end. A 4K scan of the film was used as a means for generating the DCP and other digital versions of the movie.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was shot on 4-perf with anamorphic lenses, finished digitally in 4K, and then that 4K master was filmed out for 35mm and 70mm print runs.


 

---

Posted by David Kornfeld (Member # 9964) on 07-29-2019, 01:00 PM:
 
Anyone who claims that the colour in this movie resembles the look of IB Tech is either blind, mistaken, or stupid.

Perhaps all three.

Whats lacking? Well, the deep blacks, the high gamma, the gleaming whites, the bang-on flesh tones (one of the glories of the process), the controlled contrast, the absence of blown-out highlights, the trademark red, the saturated colour, & the shadow detail.

Other than those, sure, just like Tech. On a bad day. In 1982.
 

---

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 07-29-2019, 02:06 PM:
 
Just so we’re clear, none of those comments belong to me! Just wanted to lock down the discussion on the DI.
 

---

Posted by Emiel De Jong (Member # 4225) on 07-29-2019, 03:41 PM:
 
I would like to lock down discussion about DI on 70mm prints of H8 too; in fact I really want to know what happened... One very knowledgable lab person in the Netherlands stated those prints were from a DI. I saw the Amsterdam 70mm print in "Eye" Filmmuseum; though I have seen some film in my life I wasn't really sure about this. It was sharp, colors were from time to time really red and yellow (the outfit of Mr. Jackson...) but in general it was not the abundant imagery of old-fashioned Photochemical in my opinion. Could have been the snowy landscape ;-) Really would appreciate some detailed information.
 

---

Posted by David Kornfeld (Member # 9964) on 07-29-2019, 04:15 PM:
 
Mr De Jong:

Mr Haller (above) is correct when he writes that H8 was photochemical all the way through. It should be noted that it was planned that way.

The 70mm prints of H8 went the standard release print route: OCN to IP to IN to print. The "very knowledgeable lab person in the Netherlands" is mistaken.

Hope that helps!

Mr Haller: Wasnt accusing you!
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 07-29-2019, 05:36 PM:
 
The DCP looked pretty good, but it looked like a modern movie. I didn't feel for a second it was shot in the 70's. Even the lensing was too damn crisp for the vintage.

Had it been MY movie, I would have shot the entire thing with 50D and 200T for night scenes. I would have used very vintage glass and never once resorted to modern cranes or jib's with stabilizers. No steadicam, no smooth shots, make it really rough and if ya have crane shots, make it possible to do with old school studio cranes, with the shake and everything.

Then in post, 100% photochemical finish. Cut the original negative and experiment with different coloring methods to get the look with printer lights. Then the colored IP would be used to make a 35mm IN and 70mm IN blowup.

Because there were so many digital shots in the film, cleanup work and such, it would be very difficult to do a photochemical finish at low cost. Laser-out's are way less money because you can get precice finishes without worrying about striking a bunch of answer prints and re-tweaking constantly. It's a no-brainer to do a digital finish these days, but there goes your "look" the moment you do so.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-29-2019, 06:16 PM:
 
Marcel,

The ones I didn't like where the R50-372 and the mating one for the penthouse.:



The one that had the rubber coupling is the CG-629 (looked it up). I don't know if we have any scanned manuals that have it and if we do, that doesn't mean that there is picture of it (Century wasn't the best at that and they were mostly hand drawn).
 

---

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 07-29-2019, 09:10 PM:
 
Emagine Willow Creek in Plymouth Minnesota is going to hold for another week on the 35mm
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-29-2019, 09:14 PM:
 
@Mark Louis, my brother reports that the “presentation was astounding” at the New Mission in SF on Sunday night. Kudos.

And thank you for your continued efforts to bring film to the Big Show auditorium in Westminster.
 

