This is topic 70 vs. DC starring Larry Myres in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000107

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 01-26-2006, 07:37 PM:
 
For a few months I've been kicking this around in my head.

What the industry is now doing is looking to spend an enormous sum of money to change to DC which is primarily a "save money" scheme...nobody's trumpeting great improvements in quality, except perhaps via less film damage (which could be solved by qualified projectionists). Meanwhile, the boxoffice is doing poorly, and distributors want to reduce the release window which would further reduce ticket sales. DVD's, "Home Theatre", HD and soon BluRay and cheap Plasmas will entice people to stay home and watch on video. I also think that it won't be long after wide use of DC that whiners in the press and elsewhere start talking about "why should we pay more to see shows at theatres, its just a big TV". And of course [despite wishful thinking from encoding suppliers] DC will make illegal duping easier than ever. And I think theatre owners are in for a truly nasty suprise when the real cost of maintaining/upgrading/replacing all this technology starts to be understood.

Now, showing my advanced age, I think back to the 50's when theatres were concerned by competition from <gasp> TV. Utterly different from today, theatres did not rush to buy big TV's; they worked hard (with the studios) to develop technologies to set them apart from TV. We know them, WideScreen 1.85:1, CinemaScope, PanaVision, VistaVision, Cinerama, magnetic stereo etc, etc. And guess what: It worked!

So here's where my head gets confused. Instead of dumping vast sums to convert to a system that, at best, approaches the quality we already can have (Yes, I know about 'real world' 35mm; I also know that the 'real world' will affect DC negatively too when it stops being nurse-maided as it is today)? Why aren't theatres looking to ENHANCE their presentation so they can offer their customers something clearly better than anything they can get at home? And here I'm not thinking about the grossly overpriced Imax, or even formats like 8/70 or Showscan. I'm thinking of good ol' 5 perf 70mm. 5/70 just requires changing to a 35/70 picture head, (a pittance compared to DC) and upgrading the platters. Sound, which used to be the cost and time problem in making mag prints, can now be done with DTS (and presumably Dolby, with some work) bringing 70 print costs way down. The added maintanance of mag heads is no longer an issue. And scratching is less evident due to less magnification.

And what's the result? Instantly we have a dramatically sharper, brighter, steadier image to sell, one that no DC or "HD Home Theatre" can touch. One that can be advertised, as it was in days of yore, as "dramatically sharper, brighter, steadier, with realism that no "Home Theatre" can touch". What a great feeling, to be fighting back against TV instead of bowing to it. And at just a tiny fraction of the cost of the DC colussus.

Does anyone else see this as viable? Or should we just roll over and wait to be told what TV to buy?

Larry Shaw

 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-26-2006, 08:30 PM:
 
I believe I have stated this MANY times. 5/70 was Cinema's best overall format. In fact, the full Todd/AO system...6-channels combined with 70mm running at 30fps...it was truely the best system offered that could be done enmass. Every aspect of the show was improved as compared to its standard 35mm counterpart.

I still feel that 5-speakers behind the screen are more essential than 2-surrounds, let alone 3 or 4. With current DTS XD-10s one can have their 5 screen channels, 2-4 surround channels and subwoofer if they so care.

I agree it is high time for Super-High-Definition cinema to come back...in 70mm...it can't be beat with today's digital technology and isn't about to get into the home anytime soon.

The AFI/Silver just ran Hello Dolly in 70mm and did quite well with it and received many thankful emails for the 70mm presentation. Even when they run Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm they can pack them in...I say even since it has been run so many times and is available for the home in many "restored" versions...yet the 70mm show brings em in.

Those that say 70mm is dead really just want to settle for inferior quality. Exhibition needs to be requesting 70mm from the studios though.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2006, 08:42 PM:
 
I really wish 70mm could make a comeback, but I think the "genie is getting out of the bottle." Large theater chains like Carmike are now making deals to install thousands of digital video projection systems and have movies beamed to them via satellite.

My opinion Hollywood is now embarked in a slow process of killing itself -or at least giving itself a really bad case of gangrene, which will result in amputations of sorts. They're indeed taking the film out of film and turning it into TV.

We can now look forward to a movie version of Magnum P.I., along with Miami Vice. Those will go on a growing pile of other TV shows made into movies. When the movie is something that used to be a TV show, why not stay at home and watch it on TV? That is if you even want to watch the movie at all.

Add to that all the remakes, especially in the horror genre. You have The Fog, The Hills Have Eyes, When A Stranger Calls, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, and those are just a few that immediately come to mind. On top of that you have sequels of movies that weren't good enough to be made in the first place. Do we really need Final Destination 3 or Cheaper By the Dozen 2 when their originals sucked? It's as if Hollywood has run out of ideas.

Of course, it's also mildly interesting how just about every major movie studio is now owned by another entity -which also owns TV and cable networks. The movie businesses themselves can fail, but the parent company will still survive.

I believe all the bland, painfully predictable we've seen this same shit 1000 times already kinds of movies are going to wind up biting these movie distributors in the ass. It's going to drive lots of movie fans to other forms of entertainment. The disconnect could possibly invigorate European, Asian and Indian movie industries -but that's somewhat doubtful. I think people will fill the void with more work at home, TV watching and maybe some game playing on Playstation 7.

If that situation comes to pass (and it could), the parent companies of those movie studios will pick apart each movie studio in the same manner the original MGM was dismantled. The TV networks will keep the film libraries. The companies will be sold off to whoever for big bucks and then sold again and again until the value of the studio name brand dies.

I think a lot of movie theaters will have to gut the traditional layouts of their auditoria and convert them into restaurants, sports bars and other venues capable of showing other kinds of programming in addition to movies. They'll be forced to do.

Executives like Robert Iger at Disney will probably eventually get their way and have new movie releases hitting DVD (and iPods) day and date with theatrical releases. An industry wide move like that would kill off most traditional theaters quickly.

Sure, one can make the argument people go to the movies to get out of the house. But they're not going to do it when the general quality of American movies has been back-sliding into homogenized shit. They're not going to pay the premium for that. It will be easier and cheaper to get the HD-quality DVD, which will be available at the same time, and they'll be able to watch it on huge yet affordable TV screens made by near slave labor in China. But that's also assuming those customers will even want to watch the movie at all on that huge screen. They may just fire up the video game console instead, or just watch a TV show, or even (gasp) read a book.

Right now the status quo is somewhat stable. But the paradigm may start changing dramatically before this decade is finished. Those who intend to survive in the theater business for the long haul will have to be ready to adapt to fast, radical changes.
 

---

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 01-26-2006, 09:10 PM:
 
Bobby--

I agree with the above, except there probably won't be such
a thing as "day/date". It's just going to be DVD. Think about
what Hollywood is doing to itself. It is scribing its own
headstone. It's known as 'self-burial'.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-26-2006, 09:42 PM:
 
I agree with all you guys for the most part! However the main ingrediant missing today are the Showmen of yesteryear. Ya can't use the technology of today without some of the showmen of yesteryear(or at least some their traits that made movies special). They are all dead and gone replaced today by the suits and pencil pushers and the likes of Steven Squeelburg and George Pukas . Unfortunately the likes of Michael Todd, Lowell Thomas, Jack Warner, and Spiro Skouras will never be seen again in our time. Bring back any one of these guys and they'd whip the movie industry back into the glorious entertainment it once was.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 01-26-2006, 11:01 PM:
 
Already fewer than 1 in 30 people I know actually go to the movies, while two thirds of them regularly download this week's releases. The only thing that has people going to the movies is the fact that it's different, and that some of the downloads look like crap. Once films get released digitally, it will only be a matter of time before every download in crystal clear. Noone in Toronto puts on a real show in any multiplex, and I can't imagine why anyone would bother going out to a poorly maitained multiplex to watch TV. There are no exlusive engagements anywhere, and it only took people 5 years to get over the existence of digital sound. I don't think digital films would make news anywhere, exept for two of my friends letting me know they just downloaded next week's release and that I could borrow it in exchange for a beer.

70mm should make a comeback, exclusive engagements should make a comeback, and possibly together (adding showmanship to the mix would make for a great three-way).

(By the way, if a theater chain would sign a 10 year lease on digital projectors, they should ask themselves how long they realistically expect the machines to last, and if they truly expect whoever is to service them to actually do the work. I hear that asking your mall landlord to fix a leak in the roof - which is clearly their problem - can be a useless endeavour, and "corporate responsability" are two words you that my thesaurus lists as synonimous with "fuck you".)
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2006, 11:17 PM:
 

quote: Mike Perju

---

70mm should make a comeback, exclusive engagements should make a comeback, and possibly together (adding showmanship to the mix would make for a great three-way).

---

The problem is the folks bank-rolling the production are far more interested in getting the movie onto DVD as fast as possible. Unfortunately 70mm release is the exact opposite of that. 70mm is designed to make a movie play in theaters and do so for a long time. Investors don't want any of that because they believe all the money to be made is in home video. The money people also want the movie onto home video as fast as possible so they can pay less in interest payments on the money they borrowed to bank-roll the production. And they only want to pay for marketing costs one time.

Some of that makes sense from a myopic dollars and cents only view. But if you cannibalize the movie theaters out of business you remove the ingredient that legitimizes a movie as a real movie. If it didn't play in a real movie theater than it is nothing more than a mere TV show.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-27-2006, 01:55 AM:
 
As Mark has said in a way: We need the big directors to make the 70mm releases since they knew how to make a BIG movie.

True, in the olden days, when the marquee was posted the feature was presented in 70mm, that really stood out from the rest of the marquees in the large cities. For the public knew that when a 70mm presentation was on the screen, it was much more sharper and clearer than the 35mm counterparts.

.......Just like when I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" at the Villa in SLC in 70mm in 1968: no comparison to the 35mm copies that I ran and saw afterwards...sound and picture make the impression.

..unfortunately, it's also the cost factor, marketing and the "new generation of movie-goers (which is the young group now -not the 'adults' of yore..) that the movie industry is gearing itself to nowdays...sad.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-27-2006, 11:31 AM:
 
In terms of boxoffice & quality; Digital Cinema (TV) makes 70mm make sen$e.

Not only is it cheaper, it is remarkably better.

(Upcharge for 70mm if you were building a new cinema: $2000 for the head, $1100 for the lens, 1000 for platter & roller changes. All other parts are the same as a good quality 35mm booth.) Louis
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 01-27-2006, 02:34 PM:
 
For those of us here, 70mm makes sense. Unfortunately, when it comes to the people who really run the industry, they "follow the money", to quote that famous line.

True, conversion costs are not great for 70mm, as Louis points out. They ARE great for the distributors in terms of shipping and print costs, which the studios are trying mightily to eliminate through digital presentation. That, unfortunately, is the real key: the bottom line.

Anyone who has seen properly projected 70mm understands what a terrific presentation it is. Unfortunately, not enough people have had this experience, and the studios understand that. What the studios also understand is that 70mm isn't going to save them anything in the short run. And besides, who in this industry thinks in terms of the long run these days?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-27-2006, 03:00 PM:
 
DLP won't save anyone anything in the short run, either. Mastering costs are high, as are equipment costs, and it creates a dual-inventory issue as long as there are still theatres with "only" 35mm capability who will need prints.

Having said that, and as one who loves 70mm as much as anyone (and as one who ran the most recent public 70mm screenings in the Boston area, back in September of 2004), I don't think it will happen. Aside from the Lord of the Rings series, the Star Wars prequals, and maybe a few other titles released over the last few years, relatively few titles really justify shooting and exhibiting in 70mm. Also, there aren't many really big screens or grand theatres (at least in this market) and that, combined with the fact that there aren't many people around who know how to run 70mm without damaging it, will probably be enough to dissuade distributors from even considering 70mm releases, with the possible exception of the IMAX DMR releases.

Personally, I'd be happy with properly made 35mm prints. Too many 35mm prints in general circulation today aren't sharp and aren't steady. For little (if any) extra cost, a huge improvement in theatrical exhibition could be made if printing quality were improved (perhaps along with a return to IB Tech printing). Unfortunately, it's not a very marketable improvement.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-27-2006, 03:37 PM:
 
"to get out of the house"

I agree with the notion, but to go into a dark room with a crowd of people who have either never been taught manners or have disregarded them, always makes me think twice about going to see a movie.

What happened to manners anyway?
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-27-2006, 03:47 PM:
 
We could have both - 70mm for suitably spectacular material, and D-Cinema for other types of material, especially non-feature programming. (With 35mm continuing as well).

Film needs to be re-positioned as a high-end, high-quality medium in the eyes of the decision-makers, and have its value restored. If you restore value, then people will invest.

Let me expound the theme further. Today I had the insight into how inappropriate the push for digital has been in some quarters.

Imagine if we were told that "All orchestras worldwide are to be digitized to save money. Musical instruments are bulky, archaic and expensive. Digital technology will cut costs and allow wider types of music to be played".

Now think about that and how totally ludicrous it is!

Also, the other day I had to get one of the floor staff where I work to move a print with me. He was new and hadn't been into the projection room before. He took one look at the print and said, "that's so old school".

I call it the "Cinema Paradiso Syndrome". Basically, in the eyes of the average Joe, film is "old". It belongs to the 1950s in Italy.

We need to change that. We know the truth!

Ultimately it's all about perception
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-27-2006, 05:43 PM:
 
Little known fact. The image quality jump from 1.85 flat to true anamorphic 2.35 is almost the same as the image quality jump from 35mm true anamorphic to 70mm. Very few people really notice the jump difference between 1.85 flat to 2.35 scope. Why would you think people will see the difference between 2.35 scope to 2.2 70mm.
Another point is the addition of new Kodak Vision stock. Many modern 35mm true anamorphic film have resolutions equal to many 70mm features shot in the late 50's, early 1960's with old Eastman tripack
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-27-2006, 06:23 PM:
 
Larry, I have to disagree with your 1.85/2.39 analogy on 35mm versus 70mm.

Granted, true anamorphic photographed 35mm 'scope prints using the whole 4 perf area of the film frame can look noticeably better than some 1.85:1 shows.

However, that difference is not anywhere near as huge as the difference between 'scope 35mm and true 65mm/70mm material.

A single frame of 5/65 negative or 5/70 print has 250% more image area than a full 4/35 film frame. The difference in image sharpness is like going from blurry vision in need of glasses and razor sharp 20/20 vision.

Whether its Lawrence of Arabia or an art film like Baraka, when you see either in 70mm the level of detail displayed is pretty staggering. It's an even more impressive jump in quality difference than what you see going from 480i NTSC to 1080i HDTV.

About the only thing that is somewhat minor regarding 70mm differences with 35mm has to do with blowups to 70mm from 35mm material. Some show only a marginal improvement on color saturation. Others, if processed to the greatest strengths of the 35mm origination format (true 'scope, super 1.85, super 35), can show a pretty noticeable difference.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-27-2006, 06:44 PM:
 

quote: Greg Mueller

---

What happened to manners anyway?

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

To say 70mm is always better begs the question on just what improvement have been done in the motion picture industry the last 30 years? Why buy a $2000 Super Cinelux when a $10 Kollmorgen will do the same job? Just about every projector in the late 50's used Kollmorgens.

---

quote:

---

Imagine if we were told that "All orchestras worldwide are to be digitized to save money. Musical instruments are bulky, archaic and expensive. Digital technology will cut costs and allow wider types of music to be played".

Now think about that and how totally ludicrous it is!

---

That would be why the various muscian's unions are fighting tooth and nail to have the Sinfonia Virtual Orchestra contractually banned, or perhaps more honestly, to crush the company that created it. Its seen as being a tool to sack musicians. Bit like string machines of the late 70s all over again. In the hands of a competent musician cum operator, the Sinfonia is good enough to satisfy most of the people most of the time within the context of musical theatre.

Its in part the same old story: using a Sinfonia a show's producer's dont have to hire as big an orchestra (ie less money), or, on the other side of the coin, you can afford to put on productions where otherwise an adequate orchestra would be unaffordable.

Same old same old, as we say in this part of the world.

I wonder if I'll ever get to see a 70mm presentation again...
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-28-2006, 01:10 AM:
 
I've got to disagree with you slightly there Sam. There IS a noticeable difference between different projector models. Put a Kinoton up against anything else on the market and you will see that while the projector isn't quite as important as the lensing used, it DOES make a noticeable improvement in overall sharpness of the image.

And I can say that honestly after comparing an interlocked presentation between a Simplex XL and a Kinoton in identically sized and otherwise equipped houses.