---

Posted by Jean-Pierre Gutzeit (Member # 7275) on 07-30-2019, 10:42 AM:
 
It should be a matter of honour to preserve the cultural technique of film against the virus-like digitalisation of the living worlds as expertly supervised and appropriately endowed practice. The high potential of film does not have to be explained separately.
But what should we do if, in the last 15 years, there has been a reduction in the number of staff in all existing film laboratories without exception and the specialist knowledge is increasingly disappearing? The reason for this is, of course, today's lower order situation, but also further cost reductions in process flows or the additional answer prints required.
Despite the reference to the fact that the Kodak Image Process still exists, I experienced the premature termination of this process in Europe. Unfortunately, however, American film prints also show errors and deficits that would have prevented them from being accepted twenty years ago.

That is why I suspect that one of the biggest problems is the lack of active participation of the cinemas, other professionals, the film distributors and the filmmakers themselves, which led to this result.
There is no critical public on this subject because, as defenders of the film process, we fear that too harsh a criticism could lead to the suspension of all further film commissions.

In the last 15 years unfortunately almost without exception was the "trademark" of 70mm copies:

- unbalanced light determinations, lack of scene compensation, incorrectly filtered basic tuning of the printers

- false gradation, dropping or discolored shadows
- yellow-green colour cast
- disappointing sharpness and resolution of the 65mm Intermediates
- slight image uncleanliness and negative rainfall

"Hardly a difference to 35mm" was often heard.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-30-2019, 01:07 PM:
 
One thing that I can say for this is that the 35mm print that I have shown was exteremely steady, with no vertical movement or "bounce" at all. I'm wondering if the prints were made off of the DI negative(s) directly, without the IP/IN stages in between. Were they?

The lack of printed lab cues might be a clue to this as well.
 

---

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 07-30-2019, 01:19 PM:
 

quote:

---

One thing that I can say for this is that the 35mm print that I have shown was exteremely steady, with no vertical movement or "bounce" at a

---

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

By the way, the fully analog 70mm film prints of HATEFUL 8 and INTERSTELLAR already looked as bad in color as they did from Digital Intermediate between 2000 and 2013.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

. . . If the 4K DI is the master, then all color timings were done on that. The closest thing to the 4K DI is the 4K DCP.

---

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

In 2001: ASO the color and gradation were an absolute catastrophe in the last 70mm version from 2018, but also on the home cinema media.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

...but not the superior contrast.

---

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

Unfortuntaly HATEFUL 8 and INTERSTELLAR in70mm had a not very satisfying picture sharpness (I have seen many hundreds of classic 70mm prints of the 60s for comparision), showed a lack of unsatisfied balanced scene by scene color correction.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

The DCP looked pretty good, but it looked like a modern movie. I didn't feel for a second it was shot in the 70's. Even the lensing was too damn crisp for the vintage.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Steve, how do you think laser-based systems, such as the ones in Dolby Cinema theaters or IMAX with Laser compare to 35mm or 70mm contrast?

---

quote: Mark Ogden

---

That's not necessarily true. The practice when film prints are planned to be made from a digital file is to create a seperate color-timed version of the file (a "deliverable" in industry terms) that takes into account the reproduction characteristics of the film stock. There are color management systems associated with digital color grading that include look-up tables for such things as Kodak 2383, and I have a feeling that Tarantino and Robert Richardson carefully tested and signed off on the 35/70mm release by viewing an in-theatre projection, or at least I hope they did, knowing how meticulous they are about image quality. I saw a 35mm print yesterday, and while I haven't seen a DCP of this yet to compare it with, I doubt highly that there was enough of a discrepancy between the two color-wise to make a difference.

---

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

A question: Were there struck 70mm film prints of the 65mm original negative of HATEFUL? One heard, it could have been six to ten prints? I have never seen such a print.

---

quote:

---

@Mark Louis, my brother reports that the “presentation was astounding” at the New Mission in SF on Sunday night. Kudos.

---

quote: Emiel de Jong

---

Maybe it has something to do with the original negative (Vision 3) being designed for DI and not for traditional finishing ?

---

quote:

---

As for The Love Witch, I agree that the visuals were very stylish, but that movie is yet more proof of Enticknap's Law: the higher the technical quality of the print being viewed, the lower the quality of the actual movie (writing, acting, direction, etc.) is likely to be.

---

Damn, somebody should strap that Enticknap guy on a rocket and fire it directly into the sun, maybe together with that other guy called Murphy. Don't you think?

But yes, "The Love Witch" was a beautiful film to look at, but a terrible movie to watch.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-02-2019, 03:41 AM:
 
i thought of the love witch when i saw samantha robinson's name in the credits of ouat(...)i(...)h this morning. while i like it, it's a flawed film, particularly as it's wrapping up and there's an awkward scene between her and the cop in a bar that seems like it was censoriously edited to the point that noone's motivations make any sense. that may be the point but it doesn't really come off right.

anna biller's previous film viva, however, is an out-and-out masterpiece and utterly sumptuous to look at.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-02-2019, 02:22 PM:
 
Saw this yesterday at an AMC Prime theatre in digital and I thought it looked (and sounded) absolutely fine. It didn't look like 3-strip Technicolor, but it wasn't meant to. I can't decide whether I want to sit through it again to see what the 70mm looks like, which wouldn't be an apples-to-apples comparison anyway because the theaters are so different.

Three nitpicks: The TV shows were not in a 4:3 AR - they were actually taller than they were wide...strange choice. Hullabaloo was widescreen and should have also been 4:3, unless the rationale was that we were watching them in the studio and not on a TV (and while there were a few episodes shot in L.A., most were shot in Brooklyn), and most of the KHJ audio was full fidelity (and some in stereo) instead of what it really would have sounded like in a car with an AM radio in 1969, although certainly playing the music in full fidelity gave it more emotional impact. One could also ask whether the characters in the newer cars wouldn't have actually been listening to album rock on FM in that era. FM rock radio had been around since the summer of '66.

Personally, I don't like Tarantino's apparent obsession with changing history, although it bothered me much more in "Inglorious Basterds" than it did here for reasons I can't explain.

I have to wonder how many younger people will see this and not realize that this is about Manson and the Tate-Labianca murders or now believe that Tate and the others weren't actually murdered.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-02-2019, 02:59 PM:
 
Will look out for the other Anna Biller pic - thanks.

Feel a bit guilty about slagging off The Love Witch, because I showed it in 35mm at the Aero a few years ago and met her - she couldn't have been more charming - the complete opposite of a stereotypical a-hole movie director. But I did remember thinking that the film itself was visually beautiful, but in every other respect, an overhyped chick flick.

quote: Martin Brooks

---

Personally, I don't like Tarantino's apparent obsession with changing history, although it bothered me much more in "Inglorious Basterds" than it did here for reasons I can't explain.

---

quote: Harold Hallikainen

---

The DTS time code discussion got me thinking. SMPTE ST 430-12 is a Frequency Shift Keyed synchronization signal on Atmos soundtracks that is used by the CP850. It includes the Edit Unit Index (frame number) and UUID. I wonder about putting this in an optical track on film. A CP850 could pull the Atmos bitstream (SMPTE ST 2098-2) from a USB drive, decrypt it, and synchronize with the FSK signal from the film. The Barco APX uses the SMPTE ST 430-14 binary sync signal, so that would not work with film (unless they wanted to add an FSK decoder).

---

A system largely built on plain consumer hardware could sync with film-based time-code about 25 years back, so there is no technical reason why a modern decoder could not do the same. One of the companies that Dolby acquired (ImmSound) actually used MDA files stored on an internal hard disk and their files had to be separately ingested.
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 08-02-2019, 08:25 PM:
 
The clips shown of the spaghetti westerns were 1:37 but the poster of same film says scope. Sounds like an opps to me. Not to mention all the real spaghetti westerns I showed were scope.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-02-2019, 11:14 PM:
 
I still want someone to make a modern CDS playback system. C'mon now! I know someone out there can do it! Can they?

 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-03-2019, 12:34 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I still want someone to make a modern CDS playback system. C'mon now! I know someone out there can do it! Can they?

---

quote: Harold Hallikainen

---

A CP850 could pull the Atmos bitstream (SMPTE ST 2098-2) from a USB drive, decrypt it, and synchronize with the FSK signal from the film.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

Do any CDS prints still exist? If they don't, what would be the point?

---

quote: Sean McKinnon

---

I think SDDS was based on CDS so that should give some indication.