Heck, even adding a heat filter and/or water cooling to a projector without it will improve the image!
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-28-2006, 01:21 AM:
 
But where the lie has really started is when the people approached the exhibitors and told them that hey if you install this people will come. That's bullshit! The problem in Hollywood is hey let's make this movie, if it's shit we will make up the difference on a quick video release. To much shit not enough quality = shorter video windows and drop in attendance plain and simple. Putting in DLP and I hate to say it 70mm (Based on the types of films today) is not going to increase the attendance on the long term. The whole industry could find its self crumbling from the weight of bad decisions.
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 01-28-2006, 03:42 AM:
 
I agree with Darryl. You can strike and project as many 70mm prints you can poke a stick at but the film itself has be worth seeing. I've seen 70mm a plenty here in Melbourne, both 35 blow-up and 65 origination and of course the difference in both picture and sound is noticeable, even on the opening titles!!Don't know what Larry's on about. With in regards to sound I'm reffering to mag tracks, but that's a whole other debate...

Didn't James Cameron mention that seeing Titanic in 70 is like experiencing a different film all together. I saw it both in 35 and 70 and the latter been truly amazing. On the other hand I sat through all 20 reels of the blasted Kenneth Branagh's
"Hamlet". Gee whiz I don't care if it was shot on 65 and how good it looks... . But then that's my opinion. But the 70mm version has done superb business here since it was released in 1997 and it still screens here in Melbourne to this very day. Maybe a distributor or 2 needs to bite the bullet and do a trail with a few 70 prints on a select film and see how it goes. It's the only way to get the ball rolling as far as I can see and starts with both the filmmakers and exhibitors getting behind it. Having recently experienced "The Polar Express" in IMAX 3D, it's worth every penny.
 

---

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 01-28-2006, 04:24 AM:
 
If we ever get the chance to do it, the theatre I work for has most of the equipment to show a film in 70mm. The only items we lack in our building to show a 70mm film are a 70mm DTS reader and a 70mm Christie platter ring.

It's kind of odd, though... You won't find a 35mm Kelmar media cleaner in our booth, yet somehow we have one for 70mm. Kooky. (I have been given the impression that my company, or at least local management, believes PTR rollers are good enough. I have not been specifically told as much, however.)

Knowing what little I know of my company, as well as the state of the industry on 70mm, I highly doubt we ever will get the last little bit of equipment needed to show 70mm, or even the chance to run it.

-----
This post is personal communication, and should not be misconstrued to be posted on behalf of my employer.

[ 03-12-2006, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Robert Burtcher ]
 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 01-28-2006, 04:50 AM:
 
This entire idea of presentation saving the industry is false. I guarantee you that my theater has the best film presentation in town. I watch movies at my location and the competitor. I refuse to miss a movie I really want to see because the bookers at my theater couldn't secure it for us.

They (the competitor) always have scratched prints. One film I saw there had 2 entire reels (back to back) shifting color. It was actually bad enough for me to complain*. They don't care. I would never run that crap, and have actually stopped a scratched to hell used print (Kinsey) from running. I would rather explain to my guests that the print we received was not good enough for them to view. We lost a show because of it.

But guess which theater won "Best Theater" again? Not mine. Nobody in the general public cares. I'm not going to lower my standards because of it, but it matters very little when the bottom line is the most important thing.

"THEY" have foot traffic, which means higher grosses. "WE" have nothing, except the fact that you know when you come here, you will see a scratch-free performance with good sound. It's not too loud (we even turn the previews down manually), but you can hear the surrounds working, embracing you in full, rich, escape from reality.

*I don't normally complain at the other theater, since they all know me over there and assume I am just trying to be a pain when I do. This is actually the only time I complained to anyone working there, and only because it affected 35+ minutes of the film. Of course, they acted like nobody had complained before, and made me feel that I shoudld just shut-up and go back into my auditorium...
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 01-28-2006, 07:05 AM:
 

quote: Anslem Rayburn

---

They (the competitor) always have scratched prints.

---

quote: Anslem Rayburn

---

But guess which theater won "Best Theater" again? Not mine. Nobody in the general public cares. I'm not going to lower my standards because of it, but it matters very little when the bottom line is the most important thing.

---

And yet you still patronize their Theatre . That's part of the problem not the solution.

quote: Anslem Rayburn

---

One film I saw there had 2 entire reels (back to back) shifting color

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

I got my very poor training at some of the best photo technical schools in the country. So your right, I don't know what I am talking about.

---

quote:

---

Larry, Go see a 70MM presentation. Its obvious you have not.

---

quote: Rick Raskin

---

There was a time when I'd drive clear across town to see a film in 70mm over a local 35mm presentation.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

The 70mm looked a hundred times better than the 35mm release, but I really couldn't justify the need of such a release since I knew that it was a 35mm release from the beginning, outside of being a special marketing presentation to bring back some of the glitz and glamour of 70mm release prints.

---

Yes, there was a lot of movies in the late 1980s featuring 70mm blow up prints even though the films had a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Some of the flat-to-70mm blowups looked really good, especially those made in a Super 1.85 process which was just catching on at the time.

Perhaps the oddest of the bunch was the 50th Anniversary "Fantasia" release. This was one where you pretty much had to see the 70mm version. Not because it was somehow wider or anything like that. The image was still 1.33:1. At least it looked decent. But the 35mm prints had the image reduced down to a tiny window-boxed postage stamp inside the frame. Disney chose to do this to counter those theaters who would have probably not adjusted their projectors to show full frame 35mm. The trade-off of preventing cropping was suck-ass image quality instead. Basically you had the equivalent of giving a theater 16mm print quality on 35mm stock.

I watched the 70mm print of "Fantasia" at the Gramercy Theater on 23rd Street in Manhattan (this theater has long since closed). I remember hearing a lady complain to a friend about the square shape of the image, "we should have gone to the Ziegfeld where they have that Panavision stuff."

 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-28-2006, 03:04 PM:
 
..maybe Larry needs to go to an IMAX theatre and see the frame size of 15/70 and the imagery of that format - not on the screen, but a piece of the film itself.

..and put that against a frame of standard 35mm...
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-28-2006, 03:06 PM:
 
I may just be repeating what Steve already said but viewing one still image is very different than viewing thousands in rapid succesion. Every projector will have some (hopefully minimal) percentage of jitter and weave if you take a very small percentage of J/W and magnify it by 2.5 times or take that same small percentage and magnify it by 1.5 times which image will appear steadier even though the mechanics and actual motion of the film have not changed?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-28-2006, 04:40 PM:
 
..kinda like buying a 205/55R/16 tire and rim and putting it on a car that takes 185/70R/14 tire and rim .. same diameter?
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-28-2006, 04:51 PM:
 
Yes Douglas Trumble, a RIT grad sometime in the mid to late 60's. A little before my time. He was roommates to my work roommate in the mid to late 70's. Seems Doug would send my friend strange little models. One day I asked what's the story about the models sitting on his desk. He said his friend was working some move called Star Wars and these were some of the models.

Mr Trumble's idea of 70mm Show Scan really never got off the ground. I don't know if I agree with you about shooting the whole Brainstorm movie in Show Scan. The bases for the movie was the viewers POP of the Brainstorm sections contrasted with the 1.85 35mm flat screen image. A sure way to sell Show Scan. Without that story line pop, the movie went weak for sure and I believe that is why he quit.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-28-2006, 04:55 PM:
 
So why was it they were going to use 70MM for some parts Larry?
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-28-2006, 04:58 PM:
 
The idea was to POP the image from 24 fps 1.85 35mm flat to 48 fps 70mm Show Scan. Now that is a big difference.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-28-2006, 05:04 PM:
 
Hey wait...
Since according to you there is no difference between one static picture and a series of static pictures AND there is no difference between 35MM and 70MM......
WHY WOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENCE?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 01-28-2006, 05:10 PM:
 
In the late 80´s I ran some 70mm films (E.T., Poltergeist, Alien 2
and some others) at my theater, on two Favorit 70 projectors. The
lenses were some Isco Gottingen from the mid 60´s. The 70mm image
produced on the screen with those old lenses was far better than
what I get with my new Isco lenses (UltraStarHD Plus and the Blue
Star anamorphic attachment)in 35mm Cinemascope today.

Just image what DP 70´s and new Isco lenses could do...

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-28-2006, 05:25 PM:
 
We used to run lots of 35 through those DP70s (called AAIIs in the US) and it seemed such a waste. Pulling 70 those babies would really crank. The picture was rock steady and super sharp.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-28-2006, 05:26 PM:
 
Again it's just dumb guys running the projector so why pay them. I think you missed my whole point about 35mm and 70mm. What I said is "the image loss is about the same between 35mm true scope to 35mm 1.85 flat as it is from 70mm to 35mm true scope."

No one complains about going from 2.35 true scope to 1.85 flat. I would say 99% of the viewers don't know the difference. I am sure it's around 90% from 70mm to 35mm true scope on Kodak Vision Stock. That is, 90% or more of the viewers would not know the difference.

I do think most viewers would be able to pick out the difference between 24 fps 35mm 1.85 flat to 70mm 48 fps Show Scan in a changeover. The whole idea behind Brainstorm.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-28-2006, 05:30 PM:
 
I doubt the guys running the reissue of Ben Hur doing changeovers on the DP70s were "dumb guys". That's quite a sweeping generalization and pretty insulting
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-28-2006, 05:38 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

Again it's just dumb guys running the projector so why pay them.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

What I said is "the image loss is about the same between 35mm true scope to 35mm 1.85 flat as it is from 70mm to 35mm true scope.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Well, why don't you post your math to back up your statements.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

...as film handlers know about analyzing what's inside film

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

At least it looked decent. But the 35mm prints had the image reduced down to a tiny window-boxed postage stamp inside the frame

---

quote: Greg Mueller

---

why don't you got to a theater and see 70MM?

---

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

Some final scenes had to be reworked after Natalie Woods death during the filming.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Alien I think had two 70mm prints made.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

..especially a 70mm release that is on IB stock...

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Alien I think had two 70mm prints made.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Actually I did engoy going to my favorate 70mm theater at Pittsford Plaza 3. A 70mm only theater with a VIC 8.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Yet, I was wondering if "Alien" was shot in Super35

---

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

That my friends is the foundation of the industry

---

That is the current foundation of the business. But the content providers (the studios) are questioning whether they're getting maximum return on their marketing dollar by spending millions to promote a movie for its theatrical run, and then turning around a few months later and running another costly marketing campaign for home video release. From their perspective, all they care about is whether "Movie X" nets them $50M in profit from the current release model, but might net $55M by switching to day-and-date. If their bottom line for any given movie is better by releasing day-and-date in theaters and on home video, then I doubt they give a rats ass about how that affects exhibitors.

Of course their day-and-date idea is still just a theory, yet to be proven, and I hope it's proven wrong.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-29-2006, 12:57 PM:
 

quote:

---

Actually, all first person scenes were done in 65mm Super Panavision. The rest was flat 1,54:19

---

quote: Thomas Jonsson

---

I don´t think DVD´s "hitting the streets" the same time as the 35mm theatrical release will mean the death of film - or theaters for that matter. It happens more or less allready with downloads on the internet, and people still go to the theaters.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

So even if you think 70mm is fine wine. You can't play it everywhere and you can't get the ticket sales to cover your cost.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Brad Miller has described in the past how it really isn't a very complicated process to get a theater enabled to handle 70mm.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

With 70mm DTS and other advances in printing, the costs of making 70mm prints could be quite a lot less. The prints could even be made faster as well. You don't have the issue of mag coating, curing and real time sounding that had to occur with mag-coated prints. DTS time code greatly simplifies the process.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Sure you can load ASA 50 Vision stock in a 70mm camera and blow away the 35mm. That's not the point.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

The point is that you can use a 35mm anamorphic camera and get about the same quality as you did in the early 60's with a 70mm camera.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Devry XD 12000 HD

---

Ok fine, you win the prize for working in the letters HD into your posts more than anyone else, ok?

Seriously though, the difference is minimal between those two machines and neither of them could stand up to the quality of the projected image from a Kinoton (among others) using the same lenses, light source, throw distance and screen surface.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-29-2006, 04:17 PM:
 
Well that is the name. Devry XD 12000 HD.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-29-2006, 04:29 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

I am just kind of hoping you guys are out of a job soon.

---

The feeling is mutual

Think they've made any advancements in motion picture projectors since the Devry was made?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-29-2006, 04:32 PM:
 
Absolutely not! Why improve projectors when we can simply improve on the film stocks themselves and forget about everything else that affects the image.

Besides if it's "HD", then that's all that matters.
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-29-2006, 04:56 PM:
 
Let's try to get a focus on all this (No Pun Intended).

70mm projection IS better than 35mm.

Larry does have a point: The economics simply won't justify mass releases in 70mm. I wish it weren't so but the distributors want to drive costs even further downward.

I won't even touch the "dumb guy" comment except to say in my projection days I only met one or two, and even they could put on one hell of a show.

Larry, get your butt down to Colonial Williamsburg and see "Story of a Patriot". It was recently restored and guess what, they opted to print it in 70mm.

Imagine that.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-29-2006, 04:56 PM:
 
Well if you use your logic, 4x5 Speed Graphic cameras will soon be coming back. I collect cameras and I have a few of these. They were used from mid 1920's to about early to mid 1960's. You see them alot in the new movie Cinderella Man.

If you use modern film in these cameras, the resulting image blows away any other images taken with any other hand held camera to date. But yet, you don't see these cameras coming back and they never will.

Yes I am sure it's hard to keep that old VistaVision projector in repair. So why not 70mm? Pick up a nice hardly used 70mm projector for $4000 vs a new 35mm something or other for $35,000. Make sense to me.

Oh and that Vic 8 at Pittsford Plaza. It was setup for 70mm only. I understand that is very unusual for a Vic 8.

I also understand that the opening of Gone with the Wind in 1936 used a state of the art modern projector. Although, everyone complained that the image was less then ideal. It was decided to hold off showing it until 2003 in order to use the latest equipment for the best image quality.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-29-2006, 05:19 PM:
 
What's wrong with the Speed Graphic? I have one and use it regularly. Yes, the image quality does indeed blow away anything that I can do with my 35mm or 2 1/4" cameras. In my office at work, I have a 16x20" print of a photo that I took a couple of years ago with the Speed Graphic and people constantly notice the sharpness and detail of the image. They are generally surprised when I explain that I took it with an old press camera.

Sure, the newspaper guys now are mostly using digital capture because it's faster and cheaper (and the equipment is more portable) than the Speed Graphic, and these attributes are more important than absolute image quality for newspaper work (where the printing quality is usually quite poor, anyway). That doesn't invalidate large-format film as being useful for other purposes where image quality is of greater importance.

Similarly, just because the TV news guys are shooting video instead of IMAX doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons to make IMAX films.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-29-2006, 05:25 PM:
 
Ben Wales said:

quote:

---

I belive 70mm still has a future and a good crowd puller, perhaps it could be re-launched as a new format!

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Well if you use your logic, 4x5 Speed Graphic cameras will soon be coming back.

---

What do you think this is that I'm holding in my photo then?

I don't use it that much, but then I don't use any camera much now, I just don't have the time; maybe when I retire.

The SG is still a very practical tool for certain types of work, and there are plenty of them still in use. I wonder how many of todays cameras will still be in use in sixty years time?

About three years ago I had a picture which I took with my Pacemaker printed in a local paper, so it's still just about being used as a press camera! I scanned the negative, and sent it to them electronically. I didn't tell them what it was taken with.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-29-2006, 06:15 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

Oh and that Vic 8 at Pittsford Plaza. It was setup for 70mm only. I understand that is very unusual for a Vic 8.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

I know this is a mind excecise but if you could find an old 65mm camera, I see them on ebay every so often for about $15,000...

---

quote:

---

The issue is, can (70mm) be used to make money and I say not.

---

quote: Thomas Jonsson

---

Bobby. I still don´t think DVD releases will be that big a problem. Ofcourse there will be less attendance to theaters than today, but I´m pretty sure there will still be enough people who wants to see a good film at a movie theater.

---

quote: Rick Raskin

---

Larry does have a point: The economics simply won't justify mass releases in 70mm. I wish it weren't so but the distributors want to drive costs even further downward.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

As to 35mm of today equalling 70mm of the 60s...that still is not the case given the best of both.

---

Sheesh. All one has to do is watch a good print of "Lawrence of Arabia" (shot on 65mm in the early 1960s). It has sharper, more high resolution image detail than any current movie shot on 35mm. Or better yet, check out a more modern movie like Baraka (shot using Todd-AO cameras, but using more modern film stocks). That movie had some astounding imagery, right from the opening shots of the jagged Himilayan Mountains.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-29-2006, 10:04 PM:
 
This was a very interesting Vic-8 designed to only be used for 70mm. It had no secondary sprockets to load 35mm. I might be wrong, but I don't ever remember Plaza 3 showing anything but 70mm up until it closed. Of course, it all had to be blowups but it was 70mm none the less. Maybe someone from ROCHESTER knows when Plaza 3 closed. I bet it's been more then 5 years now.

So there you have it. A 70mm only theater in the very best UPSCALE part of a PHOTO town "CLOSED". If you can't sell 70mm there, where can you sell it? May 70mm rest in peace. So can you see why I may have my point of view?

[ 01-29-2006, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-29-2006, 10:06 PM:
 
The Webster also could show 70mm with a AA2
The vic 8 upper and lower feed sprockets were only made as dual sprockets
The intermitent was available as a dual 35/70 or 35 only
never saw one that was 70mm only
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-29-2006, 11:14 PM:
 
My thinking is it was a custom design to prevent any mistakes. A mistake such as a damaged 70mm print with 35mm sprocket marks down the middle. This would result in the theater being shut down until a new hard to get print could be had.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-30-2006, 12:49 AM:
 
Clearly you have never worked with a dual gauge machine. That kind of damage would be pretty much impossible.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-30-2006, 01:07 AM:
 
Hey Brad it's just my thinking. Whats your idea? What do you think about the Pittsford Plaza 3 closing down? Actually been closed down for the past 5 years.

A real nice clean 70mm only theater in a very upscale part of Rochester. You know the Rochester that lives and breaths photography. A place that at least some people should know the difference in image quality or may care to know.

Thats right CLOSED. No interest. No money to be made. Stay home. Lights out.

Come on Brad, what do ya think?
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 01-30-2006, 02:58 AM:
 
I tell ya what I think. Forget 70 mm the industry should have stayed at 1.37 and 3-strip Technicolor (with the option to shoot straight black and white of course) .

If only the DP's, Actors, Directors, Producers, Studios and Distributors put in the same amount of energy into the argument as you guys do, we actually might get some where. Are they even talking about it??
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-30-2006, 03:57 AM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

A mistake such as a damaged 70mm print with 35mm sprocket marks down the middle. This would result in the theater being shut down until a new hard to get print could be had.

---

..here's a pict of a V-8 with the double duty sprockets..and one can see how the 35mm sprocket teeth are well inside of the outside rows of the teeth that pulls the 70mm film down.



This Vic-8 is inside somebody's home theatre. Obviously, he doesn't care about DC in as much as he cares about 70mm presentations.
.Monte
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 01-30-2006, 04:07 AM:
 
There is a very good opportunity to see 70mm and Cinerama at the Widescreen Weekend in March in Bradford, England. See other thread for info about titles and dates. The sharpness of the films always blows the audience away, especially those on the first row. A situation which has forced ud to install seat belts
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-30-2006, 05:32 AM:
 
What do I think? Well first off, I think that "70mm only" theater was actually a 70mm AND a 35mm theater. Quite often people would go into complexes and say "what's playing on your 70mm screen". It didn't matter how many times or in what way you explained that you were running a 35mm print in there, some people are just flat out ignorant. The reality is that it would've taken more money and specific effort to make that projector NOT be able to run 35mm. Think about it.

I also think you should've heeded my advice on page 2.

quote: Brad Miller

---

Larry, you might want to excuse yourself from posting further on this thread...

---

...ya can't say I didn't warn ya!
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-30-2006, 07:56 AM:
 
I've seen 70mm and 35mm. 70mm is better, every time.

5/70 won't come back, as the producers don't believe in it. It will be digital all the way, unfortunately.

I can't imagine any theatre owner installing a 70mm only projector. There was never enough 70mm product to sustain a theatre, especially one outside the larger cities. Even the best premiere theaters ran far more 35mm than 70mm. 70mm was for the rare event film, usually a few in the summer and some at Christmas. I just can NOT believe any theater was 70mm only.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-30-2006, 08:02 AM:
 
Tale to two cities.

Let me tell you how bad off Rochester is. Take two very nice NEW 3000 sq ft homes, one in upscale Pittsford Rochester NY, home to many people who run Kodak. The other in Herndon VA, home of many interent companies.

Both sold new for about $250,000 in 1996 or about 10 years ago.

Fast forward today and the Herndon home just sold for $950,000 with $7000 a year in property tax. The Pittsford home hasn't sold and has been on the market for the last 6 month at $235,000 and is taxed at $9000 a year. Thats where film is going. Your right, enough said.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-30-2006, 08:10 AM:
 
We have had 70mm only theatres in the past. With the demise of 3-strip Cinerama; every Cinerama house was replaced with a JJ-70mm only machine....most of which were rapidly converted to 35/70; the balance being replaced with 35mm only machines (St Louis.)

The main problem 70mm had other than cost is the inability to move the print down to a smaller house unless it, too, is 70mm equipped. Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-30-2006, 08:34 AM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

every Cinerama house was replaced with a JJ-70mm only machine

---

For the Cinerama houses I believe that two of the three strip machines were actually converted to straight 70mm so they weren't really JJ's. I've had a half dozen of these machines go through. They are identifiable by a plate that is machined into the trap area to re-locate the dovetail and other components as well as the slot still being in the front of the head casting for the frame counter drive gear. They also do not have any Century name plate on them and the door glass still says Cinerama. Later on its presumed that they were made dual gauge although about half the ones I've had were still straight 70mm with 70mm only sprockets.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-30-2006, 09:05 AM:
 
I can think of about a trillion reasons for a business to go under besides whether or not they play 70MM. If you can't Larry, not only do you know nothing about film, but you also know nothing about business.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-30-2006, 09:40 AM:
 
and I take that all the way to the BANK

Oh yes. The Pittsford Plaza complex had three theaters. Plaza 1, Plaza 2, Plaza 3. Plaza 1 and 2 were in the front building. These theaters showed 35mm. The complex had a seperate building in the back called Plaza 3, If Plaza 3 theater was open, somehow the owner got ahold of a 70mm blowup of a new release.

I think Plaza 1 and 2 are still open. I think Plaza 3 is now a DVD rental place. I will be in Rochester all week next week and I will look.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-30-2006, 09:50 AM:
 
Perhaps you should ask yourself why they used 70mm at all, ever. Do you think there was a reason, or what? Why not just use 8mm? It certainly would have cost less. In fact, why use any larger format in any kind of photography?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2006, 10:52 AM:
 
The Pittsford Plaza analogy is really pretty stupid. At best it is half-baked.

The use or lack of use of 70mm prints has no bearing on that theater closing. And it doesn't have a damned thing to do with home values from one market to the next either. Truth be told, most people living in homes worth more than $250,000 don't even go to movie theaters at all. Nearly all the rich people I know don't.

Here's exactly why that theater was shut down, just like any other big single screener, twin or complex with under 6 screens: not enough screens, not enough showtimes.

Doofuses in the film distribution companies want to place prints in the theaters with the most screens. So they pressure the exhibitors to build more theaters with higher numbers of screens, even if the theaters themselves are tiny.

I was extremely underwhelmed by visiting the AMC Odyssey 30 at Grapevine Mills. Went there just once when the place was brand new. Saw "Titanic" in 70mm DTS the same day at the giant Northpark #1 screen. Then drove over to that theater in Grapevine to watch "Amistad" in 35mm SDDS. I swear that room probably didn't have anymore than 40 seats. But that's what they do to pack 30 screens into a mall location. Staggering difference.

Most of the big single screen theaters in Manhattan have been shuttered due to this trend. The 1500 seat Loews Astor Plaza theater closed exactly for that reason. Gotta have more screens, just divide them up into little tiny closets. With that kind of room, why even bother watching a movie there? The screen is small, the room is small and it doesn't seem to be on a scale much larger than an average living room.

The bean counters want more shows per day. But they don't give two shits about the environment in which those shows are presented. They think all showings are equal. And why would they think any different? They play golf in their free time, not watch movies.

On the bright side, there are some circuits trying to put at least 1 or more really big screening rooms into some of those megaplex builds. That bright side would be more appropriately bright if they had 70mm projection capability.

In the end, NO ONE should give a hoot how many screens are in a movie theater complex. You can only watch one movie at a time. The real thing that matters is having the best quality screens with the best quality presentation. People in the movie business who don't believe that should do the rest of us a favor and find a different job.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-30-2006, 11:09 AM:
 
Stupid, yes we are both dumb guys. You, the dumb guy running the projector. Me, the dumb guy for getting into film image technology in the first place. So yes, we are both dumb guys. Although, the dumb guy upstairs running the projector kinda rings a bell with many people. No one gives a shit about a dumb guy fooling around with film image technology.

[ 01-30-2006, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-30-2006, 11:31 AM:
 
This thread is still open?

In the peak period for 70mm blowups (mid-80s), one might have thought that the Edwards Big Newport was a 70mm-only theater because they often played many consecutive 70mm engagements. 35mm was relatively rare on that screen at the time. But 35mm did happen.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2006, 02:08 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

If the Pittsford Plaza had a Century JJ then I am being mislead. About 4 years ago I purchased a Holmes 8 from a guy in Webster that worked at Pittsford Plaza. In the basement he had a almost new looking Vic 8 with lots for 70mm films. He gave me a big story on how he got the Vic 8 out of Pittsford Plaza when it closed down. I took him at his word. I have gone to many shows at the Plaza 3 but never been in the booth itself.

---

When General Cinema (GCC) owned the Pittsford Plaza multiplex (across Monroe Avenue from the Loews Pittsford 1-2-3), they had at least one THX-certified auditorium set up for 35mm and 70mm. They played "Dick Tracy" and "Roger Rabbit" in 70mm. I recall all the projectors there were Cinemeccanica (typical of that era GCC), so I assume the 35/70mm machine was a Victoria-8. I think it is still there, after they became an independent and added more screens for a total of 9 today. Brack Bryant is now the chief projectionist there (he was at Loews Southtown), and a long-time IA member.

Yes, the Loews Pittsford 3 had a Century JJ. Lots of 70mm (and 35mm) shows there in the late 70's and the 80's when Jim Doty was manager, and Paul Hartman the chief projectionist. Played all the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series, and Alien. The Loews Pittsford 1-2 is now a women's gym, and the Pittsford 3 is a baby furniture store. The theatres closed due to the inefficiencies of running a 3-plex in a multiplex world, and the "stadium" seating competitors that moved into Rochester. The Loews Pittsford 3 didn't show any 70mm prints in its last years (I think "Far and Away" was the last 70mm they had).

FWIW, the Loews Pittsford 1&2 was originally a single screen, equipped for 35/70mm, and the "Premier" house in Rochester in the early 1970's. Frank Coniglio (BA of the Rochester IATSE local) ruled that booth. The twinning was an abomination.

BTW, I've written about the "Splendor of 70mm":

Splendor of 70mm Part 1

Splendor of 70mm Part 2
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 01-30-2006, 04:02 PM:
 
In 1994 the Dutch Founder of the "70mm Newsletter" prepared a 70mm Promotion Tour to LA, dispite all the hard work and planning, sadly the Studio's did not take this seriously to release films in 70mm, dispite some Cinema Exhibitors were keen to promote.

But as we see today, declining Admissions and the constant re-makes and some realy poor films.

In my view the days of the Mega Amusement Multiplexes are numbered and Digital Cinema will not be the saver!, People are starting to seek a more up-market Cinemas and prehaps a uniquie 70mm and "Big Screen" could see 70mm returning and making a Movie Going a Experience, rather than "Watching DVD's on a Big Screen" as most of public think we are showing.

May be Larry should travel to the like's of Bradford or other 70mm Film Festival's and see how popular they are and why some people travel 1,000 miles to see 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2006, 05:45 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

Stupid, yes we are both dumb guys.

---

Speak for yourself.

 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-30-2006, 07:46 PM:
 

quote: Ben Wales

---

May be Larry should travel to the like's of Bradford or other 70mm Film Festival's and see how popular they are and why some people travel 1,000 miles to see 70mm.

---

quote: Robert Harris

---

Having worked out a 35 vs. 65 budget for what was to have been David Lean's final film, the numbers are not all that far off. It worked out to (as I recall) under $500,000. Especially, with a bit of cooperation from Panavision and Kodak, which we had.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

The trouble is, Kodak is in no position to give anything away or underwrite such a venture. It does seem at least right now, that Kodak wants to go in the digital direction. Maybe it's just me but it looks like Kodak has put film on the back burner which even I think is a big mistake.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

I am sure with the old 65/70 camera bodies with modern optics

---

That does it. Now we know you haven't done your homework! There are "NEW" bodies available from both Panavision (System 65) and Arriflex (765) and "NEW" lenses. NO need to use the OLD JUNK sitting on collectors shelves... the new stuff IS better! Better movements, better reflex viewing, better glass all around and alot quieter and lighter!

Arri 765 System

Now back to something more important like the doughnut thread

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2006, 09:47 PM:
 
I think Larry purposefully overlooked my comments about the new, modern 65mm film cameras from Panavision and Arri. Other companies have also fielded modern 65mm models, but Panavision and Arri are the biggest name plates.

So, seriously, the "old $15,000 camera on E-Bay" line needs to be retired already.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-30-2006, 10:47 PM:
 
Let's see: 24.5 dBa @ 24fps for the 765 IS pretty quiet for pulling down 65mm film.

..Mark - time for us to get a baker's dozen of them "maple" bars at the Banbury donut shop on 7th E. When a topic grabs 120 plus replies when the originator is trying to sell us on some BS to where we have to get the waders on, it's time for a good dessert.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-31-2006, 08:40 AM:
 
OK, so rather then being just dumb guys upstairs running the projector, tell me how YOU think 70mm can be restarted. John Pytlac says things are already started. I say it's not NEAR enough so you will never see it. Although, if John is right, then the answer is, "JUST WAIT IT OUT" (A Rochester thing) and it will start itself. Kinda like the Fast Ferry but we don't want to go there.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-31-2006, 12:40 PM:
 
Even though some here may consider it "format overkill", the recent day-and-date feature film releases in the 70mm 15-perf IMAX format do represent a significant revival of large format presentation. Major distributors like Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Columbia, and Disney evidently feel that IMAX can deliver presentation quality and a distribution chain that is more consistent than 70mm 5-perf release through normal distribution channels. The list of features is impressive:

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/imax_commercial_releases.htm

quote:

---

2002
Beauty And The Beast — Walt Disney / 1.66:1
Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience — Imagine/Universal / 1.66:1 / DMR
Star Wars: Episode II — The IMAX Experience — Lucasfilm Ltd./20th Century Fox / 1.81:1 / DMR
Treasure Planet — Walt Disney / 1.66:1
The Lion King — Walt Disney / 1.66:1

2003
Ghosts Of The Abyss — Walt Disney / 1.78:1 / 3-D
The Matrix Reloaded: The IMAX Experience — Warner Bros. / 2.39:1 / DMR
The Matrix Revolutions: The IMAX Experience — Warner Bros. / 2.39:1 / DMR
The Young Black Stallion — Walt Disney / 1.44:1

2004
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban — Warner Bros. / 2.39:1 / DMR
Spiderman 2 — Columbia / 2.39:1 / DMR
The Polar Express — Warner Bros. / 2.00:1 / 3-D

2005
Robots — 20th Century Fox / 1.85:1
Aliens Of The Deep — Walt Disney / 1.78:1 / 3-D
Batman Begins — Warner Bros. / 2.39:1 / DMR
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory — Warner Bros. / 1.85:1 / DMR
Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire — Warner Bros. / 2.39:1 / DMR

2006
V For Vendetta: The IMAX Experience — Warner Bros. / N/A / DMR
The Ant Bully: An IMAX 3D Experience — Warner Bros. / N/A / DMR
Happy Feet: An IMAX 3D Experience — Warner Bros. / N/A / DMR
Superman Returns: The IMAX Experience — Warner Bros. / N/A / DMR
Poseidon: The IMAX Experience — Warner Bros. / N/A / DMR

---

The number of 70mm 15-perf prints for some of these releases rivals the number available for many of the 5-perf 70mm releases in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's.

Convincing distributors to release 70mm 5-perf prints is really a matter of exhibitors convincing them that their large screen theatres are fully ready and competent to show 70mm 5-perf prints with DTS sound, and will deliver boxoffice revenue enough better than a 35mm print to justify the added expense of making the 65mm duplicate negative and 70mm release prints. IMAX made a very good business case for 70mm 15-perf features. Which exhibitors can do that for 70mm 5-perf?
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-31-2006, 01:02 PM:
 
I didn't know this thread jumped to IMAX. A wonderful format with already proven results. If it has, then yes, IMAX is great and blows the doors off anything else.

I still think the issue and the general jest of this thread is 35mm 1.85 to 2.35 true scope to 2.20 5 perf 70mm and how does it all fit together at a typical theater.

The bottom line is that the Pittsford Plaza 3, a great 70mm theater, never played IMAX. If the plaza 3 was open today, I am not sure it could play IMAX even with major modifications.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-31-2006, 01:51 PM:
 
IMAX is 70mm, so it is on topic. The discussion is how large format film presentation stacks up against Digital Cinema, and whether it has a place in modern exhibition. The success IMAX has had in presenting day-in-date feature films shows that large format (70mm) presentation does offer something audiences will seek out, just as they did with 5-perf 70mm from 1955 until the early 1990's. Whether it's "format overkill" or smart marketing, the IMAX DMR process is a success.