---

The CDS processor would run very hot, but if the front was left open for better air flow it could be stable. What killed most screenings was there were no fall back tracks AT ALL. They would run fine for a few days, or a dozen shows or so but then could not be reliably read back. Some of CDS and some of the people there did become SDDS.

SDDS was also a YUGE failure overall with short print life spans in many locations causing reversion to analog and back to digital and back to analog and so on. Had they put a latch in to hold it in analog once it reverted then it wouldn't have been so annoying. The 2000 readers were a big part of the problem as was getting partslike LED's, sprockets and lateral guide rollers. There was a whole year where you literally cold not get any of those parts. We finally had LaVezzi make us custom sprockets. The real down side of it was the high track wear. There was no more room left on a 35mm width of film to move it some where else. But it did sound very good the first few weeks of the runs. We finally replaced all the 2000 units with CP-650's and laid them to rest in the electronic bone year. The 3000's were a lot better until the parts for those ran out.

Syncing somethig SMPTE to DTS is very easy with the right tools.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 08-07-2019, 01:51 AM:
 
Roger Hibbard was part of the CDS team and later a senior engineer at USL told me one of the big failings was very poor depth of field. Even little particles of splicing tape could knock the film out of focus and with no backup all was lost. Very arrogant approach but they had their chance and blew it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-07-2019, 07:39 AM:
 
With SDDS, they learned to to stagger the tracks so splicing tape wouldn't take the system down since "the other" track was at a different part of the audio.

I didn't have the problems with SDDS that Mark had. We had 2000 and 3000 series systems. It was nowhere as stable as Dolby or DTS but it could be run reliably for weeks on end. The 2000 series reader was too delicate. It could be put into precise alignment but that required effort and the tiny screws were poor at holding it in alignment. Poor platter back tension (if you had an AW3 with those center roller springs that could jerk the film was more than it could overcome).

The 3000 series reader had a really terrible design with their magnetic clutch. Way too much tension (probably to combat unstable platter tension from some platters as mentioned above) that would wear the butter-like aluminum sprocket down, that was also overly expensive. The LED/Reader part was MUCH more stable than the 2000 series readers. The Reader cables were overly complicated and sensitive to hot-plugging (would damage the system.

And shame on Sony for trying to force a "dB" scale fader (which on the 2000 series took about 100 turns). dB scales only make sense internally when calibrating...they have no real-world meaning to end users that just want to make the sound a little louder or a little quieter. Percentage wins the day there.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-07-2019, 12:03 PM:
 
One of the things that Dolby got right that Sony didn't was the error counter display. It is useful to know when the digital track is marginal before it fails completely. SDDS tracks are (were?) sufficiently problematic that lab-new prints regularly fail to play properly in the format. I only ever used the 2000-series units; maybe they added an error counter later?

Anyway, I haven't touched SDDS anything since 2003-ish, and never want to see it again.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-07-2019, 12:18 PM:
 
On the rarely seen DFP-D2500, they did have a display of the "quality" of the SDDS tracks...it was a simple yellow, green, red but better than nothing.


 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-07-2019, 12:31 PM:
 
Interesting. Sony VTRs for digital formats use something similar to indicate "channel condition" (more-or-less the video equivalent to the SRD error rate, I think). Good tapes show green and marginal tapes show yellow. I have never seen a red indicator.
 

---

Posted by Jean-Pierre Gutzeit (Member # 7275) on 08-09-2019, 06:45 PM:
 
For spatial vision, a deep-sharp photography, which also takes on the character of a relief through the art of lighting, is of formative importance, thus suggesting an immersive effect. Thank you for reply. I absolutely agree with that.
In David Lean's films is that at least since OLIVER TWIST evident.
With LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, however, I assume less of 12 ASA than rather the material type 5250 50 ASA T and 32 ASA D with Wratten 85 filters. (Maybe someone would like to research this?)

The way I saw LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 1973, it was never the best-looking 70mm film, but always a bit grainy.