IMHO, distributors are wary of 70mm 5-perf, not because the format hasn't proven itself, but because of the perception that many of today's large screen multiplex theatres are not properly equipped or competent to show it. For distributors, IMAX is a safer bet.

Loews Pittsford 3 is long gone, but not because 70mm wasn't successful for them during its heyday. Yet today, the Rochester Cinemark Tinseltown IMAX has great success showing feature films using 70mm 15-perf prints. The demand for quality on a huge screen is still there, and 70mm prints deliver it all day and every day of the week.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-31-2006, 02:42 PM:
 
Well I think you can include IMAX is on topic when a director decides to do dual photography like they did in filming Oklahoma. Two cameras side by side. An IMAX camera and a Panavision camera. It would have been great with Batman Begins.

Now if you want to say.
-Hey, 70mm is already in wide use today. Look at all the 70mm film we sold for IMAX and that system is doing great at the theaters. Then I guess everyones problems are over. Really no need to worry. What is it. Oh yes. Don't worry, be happy.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-31-2006, 03:44 PM:
 
It's a different business model today, but the goal of quality large format film presentation is the same. For screens over 60 feet wide, 70mm film is still the best way to fill them.

As I said, the ones that need to convince distributors to provide 70mm 5-perf prints are the exhibitors who have those large screens to fill. They need to have the equipment, and the skilled people to run it and not damage the more expensive prints. For now, IMAX has taken advantage of the need, and offered a turn-key "system". Smart.

Yeah, nothing like 65mm origination. But as others have said, the 35mm to 65mm/70mm blow-ups have a proven track record, ever since "Dr. Zhivago" paved the way. And modern color negative and intermediate stocks allow great quality from 35mm cameras.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-31-2006, 04:05 PM:
 
Like "passing the gauntlet" - 5/70 to 15/70 with a huge increase of picture area, even though the frame speed is the same, is like analog recording methods to digital recording methods for audio - huge percentage of audio head room that was increased with digital against the analog.

Bottom line is the money - how much money can be made with such improvements and how much is the demand by the public, plus the longetivity and security it is for the developers - they don't want to get caught in the "Edsel" syndrome.

Yes, it's part of the "romantic" era to run and see 5/70, run changeover machines with carbon arc lamps, run big 'roadshow' performances in which all of this was fun....

But, unfortunately, time marches on and we must wake up to face the reality and adjust with the changes that is instore for us in the present and for the future if this business is going to remain with us as long as possible.

And the filmmakers, releasing studios, and the theatre circuits, small and large, "indies" and partnerships will eventually will have to change as well for if they want to survive as well - and this not meaning that they must get ready to change to digital, but to keep their equipment as operational as possible to ensure continued operation until they can make this huge and growing demand for this format change.

Yes, IMAX is a very growing format due to the large screen presentations and the use of the Sonics digital sound processing, which is purely HDD driven-no soundtrak is on the film.

Advantage also with the IMAX with that much larger picture area on the film itself, is that the screen size can even be more bigger along with the usage of much larger xenon lamps that no 5/70 machine can even think of using without melting down - let alone the amount of heat that would be on the 5/70 film itself..

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-31-2006, 06:22 PM:
 
Just as a matter of interest, if one shot on 65mm, could both 5-70 and 15-70 (DMR) prints be derived from the negative?

That would give the Distributor the best of both worlds, and a larger exhibition base than say, IMAX DMR alone.

The other thing that comes up from this debate is, why don't a small group of people on this site get together and form a project team with the specific goal of re-inventing 5-perf 70mm.(I can think of at least 6 people who could participate, including Mr. Myers!)

It can start with the formation of a formal 5-70 venue network (of which there is loose one already, it seems to me). Use Bradford as an opportunity to kick things off.

The work would involve looking at all those things that are currently impeding re-birth of the format - technical, financial and marketing.

I personally think it is a matter of re-packaging and re-positioning the format in the minds of the decision-makers. A name-change is probably essential. Anything with "film" in the title will be perceived as "old". IMAX, for example, works as a a name because it doesn't mention film. Nobody has a problem with it, and it sounds suitably futuristic.

I mentioned "HD-70" earlier, and Larry mentioned "Super HD70", which was better. Another possibility could be "Enhanced Cinema Experience", or "ECX". (Then again, that sounds a bit like THX). Another option is "High Definition Cinema", or "HD-Cinema", or "Cinema-HD". ("Cinema" implies film without actually saying so!).

These are good because there's no "70" in the title, which would prompt people to ask "what does 70 mean?", leading to the reply "70mm film" and thus turning them off.

Thing is to be positive; where there's a will there's a way. I think there could be much to be gained by associating 5-perf 70 as an extension of IMAX DMR production...if it's possible.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 01-31-2006, 06:45 PM:
 
Good idea Brian!

That's much more the direction I had hoped this discussion might go when I wrote the initial post. This concept gives theatres a marketable product (just like IMAX) that is not available at home (the theatre's rival) for a very reasonable cost (especially compared to DC and IMAX) and which actually improves presentation in several ways (hopefully improving customer satisfaction and return rates). What a lovely group of features!

Larry
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 01-31-2006, 06:53 PM:
 
Finally a positive idea. Actually a very good idea. It took three days to get but at least we got one. I am a sucker for a good ideas.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-31-2006, 07:53 PM:
 

quote: Brian Guckian

---

Just as a matter of interest, if one shot on 65mm, could both 5-70 and 15-70 (DMR) prints be derived from the negative?

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

I personally think it is a matter of re-packaging and re-positioning the format in the minds of the decision-makers. A name-change is probably essential. Anything with "film" in the title will be perceived as "old".

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

These are good because there's no "70" in the title, which would prompt people to ask "what does 70 mean?", leading to the reply "70mm film" and thus turning them off.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Film has a very interesting quality that digital photography doesn't.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Digital Photography will soon have the same look as film......

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

A 5/65 to 15/70 print would look a lot better than any DMR 4/35 to 15/70 print.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

If so, and the digital cameras can be improved with a massive pixel rate capture, then the need to using 65mm can then be used just for the diehards and the IMAX people who want to continue using film since the editing factor with digital can be trimmed considerably when making the final negatives for film and the DVD's for the digital projectors - who themselves had better be improved to match these newly revamped digital cameras.

---

quote: Mike Heenan

---

Since most films are scanned for the DI at only 2K, how good would say a 70mm print look anyways? Seems like it'd be a waste, to film in 65mm, scan down to 2K and then output to 70mm .

---

quote: John Walsh

---

The only problem I see with reinventing 70mm film, is that the studios don't *want* film. They want digital projection because they can control the content, and the theaters, much easier.

---

quote:

---

The KODAK KAF-39000 Image Sensor,
featuring 39 million pixels, and the KODAK KAF-31600 Image Sensor, with 31.6 million pixels,
offer professional camera and camera back manufacturers resolution and image detail that was
once unimaginable for digital cameras, allowing photographers to experience a new level of image
quality for portrait, wedding, landscape, fashion, studio and commercial photography.

---

Of course, 65mm film is even better.
 

---

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 02-01-2006, 01:21 PM:
 
There you go John.
 

---

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 02-01-2006, 02:39 PM:
 
Louis wrote:

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Digital Cinema is about a transfer of power from theatre owner to distributor.

---

quote: John Walsh

---

They want digital projection because they can control the content, and the theaters, much easier.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

Kodak is already a leader in high resolution image sensors

---

Yes, the KAF-39000 imager is a pretty impressive digital imager. However, that 39 megapixel item is meant for use in digital backs for large format still cameras. Some of these digital backs work a bit like putting a flat bed scanner on a view camera.

Digital still image cameras will continue to pack in more pixels since exposure times, lens types and other factors can afford more flexibility. CMOS chips are a workable solution in still cameras (such chips can be made more affordably and pack more pixels into a smaller space). They haven't been proven to be all that great for video recording.

CCDs still rule the video camera world, but there is more in the way of limitations in trying to go well above a 2 million pixel level on video capture. The pixel count is effectively quadrupled when trying to go to a 4K resolution. And that's only going to approximate 4/35 resolution.

I think it will be a very long time before any digital video camera can come near the native resolution of 5/65mm. The "its good enough" attitude will allow a kind of tyranny of 1080HD standards to keep video camera standards from rising above that for quite awhile.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-01-2006, 08:48 PM:
 
..would it be then if one was going to make, let's say a camera that can come close to the 5/65 resolution, the optics would have to be able to capture tons of information, a light source on the subject/object massively bright, or just somebody invent a new-fangled chip that that could eventually replace the CCD chip to effective capture motion...a concept far away in the future.

But, just curious, why is the CMOS chip not as effective with motion capture as with the CCD chip?

thx-monte
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-01-2006, 09:08 PM:
 
I attended a meeting at Kodak maybe 12 years ago on Photo CD. Remember that? The main Project Manager told me the highest resolution was set to match a Kodachrome 25 slide. The highest resolution was I think, 30 MB. Let me tell you, Kodachrome 25 has very good resolution at about 100 lines pairs per millmeter.

If that is the case, the 35MB chip is getting really close to 65mm quality. A 35mm slide is really VistaVision quality which is not far of from 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-01-2006, 11:35 PM:
 
Global document size, such as 35MB, means very little. What's the pixel dimensions? Bit-depth per channel (8-bits, 12, 16)?

Again, the KAF-39000 CCD imager is not a video camera chip. It's not even for normal D-SLR digital camera use.

The imaging area on the KAF-39000 chip alone measures 36mm X 48mm, which is pretty huge (and very very expensive) for a silicon chip. It's quite a bit larger than any chip found in any video camera. Still cameras and digital backs using this chip run in the $40,000+ price range. And that's not including the tethered hard drives to store the 78MB RAW image files.

Also, if the KAF-39000 chip is going to be measured against a film format like 65mm, why not keep the comparison appropriate and weigh it against a still image film format? In that arena 4' X 5' and 8' X 10' view camera formats are the best in film-based still photography. That's quite a ways above still camera 35mm.
 

---

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 02-01-2006, 11:57 PM:
 
Add my name to the list of people who think 5/70 is still viable.

5/70 with SR Mag is the best format I've ever seen or heard (I have not seen Cinerama).

When the Uptown had "Lawrence" a couple years back, I was going back and forth between the Uptown and a multiplex with digital cinema on one screen. It was painfully obvious that 5/70 mops the floor with digital and 35. The difference was just ridiculous. And the 18-plex I used to work in proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that digital cinema is far from idiot-proof.

I don't think Hollywood is anymore interested in presentation than the theatre chains are. But if a lot more theatres employed people who aren't mentally retarded and Hollywood was open to giving it a shot, 5/70 would be very profitable.


 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-02-2006, 01:59 AM:
 
I noticed one thing on this pict of the "JJ" with the CAT-700 reader and the threading path: Doesn't the CAT-700 have those 35/70mm rollers on the outboard parameter of the case and the last 35/70 roller before film heads on down to the machine.

Isn't is supposed to be that the film path goes around the outside parameter rollers, bypassing the reader's film path completely, and then down to the final roller, instead of going straight through in front of the CCD camera and the impedence drum?

..or does it matter which way as long as no scratching is involved....

I have some CAT-700's with those dual gauge rollers mounted on them as well.

(..interesting to note that the mag reader is a dual 35/70mm reader - just has a different threading pattern for the 35mm mag film.)
thx Monte
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-02-2006, 03:20 AM:
 
Monte, that is a cat699, not a cat700.

Yes, the cat699 is threaded correctly and as it was intended, but it appears the entry roller in the mag penthouse was skipped over (not exactly smart if the SRD reader isn't precisely aligned). You are also right as long as the film isn't scratching against something most any way of bypassing is fine. I will not get into the emulsion in winding or the fact that the upper loop appears to be large enough to scratch on the 35mm pad roller (if not removed) though.

The JJ has two different mag heads in there and two different paths. That is not a 10 track head the 70mm is passing by, but a 6 track head. The 4 track 35mm head is over to the right side.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-02-2006, 09:02 AM:
 
Again since with film pixel size varies with film speed. It is possible to actually get better detail, or resolution if you will, with an ASA 1 film in a 35mm camera then with an ASA 1000 film in a 8X10 camera. It a mix and match kind of thing. Otherwise, there is no such thing as a mini spy camera.

Detail is measure by the math of these three inputs:

Focal Length
Lens Resolution X Film Resolution/Lens Reso+Film Reso
Distance.

Notice film size is not included.

I mean by detail as in reading the letters a license plate and not how many license plates are in the picture.

Example a picture with 4 license plates does not have twice the detail as a picture of two plates.

-and yes, Kodak has made an ASA 1 film in 35mm from time to time.

You guys will get a rest from me. I will be in Rochester NY (lucky me) for the rest of the week.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-02-2006, 09:20 AM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

Otherwise there is no such thing as spy cameras.

Detail is measure by:

Focal Length
Lens Resolution X Film Resolution/Lens Reso+Film Reso
Distance

I mean by detail as in reading the letters a license plate and not how many license plates are in the picture.

Example a picture with 4 license plates does not have twice the detail as a picture of two plates.

-and yes, Kodak has made an ASA 1 film in 35mm from time to time.

---

Judging from your past employment history, I suspect you are well aware of some of the capabilities of Kodak's film and sensors for reading license plates from a great distance.

Kodak Aerial Recon Films

quote:

---

Optimized for Today's Most Demanding Applications
KODAK Aerial Films are formulated to meet specific customer requirements — taking advantage of the unparalled resolution and detail of film, while at the same time enabling customers to keep up with the pace of technology and change. Accordingly, Kodak offers a broad portfolio of aerial imaging films, covering a wide range of applications and uses in and out of the digital workspace.

---

quote:

---

The other thing that comes up from this debate is, why don't a small group of people on this site get together and form a project team with the specific goal of re-inventing 5-perf 70mm.(I can think of at least 6 people who could participate, including Mr. Myers!)

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Again since with film pixel size varies with film speed. It is possible to actually get better detail, or resolution if you will, with an ASA 1 film in a 35mm camera then with an ASA 1000 film in a 8X10 camera. It a mix and match kind of thing.

---

quote:

---

it physically fits in cinema structures (one doesn't need a entirely new/different shape section of building).

And I think whether or not the word "film" is part of the name is unimportant (except to us geeks); as long as the word is attractive and exciting to average ticket buyers!

---

Larry, I second all that; BTW I should say that my views are influenced by negative perceptions of film being "old" which I've come across here in Ireland...an instance of generalisation perhaps. Glad to hear that's not the perception in the US, etc. and long may it be so.

[As an aside, I'll be at a seminar in Dublin soon on "The Impact of Digital Cinema" in which I intend to strongly make the case for developing and enhancing film side by side with digital]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-05-2006, 03:42 PM:
 
Larry, Brian, et all... Now that you have realized your dream how will you carry it out? I say its just a dream... a good one but one that will unfortunately stay a dream.....

Dream on boys!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-06-2006, 09:40 AM:
 
Mark, sounds like you're just the man to carry this forward!
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Sefton-Parke (Member # 3623) on 02-06-2006, 03:18 PM:
 
It would take a wish at a Blarney Stone to convince the major film studios to film in 5/65 and release in 5/70. The bottom line is always the budget. Everyone on this forum knows full and well the impact of a properly projected 5/70 film on the audience. When "L of A" was re-released in Australia I saw it at the Cremorne Orpheum. The audience, many of whom had never seen a 70mm film, were very impressed.

Bring back 3-strip Cinerama and Kinopanorama [John Steven Lasher has tried on several occasions, but politics and, worse still, lack of proper funding have prevented his launching any large-scale projects].

If Hollywood is a "dream factory", it is not one in 5/70 or 3-strip. Jeremy.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-06-2006, 03:30 PM:
 
I wonder how much more it costs to give a 4/35 film the IMAX DMR treatment and blown up to 15/70 versus doing a regular 4/35 to 5/70 blowup. The difference is probably fairly huge -especially when you consider the entire film has to be scanned and digitally processed for the DMR method.

Also, what is the output resolution for DMR? 4K? More? Less?

To shoot an entire 2 hour movie in 65mm will add between $500,000 and $1 million to the budget. That's fairly small when the average major release costs $100 million to produce and tens of millions more to market. Yet 65mm origination would have that very expensive product looking great and holding up well against future film and video formats decades from now.

Us stupid Americans just don't seem very interested in the concept of "long term investment."
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-06-2006, 03:31 PM:
 
I am back. I really don't want to get back to what system is better, 5perf 70mm vs 35 anamorphic. I just wanted to point out that you got to look at the whole system to find out what system might be better. A more or less mix and match issue that does exist. It's all in a point of view. I notice in the IMAX camera manual, that instructions are given to police the area of soda cans, cups, butts, half eaten donuts and any other background litter. It points out that all this stuff might not show up on typical 35mm but will cause an expensive reshoot with IMAX. I also read a story in the shooting of How The West Was Won. All the modern buttons had to be replaced on the set costumes because of the higher quality detail with the larger scale of the three cameras. So besides a easier fit of getting cameras, film, processing and release prints, 35mm also means a somewhat easier pre and mid production. Kinda a fact of life.

[ 02-07-2006, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-07-2006, 12:09 AM:
 
I don't buy the argument 5/65mm or any other large format origination process will complicate things.

Crews today have much more sophisticated tools to use in building sets, making costumes and doing other stuff to decorate a set. Add to that all the tools visual effects people, editors and other tech types are able to use in post production.

You could shoot a swash-buckling pirate epic on the open water. It wouldn't wreck the shot if you have a jet contrail plow across the sky. Something like that can be removed pretty easily in post.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-07-2006, 08:01 AM:
 
It's really doesn't matter if you buy something or not since your not in the market. The director along with the production management are the ones who buy. So right now it's easier to use 35mm and let the film stocks control how much quality you may want. That way, if someone leaves a half eaten donut on the window ledge, it doesn't mean a reshoot.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-07-2006, 09:58 AM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

It's really doesn't matter if you buy something or not since your not in the market.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

The fact that you can adjust the amount of detail by adjusting the type of film stock used in a 35mm camera disproves your point. This was not so before 1970 or so. Then, most color negative film stocks were about the same in detail capture. So you had to use the same film in both 35mm and 70mm cameras. So it's basically pure optical math. The 70mm wins every time in this case. Not so today.

---

quote: Matt Fields

---

Distribution, in general, does not currently feel that the additional costs of production can be justified.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Bottom line, both Eastman color and Kodacolor of the mid 60's were kinda bad in pickup up detail. You were lucky to get out of it a total system performance of 25 lines pairs per millimeter. Today a 100 lines is the norm. A four times improvement with todays film stocks and a four times adjustment for todays 35mm movie cameras.

---

All of that history does not answer the question at hand: can Kodak provide 65mm-based productions the same quality of motion picture stocks that are available to 35mm? As I said before, John Pytlak will likely be the voice of authority on that one. I am pretty sure the answer is yes.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2006, 02:14 PM:
 
Larry should write the next Wide Screen Movies book, but this time on lenses and film gauges.

I'll bet it would have a nice followup report, just like the original WSM book has.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-07-2006, 02:41 PM:
 
Yes, today Kodak can provide any film in any format. Minimum order is around 1500 sq ft. It might be more now. So yes, you can run the best of the best negative stock in both 70/65mm and 35mm cameras.

It's a simple calculation.
**************1************1
(Focal Length x ASA speed) / Distance
********************____1____*********__1____
35mm camera = 50mm lens x 50 ASA speed / 20 Feet Distance=.050 detail value
**********************___1___*******___1____
70mm camera = 75mm lens x 50 ASA speed / 20 Feet Distance=.075 detail value

.050/.075 = 66% meaning the 70mm camera is 66% better detail then the 35mm camera. An answer I think you want.

This is a way over simplication ball park answer to a very complex algorithmic problem. I am just trying to give you an idea of how this works using the exact same film in both cameras.

[ 02-07-2006, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2006, 03:02 PM:
 
Honestly Larry, this is what everyone has been trying to tell you for the last 13 pages! 70mm IS better, and not just for reasons of real estate.

You are the one trying to overcomplicate the discussion.

BTW, are you aware that there are OTHER forums here and OTHER threads you could participate in?
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 02-07-2006, 03:18 PM:
 
There must be someone on this Forum who knows someone on a
major film production company. Why not simply ask what they
think of the idea of 70mm, and get the answer right from the
horse´s mouth? It´s free to ask...

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-07-2006, 03:27 PM:
 
..could ask Ron Howard...he shot "Far and Away" in 65mm.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-07-2006, 03:43 PM:
 
I know I should make comments on other threads but since I usually cause discontent, why mix the pot more then I have to.

I am just trying to give some reasons why things are the way they are. Why does it seem 5 perf 70 is really not all the popular but IMAX is taking off? Can we say since Kodak is selling more 70mm film then ever, 5 perf 70 is really popular and we are all mistaken?

What is the point of view for production management. How is the equipment selected? How is the tech advice given?

What I am also saying is. With just several view graphs on image quality, this is enough to convince any director to just go 35mm. I am not saying this is right. This is one of the big problems with todays top collages. They are training real smart people to present their really dumb ideas very well.

I think you have seen this in the last year or two in the evening news. How can all this be countered?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2006, 03:53 PM:
 
Geez Larry, why stir up so much crap on just one thread? In fact, how about you NOT post any more on this thread and spread your wisdom among other threads for a couple of weeks? You have seriously become the troll of this one. (Take note that no one else appears to agree with you here. Also note that you have been a member for over 5 years and yet 43 of your 139 posts have been right here on this very thread! Seriously, what's up?)
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-07-2006, 04:51 PM:
 
Ok fine. I am done. It's interesting how you guys know so much about film just by handling it. I guess it's osmosis. So I hope this osmosis gets 5 perf 70mm back in the theaters. Only 80 or so standard run time feature films have ever been produced in 5 perf 65/70 going all the way back to 1930. Some titles are kind of obscure. I will wait and see if any more are produced. Now that I look at it, I can't believe I wasted my breath and fingers on so few films.

[ 02-08-2006, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 02-08-2006, 01:31 AM:
 
Here´s a list of most (major) 65mm films ever filmed. Some recent short subjects have not yet been added.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-08-2006, 03:11 AM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

It's interesting how you guys know so much about film just by handling it. I guess it's osmosis

---

No, it's simply called "an art and a skill of film production and presentation." We're 'skilled artists' in this trade - as a painter would be.

We take this within us, not just to be "outside" with this.

Just something that one can't read about and then say they know about it. One must actually work with this medium and the surroundings - good and bad - to gain a testimony about it. Then, you'll fully understand where we come from.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-08-2006, 11:19 AM:
 
I have read this thread with great interest and I thought you might appreciate the opinion of just a member of the audience.

Over the years I have been lucky enough to see 35mm in all its different guises (including nitrate prints) both flat and anamorphic (including VistaVision dye transfer prints), 65mm/70mm films, blow-ups from 35mm to 70mm, three-strip Cinerama both in Eastman and dye transfer, IMAX and even Super 8mm in dye transfer Technicolor. I have also seen 3-D films in dual print interlocked projection, polarised, including dye transfer prints, and anaglyphic single-strip, single-strip polarised, and of course IMAX 3-D. And certainly the difference between them is there, quite obvious to my eyes.

Whoever has seen 65mm negative printed on 70mm on a big screen will have noticed the quality difference as compared to other film gauges.

It is sad that after so many inventions, from which I would herald dye transfer Technicolor as the best ever colour system, and 65mm/70mm prints as the most sharp and clear picture, we are left with cropped 35mm, anamorphic 35mm (poor man's Cinerama) and the menace of 2k digital projection.

2K Digital projection will not bring more audiences as the widescreen revolution or 3-D did in the 50s. It will probably lose some since it does not bring any improvement to the cinema experience, actually for many of us it takes away something very important, film!

I believe that blow-ups contributed to the demise of 70mm. 70mm is truly great when it has been originated on 65mm. When originated on cropped 35mm it has not got as much depth and is a bit grainy. Films were marketed in general as presented in 70mm without making a distinction on the size of the negative and this meant that people forgot how good 70/65mm can be. In Spain it was abused to the point that blow-ups were even made of 35mm films with only optical sound!! I think that any comeback of 70mm should be in a way that makes sure that the negative is going to be large as well, otherwise not enough is achieved in relation to a 35mm print.

It would be important to make sure that 65/70mm films are going to be exhibited on a big screen. On small screens 70mm does not show its full potential. In that sense a certificate like THX for sound should be employed for image to make sure patrons in cinema are going to have excellence in image as well as sound.

One of the reasons why 70mm theatres closed is that they no longer had products to offer. The 70mm film experience is born during the production of the film with a large negative and widescreen cinematography, not just by blowing up any 35mm film.

It would be a good idea to create a proprietary system that could be registered or trademarked to ensure that the film quality remains all along the process from filming to exhibition. The problem is that 65mm printed on 70mm has already been invented and therefore a quality control in such general domain system would be difficult (with blow-up prints blurring the quality of 70mm). There is something that has yet never been done in film and this is 65mm negative with 70mm prints in dye transfer Technicolor. This, as you probably would agree, would be the best system ever used to bring images to the screens. It is clear that Technicolor's dye transfer printing is much better than positive colour printing. One of the reasons why Technicolor never developed its dye transfer colour system for 70mm was probably because of the limited number of 70mm prints released made it more expensive than colour positive prints. If dye transfer Technicolor prints had been made, we would still be enjoying the 70mm prints from the 60s, but instead we have been left with pink prints.

I do not need to tell you about the virtues of 65mm filming on 70mm prints. You know it very well. Not many people have had the chance to see proper screenings of films like Lawrence of Arabia. Imagine this quality with the added benefit of Technicolor dye transfer printing system. It would surely be the best motion picture process ever produced. It would
also have the advantage of being something new, never done before.

Technicolor adds a pictorial quality to films, strengthening the difference from film to digital. Also the stability of the dyes means that the prints can be stored for re-releases for many, many years and from an archival point of view this is a very good thing.

It would be also important to create a sound system, which emphasized the sound behind the screen, since this is an aspect where theatres can make a difference to home cinema. The presence of at least five channels behind the screen can create an impressive and immersive experience, as it was experienced with Cinerama's sound system and the six magnetic tracks of the 70mm films. It would also be interesting to produce a huge range of high and low registers to create a sound quality different to that which can be experienced at home.

I have seen the only print (part of first reel only) of The Red Thin Line by Terrence Malick in dye transfer Technicolor and it looked gorgeous, and that was only 35mm anamorphic, imagine it in 70mm!!!!

65/70mm produces a sense of immersion and participation very similar to that found in IMAX presentations as Mike Todd proved with his rollercoaster images in Todd-AO. This sense of immersion is not found in 35mm or digital.

It would be interesting to encourage directors of photography and film directors to plan and stage their films for the big screen as many did during the 50s and 60s. This tendency was abandoned when many directors like Scorsese feared their films would be massacred in a pan/scan version for video or TV. Now that DVDs preserve the original ratio perhaps is the
time to once again make use of the full canvas that the cinema screen offers.

I think the encouragement of film directors and directors of photography is very important. In that sense 5/70 is more interesting than IMAX since the latter implies cropping the frame for the IMAX release and therefore compromising the cinematography.

I hope that something arises from this thread as the creation of a group as it has been suggested. With the present circumstances only an experience which dwarves home cinema can save theatres from the loses in revenue they are experiencing in countries like Spain and France in 2005 and this will not come from digital projection.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-08-2006, 06:19 PM:
 
Awesome Ramon, thank you and well done!

In this thread are all the ideas you could want to move this forward. It's about being totally positive, it's about being completely inspired by what's possible, it's about doing the work.

It's about sitting down and looking at every conceivable way this can be made to happen. We need technical knowledge, but we also need financial and marketing input too. It all goes hand in hand. It's a holistic approach, where everyone makes their contribution in their own particular area of expertise.

Let's make it happen - next step is to round up the usual suspects!
 

---

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 02-08-2006, 07:44 PM:
 
Ramon mentioned something very interesting - the idea of combining dye transfer with 70MM prints.

I've always thought that it would be very compelling to have a 65/70MM production - in black and white on real silver nitrate camera negative stock and real black and white print stock. It would be like an Ansel Adams photo on the big screen.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-08-2006, 07:54 PM:
 

quote: Michael Barry

---

65/70MM production - in black and white on real silver nitrate camera negative stock and real black and white print stock. It would be like an Ansel Adams photo on the big screen.

---

.. a little ignorant on this one, but wasn't the movie ""The Longest Day" shot in b/w 65mm, or was this shot in 35mm anamorphic - for I did run the 35mm mag version of this film....

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-08-2006, 08:38 PM:
 
35mm anamorphic.

There were 70mm blow-up prints made for the 25th anniversary (of the end of WWII, not the film) re-issue.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-09-2006, 10:05 AM:
 
Thank you for your kind words Brian and Michael.

One of the reasons that are given for not spending a lot of money in 70mm prints is that the colour fades and prints become useless after some years. As I said, with dye transfer Technicolor the colour stays the same for many, many years and this could justify the investment in the prints. This is also very good from the archival point of view. Does anyone know someone with contacts at Technicolor, who is a dye transfer fan?

Put together the dye transfer “fans” and the 65/70 fans and you have a large crowd! Imagine a film like My Fair Lady with the dye transfer treatment!!!!

This world, like or not, praises very much novelty and therefore mixing the two best, 65/70 and dye transfer would allow marketing “this system” as something new, never done before, which would catch the attention, hopefully, of many. The “never done before” tag still attracts people.

As it has been said in the forum, using larger negative is also a long term investment in any future technological developments which can make use of the bigger information contained in a bigger negative.

Obviously 70mm won’t save a turkey and it was completely wrong for Fox to blame Todd-AO for the failure (or not saving) films like Dr Dolittle. However, 70mm/65mm (preferably on dye transfer prints) could help a good film to stay longer in cinemas since it would be a completely different experience from the DVD release. The big question is how much more would cost to get these prints and how much more money would exhibitors, distributors and producers get for that. An accurate reply to this question is what could get 70mm back.

I agree completely with the holistic approach. It is essential to bring cinematographers into the debate. I know Vittorio Storaro has been for many years advocating for the return of 70mm. Cinematographers are the ones who can make the system shine. Many film directors would also be interested in it.

Yes, let’s be positive and try our best. Should we draw a plan of action?
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-09-2006, 12:32 PM:
 
I know, I said I am done with this but I do want to add something I forgot.I remembering talking to a Panavision Camera program manager sometime back.

REMEMBER!! These are not my words.

He told me the main reason for the trend to stand down on 70mm blowup presentations was the newly acquired ability to get better sound out of 35mm. Meaning DTS, SDDS and so on. Before all the digital sound on 35mm, the only way to get good quality sound was twin mag strip 70mm. That is the main reason why all the 70mm blowups were being made in the late 70's to early 90's.

Remember, not my words. So don't kill the messenger.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-09-2006, 12:39 PM:
 
Larry I've heard that many times from the studio level of people. About now it's cheaper to get that BIG stereo sound in 35mm.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-09-2006, 02:41 PM:
 
Ramon, compliments from Brooklyn as well....you voice what most of us on this forum know and feel about the beauty of what film can, in it's best form, do. Unfortunately most of our culture here in the USA is for faster, cheaper, not better.. Quality is not very often the primary motivation, and even more unfortunately, as companies morph into larger and larger conglomerates, the individual vision that created such Herculean efforts like Mike Todd creating Todd-AO -- think of it; ONE man's vision and tenacity and chutzpa to launch a completely new system who's main purpose was to best what had gone before. That could never happen today. Today's companies are not headed by men of that personal vision. The driving vision today is profit and stock options.

Millions are spent in R&D to see what's the cheapest way we can get an image that is "good enough" (the exact words of a senior vice-president at Disney about 1.3K VIDEO). Walt himself would have turned over in his grave.

Was D-Cinema born out of a need for better presentation? Were people ringing their hands saying, we need to do something about that jitter and weave on the screen...it's just unacceptable quality? Did ANYONE hear either the filmmakers or the movie lovers fret about that? And if so, EK show prints have always been available if anyone really cared.

We are a society where mediocrity seems to thrive and it serves the corporations well to have the dumbing-down and passive majority of the population who will accept whatever crap is fed to them, figuratively and literally. How different it would be if we had audiences that simply walked out of theatres when quality is substandard and demanded our money back. If we accepted nothing less than roadshow quality, the bean-counters would learn very quickly that mediocrity looses money. If the public demanded 70mm from 65neg-quality, Technicolor, roadshow-type presentations and expressed that demand with their wallets, they would get that level of quality. But we are a fast-everything society. The public seems to be perfectly happy with less. Hell, the public is happy as punch and thinks it is actually eating FOOD when it steps up to a McDonnal's fast-food counter. This suits corporate America just fine.

The film companies are interested in neither quality or longevity. They couldn't give a flying cows ass about re-releasing product. In fact, they want to make all the money up front; they can't think long-term. They even get erections when someone says "day-and-date with the video release," and of course if they get their way with video projection, film prints will be totally out of the picture. People with this mentality couldn't care less about what we see on the screen, just as long as they can market it in a way that maximizes the public's perception that they are getting their money's worth. If people walked out of the theatre the first time an ad played before a movie, there would be no ads.

George Orwell was right -- double speak is here. They give us 2K video and tell us it is BETTER than film. You are looking at a white piece of paper and the salesman tells you it's black. You are eating a hamburger with "meat" that is the color and texture and taste of asphalt and they tell you it's food. They herd you into a dank, depressing soul-less closet-size room with about as much architectural character and sophistication as a toilet seat and they call it a theatre. I hate to say it, but it's a world that doesn't appreciate quality, or class or taste, at least not in the numbers that are meaningful to the corporations that run the world. And to spread the blame around, we get only that we demand....and then they give us even little less.