But with the bad lab's work of the last 15 years I meant blurring and false colors of the theater prints. In earlier years this was unthinkable. HATEFUL 8 and INTERSTELLAR showed slightly blurred internegatives, PHANTOM THREAD and 2001 showed a sharper grain reproduction, but even more terrible colors. Before about the years I lost my hope for improvements. With H8 the lab had done nothing right. ONCE UPON A TIME will run with only one 35mm print in Germany. And I have to ask regarding this special D.I. title: why film? We need a financial and personal change at the laboratories urgently.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 08-10-2019, 03:55 PM:
 

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

But with the bad lab's work of the last 15 years I meant blurring and false colors of the theater prints. In earlier years this was unthinkable. HATEFUL 8 and INTERSTELLAR showed slightly blurred internegatives, PHANTOM THREAD and 2001 showed a sharper grain reproduction, but even more terrible colors. Before about the years I lost my hope for improvements. With H8 the lab had done nothing right. ONCE UPON A TIME will run with only one 35mm print in Germany. And I have to ask regarding this special D.I. title: why film? We need a financial and personal change at the laboratories urgently.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

Hateful Eight was a mess due to lenses, so you can forget its issues

---

quote: Emiel De Jong

---

You mean the camera lenses, or the anamorphic attachments used for projection? I have seen the attachments can cause trouble: the show I saw in Amsterdam had some sharpness issues: the image was sharp in the center field and the area around it slightly blurred, after the intermission it was the other way round.

---

quote: Emiel De Jong

---

You mean the camera lenses, or the anamorphic attachments used for projection?

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

So they would have duped those scenes to 5 perf IP, then blown them up to 15 perf IN, then used that to cut them into the 15 perf camera negative. The IMAX prints were all made from the original camera negative and the 5 perf prints were a cut IMAX negative, reduction printed directly to 5 perf prints evidently.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

The projection lenses had an issue. Evidently when they'd heat up, the elements were shifting.

---

quote: Gutzeit

---

But there are very few people who know how to properly project film. It’s an art that’s lost. Because of that, the projection is going to be hit or miss. We’ve lost that art, we’ve lost that skill. Just like we’re going to lose [the art of film development].

---

quote: also Gutzeit

---

On the other hand there existed an other Ultra Panavision film with snow scenes in excellent film print quality in 1965 with stunning snow scenes: THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

---

quote: David Kornfeld

---

There were two different sets of lenses manufactured for H8's release. The first set, the majority, were made by ISCO. The second set, the minority, were made by Hyperion.

I was told the ISCO lenses were troublesome, but, as I only handled a bunch of them & never actually used them, I cant say for certain. I will say that the suggestion that the elements heated up & lost focus strikes me as unlikely. Some KOWA lenses, sure, that could happen. ISCOs? I'm doubtful. There are so many varying factors that can cause focus problems in 70mm, I would be hesitant to place the blame on this single cause.

The Hyperion lenses were reverse anamorphics, & those were the lenses I used, and those, if they were correctly adjusted -- repeat: correctly adjusted -- were pin sharp. And there was no focus drift at all. And my theatre ran H8 longer than any other venue in the country, so I had ample time to check.

---

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

This suddenly becomes clear even to people who have never worked in a lab or who have been trained in photography, as soon as the comparison appeared later on home cinema editions (Blu ray Disc of INTERSTELLAR, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY [still recognizable in places in the Blu ray version from 2008], PHANTOM THREAD, SPARTACUS [version from 2014]). It is astonishing that suddenly (with the delay of a finalized post-production) "original" film qualities usual for decades become visible again, although it would have been the task of the photochemical labs to defend such standards. Even with the 70mm 5perf print of INTERSTELLAR, I was surprised that the Warner distribution mark was still sharp, but the rest of the film unfortunately showed a slight weakness of the dupnegative. Later, the Blu ray disc could be considered to be absolutely flawless, true to color and also sufficiently sharp (this doesn't concern the photographic style).

---

quote: Gutzeit

---

Justifiable counter-question, but this should not put the advantages of older films completely aside.

---

quote: also Gutzeit

---

I still know FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE as an nearly unfaded 70mm print.

---

quote: also also Gutzeit

---

my 70mm print from 1965 of FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, which brings back the memories of the few dense scenes.