No one is demanding 70mm. Look, they could make 35mm look exponentially better than what it does today with existing technology. Even if films were shot on 65mm with 35mm reduction prints for distribution made at slower printing speeds, it would make a marked improvement. They know how to make 35mm look spectacular....all the technology is there -- they do it all the time when they make EK show prints. They got Technicolor revived....how long did that last? Two releases? So it's not a matter of what can we do to improve presentation quality, it's a matter of if we want to, and by "we" I mean the industry. And by the industry, I mean the people who actually control the money. They are not interested in the few cinematographers or the few directors who might press to shoot a project in 65mm neg; they want to hear from the Lucas's and the Solderbergh's who say video is better than film....and of course much cheaper.

We worship at the alter of cheap, giving homage with the incense of mediority.

And of course there is also the question of artistic quality. One of the reason it's not anyone's great dream to recreate the days of the great roadshow picture is because what films are made today that people would actually want to see in a 70mm re-release two years after it played roadshow first run? BUBBLE? ILLEGALLY BLOND? Let's see, there's the quality of MY FAIR LADY and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and then there's UNDERWORLD EVOLUTION and CHELSEA WALLS. Before you can return to the highest technical quality, you have to have the artistic excellence that is worthy of that technology. There are very few titles that I would care to see, even in 70mm Technicolor, and especially not have to see it in the crapola assembly-line boxes that pass for theatres in the majority of today's godzilla-plexes (oh yah, there's another one -- GODZILLA -- anyone want to see that in 70mm 5 years from now?)

Let's just be glad that WE experienced the glory that film can be. It is just sad that future generations will never have that same exhilaration and edification that the best of film can give.

[ 02-09-2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-09-2006, 03:27 PM:
 
I agree the lack of 65mm production and adequately bright 70mm projection in giant auditoriums is ALL do to with the "its good enough to get by" factor.

That attitude is exactly why GM, Ford and lots of other American based businesses are getting their asses soundly kicked. Their focus was so much more on profit margins and so much less on actual product the public turned on them.

Today GM and Ford could both build a truly fantastic vehicle and most Americans would still believe the product was a piece of shit. That's what that anti-customer anti-product attitude will get you. Eventually, it is going to really fuck up the American film industry. The United States has dominated the motion picture industry for decades. But this corporate governed bland-ness and good enough-ness is creating the opportunity for film makers and producers elsewhere to suddenly start kicking ass. The huge, bloated nature of our megalithical media conglomerates will make them way too slow to even react much less adapt to new trends.

I hate to concur with a corporate raider's point of view, but I think Carl Ichan is right to want to bust up AOL/Time-Warner. However, his motives could simply be to make even more money by piecing apart each entity rather than providing creative liberation.

If the American movie industry was really all about providing the best possible product for audiences and had a long term view on protecting the health of their properties, many major features would be shot in 8/35 and 5/65 formats. But 4/35 cropped whatever way was good enough. And now we're having to make another concession that videotaping movies in a TV format is good enough.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-09-2006, 05:17 PM:
 
I agree with what you say Frank. It is really depressing but true. I would add that this is not only happening in the USA, in Europe is happening as well. The British Film Institute and the UK Film Council are pushing for digital. The NFT in London is showing films like Singing in the Rain (which should be seen in dye transfer prints) in digital, and what is worse is that they claim it is as good or better than dye transfer!!!! I saw the “digital file” of Robin Hood (Flynn version) to form an opinion on digital and I did not like it, it looked like watching a big telly.

I do not thing the majority of people have got any visual sense at all since many are buying widescreen televisions to see square images deformed to fill the widescreen area. On the other hand, as mentioned before, the widescreen revolution proved that people cared about image.

It has already been said that if cinemas fail to establish a clear difference with home cinema, they will probably disappear. And if they disappear, as it has also been said, there is not going to be any difference between cinema and television and hence the industry will resent that. Maybe everybody will be doing television in the future.

Not many people have seen a proper 65/70mm presentation and perhaps this is the reason they do not ask for them, they do not know what it is. As I said, films where presented in 70mm, regardless of being filmed in 65mm or blow-ups, and this led to confusion as to the quality of the system. Is there enough audience out there for quality cinemas and quality prints? Are studios really interested in keeping theatres?

I am not going to pay £9 for 2K on a small screen, I might as well save and see video at home. I was born in Barcelona and we used to have magnificent theatres there. That was a huge experience, magnificent halls, different styles of architecture (none of the chain-style-corporate decoration), high ceilings, big screens, curtains, 70mm, five speakers behind the screen, ushers… and the pleasure of seeing a film with 1,500 more people.

I think that 65/70 could add some the visual thrill you get with IMAX with a format that suits better the cinematographic language. I believe that IMAX is impressive for documentaries, especially in 3-D, but does not quite suit the narrative of a conventional film. Someone should have, at least, a last try before giving up completely.

I agree with the dislike everybody seems to have in this thread for Mr Lucas, I particularly dislike his abominable idea of converting flat films in 3-D.

Anyway, if someone has ideas like engaging directors of photography, exhibitors, film studios, … I am up for it. Maybe with all these ideas a letter could be written, collect as much signatures as possible and send it to the usual suspects. I know the chances are little but why not try?
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 02-09-2006, 06:09 PM:
 
Oh Frank, you are even more bleak than I am. I can't disagree. In my early days at Dolby I marvelled at the fact that we were coming up with better and better sound and it was ending up in the bowling alley split theatres of the day. That did get better and the theatres being built today are superior to those 20 years ago, so there is some progress, if you don't count the skill level of those who run them today (and of course what they are paid).

One of the trends I deplore is the ever increasing use of the research preview to tweak a film for max boxoffice, IE., pandering, and the various versions of the same film for different markets. In the not so distant past, once a film was released it was essentially "locked" and artwork or not, the same exact version was seen by everyone from then on.

We can all think of our favorite films and imaginge if they were later changed. Then there is the "Directors Cut". Thank God Michael Cimino(sp) is not allowed to release "Heavens Gate" in a directors cut. Can you imagine how much worse it could be?

"ET" was edited digitally a couple of years back to remove guns from the holsters of the Cops trying to catch him at the the beginning.

Why are the directors cuts always longer? The only exception I know of is the Coen Bros. "Blood Simple" DVD edition which came out some 5 minute shorter because the directors saw an opportunity to tighten the content and make it more suspenseful. Imagine the lack of ego it takes to shorten your own film!

Today's director seems just like a hired hand working for a film making committee.

I've digressed enough. Now I'm depressed.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-09-2006, 07:36 PM:
 
Well, things are progressing regardless.

Watch this space

BTW you're not allowed to question the DC agenda. Ramon said:

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

The British Film Institute and the UK Film Council are pushing for digital

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Unfortunately most of our culture here in the USA is for faster, cheaper, not better..

---

quote: Rick Raskin

---

What you have so eloquently said is worthy of expansion into a book. Might I suggest "The Decline of Western Cinema" as a working title.

---

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

Oh Frank, you are even more bleak than I am.

---

Only before I take my morning meds, Sam.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-10-2006, 02:55 PM:
 
Yes Brian things are progressing regardless.

No, you are not allowed to question the DC agenda. What I particularly dislike is when film institutions say that by showing films in digital people in small cities will get to see more (for instance) Fellini films. You and I know that the main problem is not the prints, the problem is the other expenses related to show a film (like Amarcord) that, as sad as it is, not many people are interested to see. Instead of spending the money in the digital craze they might as well do some promotion of film culture.

I like to see films meant to be seen in 35mm or 70mm in their original medium. But this people with the "digital agenda" will tell you that it is not possible to tell the difference between the two mediums, and this reminds me of the people who say that beer without alcohol tastes the same as normal beer!!!

But I like Brian's attitude. Let's see what can be done. With so many of you related to the exhibition industry and some of you related to the film stock industry, surely at least it should be tried.

Listening to the seven magnetic track of the Cinerama sound I have realised that sound cinema has not progressed that much over the years. It is true that stereophonic sound has become widely available and this is good but they should have built up on the conception of six channels behind the screen, the sound recording of the Cinerama films was great. The use of six channels behind the screen is something that should come back.

No one can deny that everyday more cinemas are closing down and that cinema attendances are going down. This proves that the idea of poor exhibition with poor prints in small multiplexes was a very short-term solution, which is sinking and the big expense of digital will do nothing to save the exhibition field from the decline. On the other hand if digital blurs even more the difference between cinema and telly, the numbers could keep falling. Hence, this is something we can use to back the idea for quality cinema with 65/70 and (hopefully) dye transfer Technicolor.

I do not pretend that anyone pays for my “expensive” taste of good film cinematography. If there aren’t enough of us out there to pay for it, it is then obviously not viable. I just want to know if this is a viable project.

People like the IMAX experience but get tired of documentaries. Why don’t bring the visual impact of IMAX (albeit a bit diminished) with 5/70? Studios should thrill people with images in a way that when they buy the DVD release and see it at home they think it pales in comparison to cinemas. By the way, they are already advertising the release on DVD of King Kong in London (the window period is being shortened everyday more).
And I insist on the idea of drawing a plan of action.

1) How about estimating the cost of adapting cinemas to show 70mm with six channels included? I know that figures have been mentioned, but maybe an itemised list could help.

2) How about contacting someone at DTS to see if they would like the idea?

3) How about Mr Pytlak bringing some ideas?

4) How about contacting someone at Technicolor and finding out if dye transfer prints is a crazy dream or if it would be a possibility. This has never been done and I do not know if they could adapt their 35mm equipment for 70mm but there is no harm in asking, is there?

5) How about getting some cinematographers into the debate and find out their opinion.

6) A 65mm negative is certainly a good investment for the reasons mentioned of being at present the best image recording technique and hence future-proof. With such negatives it seems logical to make a bit of extra expense for excellent presentations.

Let’s hope ideas keep pouring!
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-10-2006, 04:17 PM:
 
That's great Ramon, and apologies to all for my digression off topic earlier.

Action plan - no problem. Things are happening as we speak, and all your items can be looked at Ramon. No problem.

Just waiting to see the overall level of interest to see what exact form this can take to move forward.

While that's happening it would be great to hear all the negative reasons, i.e. why it won't work. Negative comments are just as valuable from a research point of view than positive ones.

So let's hear it - 20 reasons why it won't work. That'd be great - seriously.

Thank you in advance
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-10-2006, 05:23 PM:
 
Brian, I give you 4 reasons (with 4 solutions, we have to be positive!)

(I follow the hypothesis of dye transfer prints, which is not essential but could add a lot, look at Storaro and his passion for 65mm but also for dye transfer Technicolor) If you get Kodak and Technicolor’s involvement you have two major companies, which always helps.

1) Theatres do not trust producers. In 1953 they were told to install polarised screens and dual projection for 3-D (It was abandoned in less than two years). For Cinemascope they were told to install the 4mag sound system, after a while the majority of the films were released only with optical sound. Then they were told to install big screens for 70mm/65mm screenings, the studios resorted to blow-ups and stopped producing the kind of films suited for these big screens. In the 80s many installed again the silver screen for 3-D, this time single strip, that did not last either. Now they have been told that they have to switch to digital.

Solution: Digital can still be used in smaller screens, 65mm negative would not harm digital screening. 70mm prints (dye transfer preferable) should be used for big screens. An agreement is reached between producers of film stock, studios, distributors and exhibitors of a continuity of the product for a period of at least 5 years.

2) Prints are too expensive.

Solution: If I am not mistaken dye transfer printing gets cheaper when the number of prints increases. Perhaps creating a printing lab in the USA and one in Europe and showing prints in all major cities could make this cost affordable. Also because of the stability of the dyes, perhaps film institutions could purchase prints for their archives and hence help with the cost.

3) No one can tell the difference between a small multiplex with cropped 35mm and a big screen with 70mm/65mm and six channel sound.

Solution: If that statement was true there would be no IMAX theatres in the world.

4) Some people say that the next big thing is George Lucas's fake 3-D and so this is what studios should be investing in.

Solution: I doubt very much that serious film directors and directors of photography would like to have their films tampered by “dimensionalist”. I like stereoscopic photography very much and would not mind having proper stereoscopic films as well as 65/70mm. Studios and film exhibitors should realise that the famous “Vivre la difference” statement could help them to save the business. And so 3-D and 65/70 can co-exist happily in the same multiplex.

[ 02-12-2006, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-10-2006, 05:27 PM:
 

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

No, you are not allowed to question the DC agenda.

---

quote: pp. 227-228 in Leo's book

---

As things stand, the only people who are persisting with digital projection in its current form and on any significant scale are public sector arts organisations, of which several in European countries are advocating the use of DLP projection for enabling low-budget, specialist and archival re-release films to be shown in arthouse venues, when the cost of striking a 35mm print would be a significant barrier. They are operating in the usually mistaken belief that DLP will, for this market, bring the overall cost of distribution and exhibition down, while pushing the range and technical quality of material shown up.

One particular example is the British Government's film agency, the UK Film Council (UKFC).* In 2003 it announced its 'Digital Screen Network' initiative, a £15 million fund intended to equip up to 250 independent cinemas with DLP projectors. The statement which appeared on UKFC's website, characterised by emotive rhetoric such as 'freeing cinema from the tyranny of 35mm', during the following year demonstrated quite obviously that whoever had thought up the idea had very little technical knowledge; had not addressed fundamental questions of compatibility, standardisation, the cost of encoding and distributing digital media to the venues, the cost of maintenance and rapid equipment obsolescence and much else besides; had not sought the advice of any genuine technical experts (or if they did, had ignored it); and had failed to do the simple sums that would have revealed that UKFC's distribution and exhibition objectives could have been met far more cheaply and efficiently using 35mm.

---

* In the original manuscript I put this as FCUK, but the editor caught it...
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 02-11-2006, 01:14 AM:
 
Sam wrote:
======
Why are the directors cuts always longer? The only exception I know of is the Coen Bros. "Blood Simple" DVD edition which came out some 5 minute shorter because the directors saw an opportunity to tighten the content and make it more suspenseful. Imagine the lack of ego it takes to shorten your own film!
====

Here´s a well know large format film that was shortened a bit, when David Lean re-cut his 1989 version of "Lawrence of Arabia". It was shorter than his original 1962 cut.
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-11-2006, 06:52 PM:
 
There has been an interesting debate on this subject and I was most interested in Ramon's imput on this and the use of Dye-Transfer 70mm printing.

What we need now, is to make a valued case for 70mm and contact with the Movie Indusrty for some support from both Exhibitors and Production Companies.

Perhaps a major Exhibitor like Mann Theatres in the US could voice their support, like there was 70mm interest with the Belgium owned Kinepolis Cinema Group in the 1990's.

Is anyone on this group planning to attend this year's Widescreen Weekend at Bradford in March?.

It would a be good opportunity to discuss this subject further...
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-12-2006, 04:53 AM:
 
I'm hoping to make it to South Pacific, depending on workload issues.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2006, 11:20 AM:
 
I think the most important task in trying to revive 5/70 projection, or even make a case for it is by making a comprehensive list of key theaters in many markets that can do justice to the format. I would list screen size, seat count, current projector and if conversion to handle 70mm (and 70mm DTS) is needed.

The folks who argue against the use of 5/70 prints always make the claim there aren't any theaters left to even show the format. Of course, this isn't true.

Anyone can list a number of theaters in New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC and a handful of other major markets that have "premiere class" theaters which have shown 70mm well in the past. That's common knowledge.

Then you have some large theaters that have shown 70mm in the past in other markets. It's a more difficult to identify those since many have closed and been replaced with 35mm-only stadium seated multiplex sites. The Northpark 1-2 theater in Dallas' Northpark Mall is a good example of a world class theater demolished to eventually make way for an average stadium seated multiplex. I'm not sure if the Dallas market has any commercial theatrical screens left that can show 70mm. That market used to have lots of such screens.

The most difficult list to compile is that of large auditoriums with very large screens in newer multiplex sites. These are theaters which really need 70mm to achieve a properly bright image. Just about all of these are currently 35mm-only, but could be converted to handle 5/70 prints without much trouble. I would say any stadium seated theater with a screen more than 60' in width would stand to make good use of 70mm.

I know of one screen in Oklahoma City that is 70 wide. I know of four auditoriums in a new 20-plex in Moore, OK that will have 80' wide screens. These theater screens are much larger than Oklahoma City area screens that actually did show 70mm in the past (the GCC Penn Square Mall 10 #1 THX screen and the largest theater at the now closed AMC Memorial Square Road 8). With a conversion in one case, and convincing Warren to install 35/70 projectors in the other case, that would allow 70mm to look better than it ever did in that market.