---

quote: Gutzeit again

---

The 70mm version is optically printed with lateral image loss.

---

quote: Gutzeit yet again

---

Even after three hundred serial prints, especially off the 65mm negative, there is no need for any damage.

---

And it is here, ladies and gentlemen, that I get to call bullshit: 100%, USDA Prime Grade A BULLSHIT.

Despite anything Herr Gutzeit may add to this thread, I am telling you all, clear as crystal, that there is NO FRIGGING WAY that any OCN, ESPECIALLY a 65mm one, could survive a 300 copy printing run without suffering severe and irreparable damage. That is a cold, hard, unassailable, photochemical FACT.

FACT: Lawrence had a 150-200 print run. The OCN was in horrible condition by the time Mr Harris went in to rescue it. This is really, really well known & publicly available information, Herr Gutzeit!

FACT: My Fair Lady also had a 150-200 print run, & that OCN was also in horrible condition when Mr Harris went in to restore it.

FACT: Rear Window had a 300 print run, & that OCN was trashed because of it. Mr Harris was called in to help with that one, too.

FACT: The OCNs for Dr Strangelove, Days of Heaven, 2001, & many other titles I can list were all severely damaged or made utterly unusable from over-printing.

Yet youre going to claim, with a straight face & with no actual evidence to back you up, that 100+ years of film printing knowledge is mistaken & wrong, & you can just miraculously use a triacetate negative to strike 300 copies with no damage, no wear, no tears, no breaking splices, no scratches, no blown sprockets, & no negative density?

Sure. And the Kaiser was my uncle.
 

---

Posted by Jean-Pierre Gutzeit (Member # 7275) on 08-14-2019, 05:15 PM:
 
I only can repeat my comments. In the 70s I had seen FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE unfaded and pocess regarding this title and "2001" or other titles own prints, today faded. Furthermore unfaded prints, LPP prints or Orwocolor prints of other mentioned titles.

Yes, it is possible to strike 300 prints off an original negative without damages. Usus. And it is possible to damage several types of negatives and better avoiding some printers. CLEOPATRA had many hundred runs and was the first title for the 70mm additive printing process via Bell and Howell Model C. I see no problems.

All what you cite, comes not from experiences at laboratories, but apparently from persons who tell commercial and fairy tales.

You are not willing to learn more about film prints. See also here: http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f1/t012288/p3.html At this point I finish my explanations and wish you luck with your illusions and your trust in the industry.
Goodbye.
 

---

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 08-14-2019, 09:56 PM:
 

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

have the technical problem of color crossings in all versions of HATEFUL 8

---

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

especially since it is known that for many years no labs has been able to produce good intermediate negatives by purely photochemical means. To change this would require concerted cooperation between the donors as well as between retired lab's experts.

---

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

The Nolan version of "2001" from 2018 also contains half of it‘s running time parts of the older interpositive and half of the time of the younger interpositive of 1999.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

I just think the lamp on the ol' Kinton was running out of juice.

---

Thats funny because AFAIK new lamps were installed for the 70mm pre premiere screenings so the lamp would only have a few dozen hours on it

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

The projection lenses had an issue. Evidently when they'd heat up, the elements were shifting.

---

quote:

---

Thats funny because AFAIK new lamps were installed for the 70mm pre premiere screenings so the lamp would only have a few dozen hours on it [Confused]

---

quote: Sean McKinnon

---

As David said which lenses? there were two different anamorphics made by two different manufacturers with two different designs as well as different prime lenses.

---

The one's that don't work? lol I didn't have my hands on them, so I'm speaking from a consumer having talked to the projectionists about the issues.

I made that post a while back, it's already been talked about in later posts.
 

---

Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 08-22-2019, 12:02 AM:
 
Our 70mm print left the Music Box in Chicago after 4 weeks. It's circuiting to another venue and we will be running a 35mm print beginning Friday (from god knows where). We ran the DCP today and will run it tomorrow as well.

We were very happy with the print quality. The differences between the DCP and the print are subtle (easier to "see into" darker scenes on the print, blues and yellows really "pop" on the print) but very important. No complaints about sharpness, steadiness, or color timing - all as good as you would hope for. If it were my movie I would have done an all photochemical workflow, but it's not my movie!

We had 36 people for our two DCP shows today, and 353 people for 3 70mm shows yesterday.

And I have nothing but nice things to say about FotoKem's work. They're a great lab and I've run hundreds of gorgeous prints from them. Many of their restrikes of 80s titles look better than the original release prints, even off internegatives.The print stock has improved considerably. I also use them to process my own 16mm home movies and am consistently pleased with the results. Not mint green, just lab mint.
 

---

Posted by David Kornfeld (Member # 9964) on 08-22-2019, 07:26 PM:
 
Herr Gutzeit: I dont know what fantasy land you reside in, what alternative dimension you occupy, what parallel Earth 2 youre posting from, but here on Earth 1, here in The Real World, here on this Forum --where there are actual professionals who know what theyre actually talking about -- we acknowledge the simple confirmable fact that we no longer live in 1965, that the film format so many of us love is on the verge of dying (though holding on for dear life by its fingernails), and that the blathering, uninformed, prolix, endless, meandering, repetitious posts that ooze from your keyboard are not helpful, nor informative, nor interesting, nor even technically cogent. What they are is annoying. Really, really annoying.

You plainly have too much time on your hands. Maybe you should spend it somewhere else.

And youre clearly wrong most of the time. Heres the latest:

quote: Gutzeit 1

---

ONCE UPON A TIME in 35mm. With the same disastrous symptoms: mint green, exhausted, without contrasts.

---

"Mint green," huh? Okay, people: any of you seen this title on film? Any of you seen this "mint green" colour cast that so offends Herr Gutzeit's sensitive eyes? I'm running the movie on film, & I sure havent seen it. In fact, here are some shots from the screen I just took:




Do these look "mint green" to anyone? At all? Bueller? Come on, folks: dont be shy.
[And please note: these have not been colour corrected: I dont have PhotoShop, & wouldnt know how to work it if I did. Also please note: four weeks in, & no dirt, no lines, no sign of wear.]
Heres a suggestion, Herr Gutzeit: the next time you watch a movie, take off your sunglasses. I am going to seriously question your judgement about anything having to do with colour balance after this insane asseveration. I also question whether your viewing condition are at spec, or even competent. In fact, I'm going to question pretty much every damn thing you say.

We get it. Film images were superior decades ago. In some cases, thats somewhat debatable. In the case of 70mm, thats close to correct, although there are always exceptions [all the prints of The Master, for instance, were struck off the OCN]. Nonetheless, overall, film prints looked a little bit better in the past.

And there were reasons for that; lots & lots of reasons, which you seem incapable of acknowledging. So let me bring you up to speed:

quote: Gutzeit 2

---

How else could the industry and the quality of roadshow prints have been justified other than by direct copying?

---

quote: Gutzeit 3

---

It's clear to me that it hasn't worked for 15 years. Why should we protect such a lab and hope for a second chance if we cannot see the slightest reason for it?

---

quote: Gutzeit 4

---

The Nolan version of "2001" from 2018 also contains half of it‘s running time parts of the older interpositive and half of the time of the younger interpositive of 1999. The version from the year 2001 was printed from the old 65mm interpositive to new 35mm and 65mm dupe negatives, and it disappointed many connoisseurs of the film, because the color timing in the then circulating correction prints was extremely different...

---

quote: Gutzeit 5

---

Even after three hundred serial prints, especially off the 65mm negative, there is no need for any damage.

---

quote: Chris Haller

---

The left projector, which played the even reels, was projecting off center onto the curtain slightly, revealing the soft edge of the film on the right side, as well as some dead space on the screen. It wasn't a ton of space, but it was definitely noticeable.

The right projector, after awhile, seemed to have developed some sort of lens issue where everything just sort of started slanting to the left like a \. It was hard to notice in full scope shots, but closeups started to look a little odd, and the pillarboxed images definitely slanted to the left from the right side, while the left side of the image was perfectly fine. Not really sure what could cause this either, but it was obnoxious.