I'm sure there's lots of other similar cases others can list in their own regions. But the point is this: there is no shortage at all of traditional theatrical movie screens in the United States large enough to need 70mm.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-12-2006, 11:31 AM:
 
Don't forget about smaller markets like where I live. I'm 100% sure there are no 70mm-capable screens left here. The old Moyer West 11th Movieland 6 had a 70mm-capable THX screen (built when THX actually meant something) but that place was shut down some time ago (another casualty of the 1999 opening of Cinemark 17 with stadium seating). The largest screens here now are in the 45-foot range. Just because they're "small" doesn't mean 70mm wouldn't be worth the effort. 5/70 on a screen that size should look fantastic.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2006, 02:41 PM:
 
Yes, 70mm will look good on just about any movie screen. However, the benefits of 70mm on smaller screens will usually be more noticeable with material shot in 65mm. The gigantic difference of true 65mm/70mm can be seen in any theater regardless of screen size. We're talking about a monumental difference in image detail, sharpness and richness of color.

The gigantic screens I mention really need 70mm prints all the time, regardless if the movie was shot on 65mm or only 35mm. This is one area where 4/35 to 5/70 blowup prints can be very clearly justified.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-12-2006, 03:16 PM:
 
I am attending the Widescreen Weekend Ben. See you there?

Bobby, as I have already mentioned, I believe that in the end blow-ups did more harm than benefit to 70mm. The normal cinemagoer does not enter the details of film originated in 65mm or 35mm, he/she only sees the 70mm tag, therefore the “wrong” thought that 70mm was only useful for 6mag tracks. The difference between just blow-ups and 65mm originated is huge (as you say). With the blow-ups you do not get the depth of field, the clarity and the immersive sensation that only 65mm can provide. I think exhibitors should be very strict with it, if they allow blow-ups, studios will stop paying for the extra expense of 65mm as they did in the past and we will all lose. I am for a no compromise position. I might be wrong though!

A comeback should be very well-planned for it to stay, otherwise it will not take off or it will fade away soon. And we have not even entered the debate of curved or flat screen!!! It is not about a film now and then, it is about a different way of producing and presenting films and therefore a compromise from all affected parts should exist to give this project a minimum of continuity.

Again, as mentioned, a certificate for the theatre and the print shown is paramount, anything that does not fulfil the criteria should not go under the banner and so it is not only (under my point of view) prints in 70mm, it has to be 65mm negative as well. I wished it could be dye transfer, not only because many people like me (audience) and film directors and directors of photography like it, but also because the prints (which are very expensive) could be archived and hence be an argument against those who say that only digital can last for many years. Positive colour fades, now less than before, but it does. If there is a comeback it should be a big one, one that blows the home cinema experience away, as it used to happen 30 years ago. Producers need to understand that they need to keep cinemas as something different for their own benefit, they need to keep the prestige of cinema as something different to television.

I want films where the cast look like little ants on an I-Pod or a widescreen television!!!!!

And Brian, here you have another problem with a solution.

Problem: How are audiences going to know about better prints and better cinemas when cinema listings nowadays include more than 15 films per multiplex? Exhibitors may think, why bother?

Solution: By creating a proprietary system with quality control and a separate listing on newspapers and entertainment magazines, as IMAX listings are separate in some countries. By making clear this is a different kind of “show” altogether people would have a choice.

And please, do not charge more for admittance. At £9 per ticket in London people do not want to pay more. For auditoriums of 500 seats it is much better to keep the price and get more audience than put prices up and get less. If people make the option of seeing 70mm this should increase the revenue.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-12-2006, 04:58 PM:
 
I can be in Bradford, but only on Sunday 12th March (in Belfast the day before, working in Dublin on Monday). How would that suit yourselves Ben and Ramon (and anyone else)?

I've been researching Dye Transfer over the weekend and it only seems to have been used for 35mm 4-perf and VistaVision. I could be wrong, but can't find any references to 65mm / 70mm work.

More great points on this thread, and there's plenty of ideas and information coming together to make a start.

I'm certainly enthused and up for working with people to see if we can make it work.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-12-2006, 05:00 PM:
 
As far as I know, 8-perf dye-transfer prints were never made of any Vistavision titles, though most were reduced to 4/35 and then printed in dye-transfer. Every piece of VV film that I have seen has been Eastman.

I can definitely recommend the Haines book ("Technicolor Movies") for anyone interested in dye-transfer printing.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-12-2006, 05:04 PM:
 
Thanks Scott, yes, I should have been more specific and not given the impression my comment implied 8-perf VistaVision. Thanks for pulling me up there.

BTW, many congratulations to Leo for writing what seems like a marvellous book - no better man! I'll order a copy tomorrow...and get Mr. Haines' work as well!

[ 02-12-2006, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Brian Guckian ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-12-2006, 05:36 PM:
 
Bobby, the only theaters left in DFW to my knowledge that even have a 70mm projector are the AMC Glen Lakes and the UA Hulen, both of which would be deadly to a 70mm print entering the building. All of the good 70mm theaters are gone (unless you count my screening room).

If a 5/70 print was to be made available, I would absolutely go in to a couple of locations and equip them with a loaner JJ for the booking though.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-12-2006, 07:41 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

.....have a 70mm projector are the AMC Glen Lakes and the UA Hulen, both of which would be deadly to a 70mm print entering the building....

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Ouch..that bad...? Has projection operations degraded that low over there...?

---

Back in the 80s the Hulen was a good operation. By the 90s they sucked and they have been getting worse as time goes on. That's what happens when a company doesn't keep putting money into a building to do the necessary upkeep.

The AMC Glen Lakes has never put on a good show from day one, nor are they able to. It's a dump and always has been (complete with "SHITS" sound systems!) I ran a special screening of Taxi Driver there probably 10 years ago with a personal print of Martin Scorsese's and spent the entire morning going through the equipment fixing and tuning things so his print wouldn't get damaged and the show could be somewhat respectable. (I remember Ebert commented how surprised he was with the presentation because he had been there before! ) Fortunately that theater about to be shut down in a couple of months when the new AMC Northpark opens.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-12-2006, 10:24 PM:
 
Sorry for not replying earlier, but I've been on a business trip to Germany for over a week. And now I'm stranded in an airport hotel in Philly by the Sunday snowstorm after-effects.

Yes, almost all the Kodak color negative films are available in 65mm. Exactly the same films, just slit and perforated to the larger format:

Kodak Catalog for Camera Films
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2006, 11:49 PM:
 

quote:

---

Bobby, as I have already mentioned, I believe that in the end blow-ups did more harm than benefit to 70mm. The normal cinemagoer does not enter the details of film originated in 65mm or 35mm, he/she only sees the 70mm tag, therefore the “wrong” thought that 70mm was only useful for 6mag tracks. The difference between just blow-ups and 65mm originated is huge (as you say). With the blow-ups you do not get the depth of field, the clarity and the immersive sensation that only 65mm can provide. I think exhibitors should be very strict with it, if they allow blow-ups, studios will stop paying for the extra expense of 65mm as they did in the past and we will all lose. I am for a no compromise position. I might be wrong though!

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Perhaps that term could be updated to something like "Panavision HD-70."

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

there is no way to get enough projector light through a 4/35 film frame to properly light some of the oversized screens.....

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Harkins didn't skimp on the equipment either. They have a very good Kinoton projector in that booth. The problem is the geometric scale of the screen.

---

quote:

---

millimeters are too small. how about calling it "7cm"?

bay area theaters I know of that can, in theory, run 70mm:

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

As far as I know, 8-perf dye-transfer prints were never made of any Vistavision titles, though most were reduced to 4/35 and then printed in dye-transfer. Every piece of VV film that I have seen has been Eastman.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Nah, it's just like calling a 350cid V8 engine a 5.7L - just doesn't have the same ring.

---

Why round down when you can round up? 5.8L sounds a lot better!

Oh yeah... film, yadda, yadda, 70mm, yadda, digital film, yadda.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-13-2006, 07:59 AM:
 
I've been in contact with UK labs from time to time and can follow up on a lot of queries that need answering.

(Their praises aren't sung often enough BTW! Some truly great people there.)

I'm making the arrangements to be in Bradford on Sunday 12th March as we speak - see everyone there.

Frank said:

quote: Frank Angel

---

We should never position film in the same arena as video. HD belongs to the video lexicon. I say we need to extricate film from any nomenclature that could be even remotely associated with home video. How about A Motion Picture Film Presented in Ultra-Resolution 70mm?

---

quote: Carl Martin

---

it would be great if something came of this film-tech push for a 70mm revival. i wish i could contribute to it meaningfully, but i don't think i can. unfortunately, "powers that be" seem more interested in dc. ugh.

---

EVERYONE who cares and is interested should be able to contribute to this. A way will be found!
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-13-2006, 11:08 AM:
 
Another thing we must found out is if a digital technology which could achieve similar results to 65/70 is likely to appear soon. I have read of tests of 4K taking place and even mentions of 8K in the pipeline. I have also read that the light necessary to bring electronic images with such definition to big screens would burn the machine. I have to acknowledge my ignorance on electronic imaging but it would be interesting to know how likely and how soon such machine can appear because if it is likely to appear soon, then studios will not invest in film.

There is also the problem of the widespread use of digital intermediate. Depending on the quality of the scan for the digital intermediate film loses definition, doesn’t it? I wonder if dye transfer printing could allow the use of computers to control the dying process and therefore help with the colour grading without having to enter the digital domain.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-13-2006, 11:32 AM:
 
My point exactly. In order to go forward you must know where you are now and where you want to go. You also must know where the DC people are at this time and where they are going.

The people in DC are highly trained with most being Electrical Engineers out of some of the top schools in the country. Many have PHd's. If you have ever worked with Electrical Engineers, they kind of have an attitude they know everything about anything otherwise, they would not be Electrical Engineers. There even harder to work with then Image Scientists if you can imagine that.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-13-2006, 12:51 PM:
 
I like the name "Panavision HD-70". The public is being conditioned to associate "HD" with quality and that's what matters. The fact that the term "HD" originated with video doesn't bother me. Most filmgoers probably think they're watching video anyway. If "Panavision HD-70" or something like it connotes a high-quality presentation, what's wrong with that?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-13-2006, 01:28 PM:
 

quote:

---

5.8L sounds a lot better!

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

If "Panavision HD-70" or something like it connotes a high-quality presentation, what's wrong with that?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

There is also the problem of the widespread use of digital intermediate. Depending on the quality of the scan for the digital intermediate film loses definition, doesn’t it? I wonder if dye transfer printing could allow the use of computers to control the dying process and therefore help with the colour grading without having to enter the digital domain.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

In order to go forward you must know where you are now and where you want to go. You also must know where the DC people are at this time and where they are going.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

The people in DC are highly trained with most being Electrical Engineers out of some of the top schools in the country. Many have PHd's.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

If you have ever worked with Electrical Engineers, they kind of have an attitude they know everything about anything otherwise, they would not be Electrical Engineers. There even harder to work with then Image Scientists if you can imagine that.

---

Electrical engineers, image scientists?! Give John a break. It's bad enough that he had to borrow into a snow drift for the night.

Besides, you must be confusing electrical engineers with civil engineers. Surely one must exist.

More on topic... the presentation technology isn't the problem, it's the people involved who just don't care about the presentation.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-13-2006, 04:58 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

If you have ever worked with Electrical Engineers, they kind of have an attitude they know everything about anything otherwise, they would not be Electrical Engineers.

---

Well, we do! Actually, it is the PhDs in Physics that actually DO know everything.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-13-2006, 05:10 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

The people in DC are highly trained with most being Electrical Engineers out of some of the top schools in the country. Many have PHd's. If you have ever worked with Electrical Engineers, they kind of have an attitude they know everything about anything otherwise, they would not be Electrical Engineers. There even harder to work with then Image Scientists if you can imagine that.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Although digital intermediate movies are locked into the limits of whatever resolution was used both for work and final render, that still doesn't get away from the limits of 35mm for use on giant screens. A 70mm print of a 2K DI film is still going to look better on a giant screen than any 35mm print of the same source material. The 70mm blow up print will be achieve an appropriate level of brightness and have improved steadiness.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

it is the PhDs in Physics that actually DO know everything.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

The problem I was trying to raise here is the futility of using 65mm if it has to be scanned at 2K.

---

There wouldn't be any point of shooting in 65mm if the production was going to throw away much of the image detail in a HDTV quality 2K digital intermediate step. The 2K resolution standard is definitely a horrible bottleneck when it comes to anything of better than HDTV quality.

I don't think even 4K digital intermediate is adequate for 65mm source material. Rendering 6K or 8K CGI sequences and digital intermediates would be costly and take up huge amounts of disc space. However, it wouldn't be proportionately as bad a challenge as what effects firms had to do in the early 1990s when workstations and rendering farms had less than 1% of the performance of todays machines.

Many of the performance gains we're seeing in computer hardware are simply being used to make the 2K "good enough to get by" standard even cheaper and faster to use.
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 02-13-2006, 06:02 PM:
 
To Steve:

You "knew" everything long before you got your degree.

Civil engineers build targets.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-13-2006, 08:05 PM:
 
Panavision Premiere 70

70mm Dye Transfer System / Giant Curved Screen / 9-Channel Uncompressed Digital Sound

*** The Ultimate Cinema Experience ***


 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-13-2006, 09:07 PM:
 
Ok guys, I just got out of Martin Hart's Widescreen Museum. I thought I would review a little about 70mm. Maybe I was missing something everyone else is seeing. Well, he has a review of the new Ben Hur DVD. You can't miss it when you get into the site. It says Ben Hur Special Report New DVD in a large yellow block. You guys really have to look at the review yourself. Unless I am wrong, and it looks like I am always wrong, he has some scans of a flat 70mm print and some scans of this new DVD and the DVD looks MUCH better.

Let the comments begin.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-13-2006, 09:54 PM:
 

quote: Brian Guckian

---

70mm Dye Transfer System / Giant Curved Screen / 9-Channel Uncompressed Digital Sound

*** The Ultimate Cinema Experience ***

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

and the DVD looks MUCH better.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Unless I am wrong, and it looks like I am always wrong, he has some scans of a flat 70mm print and some scans of this new DVD and the DVD looks MUCH better.

---

Yeah, that would be logical: A DVD that looked better than its source material.


Actually the comparison at Martin Hart's website is comparing the old DVD release and its video transfer versus the new DVD release and its newer video transfer. It has absolutely nothing to do with a 70mm versus DVD kind of argument (which is pretty ridiculous to even consider in the first place).

Also, I might add it is also pretty ridiculous to draw comparisons of images scanned with an ordinary flatbed scanner and image quality of a DVD. We're not just talking an apples to oranges comparison; it's more like comparing apples to truck transmissions.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-13-2006, 11:02 PM:
 
I've seen that section of that website a couple of months back on the "Ben-Hur" issue, and was just wondering, to make a fair side by side comparison, if you had both DVD's to make a final approach of the imagery with that what you saw on the website -leaving the comparison of a 70mm presentation completely out of the picture since one can't even think of comparing the two formats on an equal basis.

quote: Larry Myers

---

....and it looks like I am always wrong....

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

I can definitely recommend the Haines book ("Technicolor Movies") for anyone interested in dye-transfer printing.

---

quote:

---

[I'll order a copy of ] Mr. Haines' work as well!

---

Caveat Emptor.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2006, 12:00 AM:
 
Ok everyone, in response as to why I haven't banned Larry Myers for being a retard...seriously, isn't everyone getting just the biggest kick out of his ludicrous statements? Who knew a DVD looked better than a 5/70 print??? WOW! His word is good enough for me. I say we all stop showing films and start running DVD!!!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-14-2006, 12:30 AM:
 
..cuz he hasn't really caused any reason for such a thing since he's not really been any threat - in speaking ill about the site, forum or anything in that manner.

..but these 18 pages have been very entertaining, to say the least...
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 02-14-2006, 12:31 AM:
 
The 70mm clip in question, compared to the dvd on this page:
here

Could that poorly timed clip of 70mm be an answer print? It looks like the edges are a very dark, but transparent green in some places, no mag tracks??

It's very common for newer prints of old films to have poor color timing, due to printing off of old faded elements. I've seen it all too often on numerous brand new reprints of old 35mm films.

Steve Kraus, please chime in with any info since you're credited with those frames.

Still, not a fair comparison at all. Fair would be comparing the Dvds of "My Fair Lady" or "Hello Dolly" to the most recent 70mm prints of those titles. I've been fortunate to see both of those when they played here, simply amazing!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-14-2006, 12:37 AM:
 
..looks like a very bad scan on that flat 70mm frame. Big trouble with, as mentioned using flat bed scanners - just doesn't do justice of the original.

I noticed that when I first saw this section of the site - bad scan of a strip of film.

the mag tracks are there, especially the inboard ones on each side of the image. Otherwise, the image would be right next to the edge of the sprocketholes. the inboard mag tracks went into the image about 1/16 of an inch on each side.