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

In answer to David's question above, I saw OUATIH in 35mm the first matinee show on the Saturday July 27th at the Alamo Drafthouse in Yonkers NY. Both the print and the presentation was flawless. No color timing issues, and at that point (and maybe still) no damage to the print. No focus issues.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

One thing I don't believe Bob mentioned was also the lack of color consistency coming out of the labs/lab such that on reel changes the color may (and often does) shift. This is more noticable and attributable when it is a plattered show since the lamphouse variable is removed from why the color shifted.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

I've also seen OUaTiH in Dolby Cinema and although the screen wasn't masked for scope (really Dolby?), I liked the look of that presentation more than the nostalgia laden 35mm show. For whatever it is worth, film never looked better, projected digitally...

---

quote: Emiel De Jong

---

"When you shoot film you are not recording movement, but a sequence of still images. When you move 24 of those in front of a lightsource that creates the illusion of movement. So when you watch an analog film you are looking at an illusion. And for me that illusion is connected to the magic of movies."

---

quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit

---

So I admire cinematic and analog high performances in the past and present.
That was certainly the reason for Messrs Nolam, Abrams, Tarantino, Anderson and others to keep this valuable technology alive.

---

quote:

---

quote: Emiel De Jong
"When you shoot film you are not recording movement, but a sequence of still images. When you move 24 of those in front of a lightsource that creates the illusion of movement. So when you watch an analog film you are looking at an illusion. And for me that illusion is connected to the magic of movies."
I do get Tarantino's nostalgia, but ironically, there's nothing essentially different from what he describes as the magic of movies between the analog and the digital process. If you shoot your movie at 24 frames per second digitally, it's still just 24 frames per second played in front of you.

---

quote: Dhr Birgelen

---

But right now, we're at a point where digital technology starts to outperform analog film in almost any aspect. It already outperforms film on light sensitivity, color spectrum and speed. It will be just a matter of time before it outperforms even 65mm film on pure 2D resolution too.

---

quote: David Kornfeld

---

Light sensitivity & speed (which are much the same thing), sure, but you pay a heavy price for them in artifacting & digital noise. Colour spectrum? No; not nearly; not yet. Outperforming 65? In your dreams, but for argument's sake, lets say that happens. You can capture at any resolution you want, and then? Out into the world at 2 or 4K, because thats what the vast majority of projectors out there can handle. And thats not going to change any time soon: those machines are expensive. And theatre owners are notoriously parsimonious.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Both CMOS and CCD image sensors get better every year, unlike film, which doesn't nearly see as much development. It's therefore only natural that digital will outperform film eventually, on practical all aspects.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Film has about 13 stops of dynamic range, depending on the type of film obviously, but that's according to Kodak's own research.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Arri Alexa is doing 14+ and next generation cameras will go higher.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

So, the same is true about light sensitivity. I see an enormous progress between now and just 10 years ago. Where 10 years ago everything shot at low light got you into terrible DNR situations, the world is looking different now. The best sensors out there now easily outperform film on this.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Regarding sensor resolutions... we're at a point that a tiny sensor in a smartphone fits 48 megapixels and the next generation will fit like 64 and a 108 megapixel model has announced. Ever wonder how many megapixels you could potentially put onto a 65mm CMOS or CCD sensor? The reasons why not to do it, is because we simply can't handle the bandwidth... yet.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

But things are evolving fast. Wile I can have a full 4K setup for a reasonable price at home, I can already buy 8K TVs.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Last year at the IBC (International Broadcasters Convention), everything revolved around 8K already.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

I do give you one point though. I'm worried about archival in a digital world too.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

Yea, there are no solutions to this problem. In 20 years, people will look back on today and be in horror so much was lost. In fact, there was a recent study saying that during the beginning of the digital camera age, more content has been lost than when photography first started.

---

quote: Tyler Purcell

---

Trade shows can be a glimpse at the next year or the next 10, it all depends on what people are willing to pay. There is a HUGE cost difference to store 8k vs 4k. There is a huge cost difference to use a full frame imager camera as well. People are very much use to the 4k workflow and to change it, is going to take a lot more than some new toys at a convention.

---