..and once again, comparing DVD with the actual print...
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 02-14-2006, 12:52 AM:
 
In regards to Ben-Hur, I own a copy of the 4 disc box set. And it looks awesome on a 16:9 display . I have seen Ben-Hur here in Melbourne 3 times in 70mm (flat print). It's a print that Chapel Films Distribution had made for them in 1996 and it's a fine example of poor elements and bad lab work. The print it is an eyesore! The contrast is out of whack, it's dull and it lacks vibrant colours. The word on the street is that it was actually struck from a 35mm dupe but I can't confirm anything. When it first premiered here people walked out for refunds within 10 mins of the overture ending. Don't get me wrong I love the film and it's great Roadshow presentation but until I saw the DVD I didn't realise the true beauty of the colour, settings and landscape. At the same time though so much of the performance detail is lost on the small screen, hence I haven't sat through the whole film on DVD and probably never will. There's only one way to see and that's in 70mm (or 35mm IB Tech print) but until a decent print comes our way here in Australia I won't be seeing this film from start to finish again . I can't stand the 70mm print and the DVD/ is way to small to get immersed in the film. It's my #1 film of all time and I have great memories of seeing it the big screen Road Show style.

On a side note when I saw a new 70mm (1.85) print of "Playtime" in 2004, any arguemt for the need of Cinema went right out the window. Amazing!
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-14-2006, 01:05 AM:
 
I think this Myers guy is a troll. Does he really think that 18 pages into this thread that he'd slam dunk us with an apples-to-oranges comparison of a DVD frame (its image which has the benefit of modern-day clean-up and other digital trickery) to a 17-year-old print image that may have been struck from 20-year-old duplicate elements? Remember: those re-issues and re-printings of "Ben-Hur" were struck off of a dupe (at a time when intermediate stocks were not of very good quality) because of the decision to have its image converted from anamorphic (2.76:1) to spherical (2.21:1) and possibly to accommodate a large print run for its '69 re-issue.
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-14-2006, 02:24 AM:
 
This guy Mr Myers, perhaps he should pressent the "Andy & Larry Show"
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-14-2006, 06:21 AM:
 
Regarding the draft letter to the Technicolor labs, I do not have enough technical knowledge to write it (and English is my third language!). I have only attended one lecture at the NFT about dye transfer printing, read the Haines’s book mentioned here and read some information on the internet. Let’s see if we could draw up a list of questions and then put a letter together.

I think there are some points we could raise to them:

1) Would it be possible to produce 70mm prints with adjustments to the equipment they designed for the re-launch of 35mm dye transfer in the 90s? In the past they produced 16mm and Super 8mm dye transfer prints, so in theory 70mm should be possible as well.

2) I am aware they incorporated computer technology to operate the dye transfer rebirth in the 90s. Would this software allow colour grading from the dying process and hence avoiding the use of digital intermediate for such purpose?

3) How many prints would be needed of a film to make this system cost effective?
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-14-2006, 06:43 AM:
 
I am just pointing out something I was looking at on a web site. I had nothing to do with it. I didn't do the scans. You really should take it up with Martin Hart. He did the scans.

If that poor 70mm flat print actually exists and it was actually shown at a theater, no wonder 70mm has had some problems. That is my whole point, there are lots of really poor 70mm prints out there and it doesn't help the cause. Then again, Martin Hart may have done a very poor scan job on that perfect 70mm frame and a very good scan job on the DVD. In that case, I think he should be pressured like I am to correct his mistake.

Again I had nothing to do with the Wide Screen Museum or that scan. It's just very poor 70mm PR to have that evaluation where it is.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-14-2006, 09:23 AM:
 
Larry, with people like you working for the cia, it's no wonder they botched the report on Iraq
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-14-2006, 10:21 AM:
 
Well look at it from my point of view. I know nothing about film and motion pictures. I am just a regular guy going through the Wide Screen Museum and I see several images about the new DVD of Ben Hur. I see scans of the old and new DVD and I see scans of 70mm frames.

The 70mm frames look like trash and the DVD frames are nice and clear. What is a typical dumb guy to think? What are people born after 1986 to think? What about the 15 year olds that will be in their mid 20 in 10 years when DC does come of age?

The Wide Screen Museum has been around for at least 5 years maybe more. At least several 100 scans have been done over the last 5 years, are they all bad? Maybe it's just some are bad. Maybe only one is bad. The most important one of all. A 70mm frame. The one that's lined up with a DVD frame to show image ratio differences and by the way, never mind the bad quality of the 70mm frame. You guys really got to give me a break here.

OBTW: It does seem to me that botched CIA report said THERE WERE NO WMD WEAPONS. Something many people don't want to hear. This group has a lot in common with that group.

[ 02-14-2006, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-14-2006, 11:19 AM:
 
This is completely surreal. We are discussing about the subject of digital versus 70mm film presentation and Mr Myers is talking about the scan of a 70mm print compared to the scan of a DVD image from the same film, both of them displayed in his computer screen!!!!! The whole thing is nonsense and I think is damaging the quality of the debate and disturbing the serious issues which are being highlighted here.

I do not think anyone in this forum dislikes information, on the contrary, but the level of ridiculous information and lack of respect from Mr Myers is frankly upsetting.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-14-2006, 12:22 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

Well look at it from my point of view. I know nothing about film and motion pictures.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

It does seem to me that all this 70mm business is like a religion. The prints are made in Heaven and reviewed by God himself. Then the 70mm film is sent down in cans on the wings of Angles only to be opened by blessed Film Handlers and loaded onto their Holly Projectors. Amen and God save 70mm as only God can.

---

quote: Rick Raskin

---

BTW, If you are looking for WMD then look in Syria.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Ordinary flatbed scanners, even ones costing $1000 or $2000, don't capture anywhere near the color fidelity and level of detail boasted by true high end scanners that cost tens of thousands of dollars. This fact alone makes the very zany Ben Hur comparison irrelevant.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

I think DVD's are very close to 35mm 1.85 flat film

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Let’s see if we could draw up a list of questions and then put a letter together

---

quote: Ben Wales was the last to post

---

I think todays very best DVD's are on par in quality with 1.85 35mm flat presentations at least up to about 1995.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

BTW how do people feel about the sound issue? Mag is still regarded as the best, but could you derive say, 9 channels (5 stage, 1 sub, 3 surround) from mag? Then there are striping and sounding considerations.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

Any potential with Dolby?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

In trying to squeeze more channels of audio onto mag stripes of a film print the space for the first 6 six channels will be squeezed and audio quality will be compromised

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Since there wouldn't be analog backup, a redundant system (two timecodes printed, RAID array storage) should probably be implemented.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

The 70mm frames look like trash and the DVD frames are nice and clear.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

The bottom line is, how does that 70mm frame look against the DVD capture? I say it just one more nail in the coffin for 70mm.

---

That is a really stupid comment, especially in light of what everyone else has written since the looney DVD vs. 70mm idea was even posed. Did you even read what anyone else has read?

Just a little clue: those images you see on Martin Hart's website are not 70mm frames. They're just low resolution representations of 70mm frames.

quote: Larry Myers

---

Well it's really down to one last thing and that is what the eye sees in resolution. It's common knowledge at least in the printing industry as well as in image science area that the eye sees about 8 to 10 lines pairs per millimeter.

---

Um, Larry, exactly from where are you pulling these figures? Out of your ass?
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-15-2006, 12:25 PM:
 
The figures are a standard and you can read all about it in the SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering ISBN 0-471-81880-1.

Again if you know nothing about this then it like a car expert that knows nothing about MPG or MPH. It's just like saying my Corvette is just amazingly fast. I ask how fast can it go. You come back and say "I said amazingly fast." I say no, I want to know how fast can it go in MPH. You say "what is MPH." Look who's pulling stuff out their ass.

So what is the problem? You think the numbers are wrong. Then what are the right figures? You think the measurements are different. Then what is that measurement? I know, you don't really know what is wrong or right. It's just anything I say must be wrong, well, because I said it.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2006, 12:44 PM:
 
I still contend you're pulling this stuff out of your ass. The figures still look invented out of thin air rather than actually being attributable to any published book.

For one thing, DVD imagery is not measured in "line pairs." DVD video is stored within an absolute number of pixels (720 X 480 in the NTSC version).

Also, film stock is film stock. The main difference is size. A 5/70 film frame has 250% more image area than a 4/35 frame. Using the same film stocks it can store more than twice the level of detail. Yet you seem to try to claim they're both nearly the same, and that DVD is nearly equal. Is that to say HDTV is better than 35mm or 70mm?


As to the film types you list with line pair measurements, you conveniently say:

quote: Larry Myers

---

Resolutions of various presentations at the proper view distance.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

I think 35mm True Scope on modern Vision Stock is about as good as old 65/70mm on old Eastman Stock.

I think the NEWEST DVD's are about the same quality as many 35mm 1.85 flat presentation made before 1995.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

Could 35mm negs be supplied with 16mm perfs to get the full scope width?

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

... and a 3-pref pull-down would satisfy the accountants.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

A 65/70mm camera with a 100mm lens and 50 lp/mm film(a good day with Old Eastman Color)a has exactly the same detail as a 35mm scope camera with a 50mm lens and 100 lp/mm film. (a bad day with the newest Vision stock)

---

Yea but the most modern scope camera lenses won't have 1/4 the depth of field that the 65mm camera lens has at the same T-stop. This is why many perfer to use Super 35 and spherical lenses. I can think of at least one very critical reason why scopes don't have the depth of field....
Now go use your law of physics to explain it.....

Mark
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-16-2006, 09:57 AM:
 
Those of you on this thread that are pursuing this as a project/product offering should check out SDS-70. They seem to have investment and products to sell. They've been around for several years but I've heard no whispers of anything being produced in the format.

On the 35mm side there's Maxivision. This 3 perf, but larger frame, 24/48 fps, ultra-steady system has also had investment and great reviews but no hint of anybody using it.

I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade, but unless you can convince the studios that they will make significantly MORE money by using a high quality film format, it's never gonna fly.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 02-16-2006, 10:16 AM:
 
All those figures!!! The movie-goers know nothing about it, and
they don´t care. It takes a winning concept to sell the product,
and to educate the customers in a simple, but effective way. "See
it in Super70 Hi-Def Cinema on the largest screen in town". And
it better be something really different from what they´re used to.

Maybe Mike Todd was right from the beginning - large, deep curve screens. THAT would be different from what we have today,(with a
few exceptions). I know deep curve screens are not the perfect
way to project a flat image, but don´t forget the word "SHOW".
I can still remeber the impact it had on me the first time I saw
a 70mm film on a huge, deep curve screen. And deep curve plasma
screens they don´t have at home!

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-16-2006, 10:41 AM:
 
Actually Mike Todd is right and I am in his camp. I am simply trying to get everyone to understand how these cameras work. That way, if anyone wants to take on the DC people, at least they have a plan.

The DC people are very well trained and know all about the SPSE Handbook. I think the 65/70mm people should have at least the same level playing field.

Now back to Marks' question.

He has a point with the scope lenses having less depth of field. This is mainly due to astigmatism of scope lenses that needs to be focused out. DOF really has a two edges to it. It allows more stuff to be in focus but you really might want that stuff to be out of focus. Like a half eaten donut.

On the other hand, with the larger focal length lenses used on 65/70mm cameras, DOF is also not all that easy to come by.

The trick setup is Super35. Lots of DOF and lots of resolution from the latest film stocks.

Lets see's close but someone will have to give me the exact size. Anyway, magnify that twice I get .880 by 1.850. A 65/70mm frame is .866 by 1.913.

So all you need to do is magnify a Super35 frame twice and you get a 70mm frame. A Super 35 frame at 100 l/mm is exactly the same as a 70mm frame at 50 l/mm. Remember when you magnify something twice, it's in BOTH directions.

A Super 35 camera running 100 lp/mm film with a 50mm lens is doing the exact same work as a 65/70mm camera running 50 l/mm film using a 100mm lens. Trouble is, that very old Eastman Color never did much over 35 lp/mm.

Use the very latest 100 l/mm Vision stock in a Super35 and get the same quality or better then South Pacific shot in 1957 with 65/70 camera using very old Eastman Color at 35 lp/mm.

On paper this works but in practice it doesn't quite make it and I know why.

It has to do with MTF values.

OK everyone is asking. What the hell is MTF.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-16-2006, 10:45 AM:
 
Anyone can tell the difference on the depth of field from 65/70 to anamorphic 35mm, just by looking at screenings of both types of films. Anyone can understand the light distribution issue with bigger frames, anyone can understand the problem of light going through anamorphic lenses in and out. This is why I think Mr Myers is just trying to tease everybody. It is not possible he cannot understand all these things, after so many explanations. It certainly looks that he wants to distract us from the main point of the forum. Certainly, I cannot see what Mr Myers agenda is, unless it is to have a laugh at anyone or to boycott the forum.

On the Super Dimension 70 and Maxivision fields, I have already mentioned I am aware of them. The main problem with these systems is that studios do not want any new system that it is just related to one developer, they want something in either film or digital with hardware that can be produced by different companies. It would be too risky to create another IMAX, if you know what I mean. The idea in this forum (I believe) goes more in the way of a THX certificate for cinema presentation, where existing hardware can be adapted or improved to give excellent cinema presentation. Good equipment is already there, it just needs to be used!

Just to recap a bit, what does everybody think of?

1) Write a letter to Technicolor about the feasibility of 70mm dye transfer. Do you value the pictorial quality of the colours rendered with dye transfer printing? Do you appreciate the quality of the pure blacks produced with dye transfer printing? Do you appreciate the archival quality and the stability of the colours with dye transfer printing?

2) Maybe John Pytlak can come with ideas on how to lure studios with 65mm cinematography. Also maybe Mr Pytlak can give some idea of how much more expensive a film would be if it used 65mm instead of 70mm.

3) Does anyone know how many systems can use wide lenses, like 150 degrees from D150.

4) Should we write to the American Guild of Cinematographers for their help and involvement? Many cinematographers would like to shot in 65mm.

5) What do you think about the idea of a curved screen (hopefully a multipurpose adjustable screen, which could be flat if necessary as well). I think the curve looks gorgeous for wide angle shots.

6) What do you think about the idea of creating a list of standards for prime cinema exhibition? Would it interest cinema exhibitors?

7) Many films use digital imaging for special effects nowadays, as you know. Obviously 65mm would not be really useful for a film which is going to be mainly shot with actors in front of a blue/green background, to later superimpose everything in digital (like the new Star Wars). But if the digital effects only take a 30% or less of the film, then digital scanning of a digital intermediate at 6K would be the minimum for those sequences, wouldn’t it?

8) What do you think will happen if exhibitors just use 2K digital?

9) Studios certainly need the publicity a cinema release gives a film. Otherwise there is no distinction between a proper film and a direct to video release. Do they see this?

[ 02-16-2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-16-2006, 11:43 AM:
 
Writing a letter like that is like writing a letter to NASCAR saying you want to bring back the old Dodge Hemi Superbirds because they are as wonderfully fast as hell. We know nothing about MPG,MPH,HP Weight Ratios, so on and so on. It's just the bottom line. We must see those Hemi Suberbirds. They are wonderfully FAST and that's what NASCAR is all about.

Gee, where is that trash basket.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-16-2006, 12:11 PM:
 

quote:

---

Many cinematographers would like to shot 65mm.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Writing a letter like that is like writing a letter to NASCAR saying you want to bring back the old Dodge Hemi Superbirds because they are as wonderfully fast as hell. We know nothing about MPG,MPH,HP Weight Ratios, so on and so on. It's just the bottom line. We must see those Hemi Suberbirds. They are wonderfully FAST and that's what NASCAR is all about.

---

Will this do?



Of course, I know exactly how many MPH it'll go, and couldn't give a flying f*#k (no pun intended) about how many MPG it gets (the fewer the better).
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-16-2006, 01:20 PM:
 
Is that Daytona (Crap..it's a Road Runner...Plymouth's version of the Daytona)loaded with the 440, or the 426Hemi?

Drove one of those back in 1969 when they first came out that had the Hemi..."hang on to your seat Martha, this monster flies! And, when I drop the clutch, I want to see if you can grab that 100 dollar bill on the dash, and if you can, it's yours."

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-16-2006, 01:34 PM:
 
The Hemi engine is sitting in a crate. It's currently got the 440 Super Commando in it.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-16-2006, 01:44 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

Writing a letter like that is like writing a letter to NASCAR

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

That 65/70mm film is 2 or 4 or 8 times (take your pick) the resolution as 35mm 1.85 flat film.

---

quote: Thomas Jonsson

---

All those figures!!! The movie-goers know nothing about it, and
they don´t care. It takes a winning concept to sell the product,
and to educate the customers in a simple, but effective way. "See
it in Super70 Hi-Def Cinema on the largest screen in town". And
it better be something really different from what they´re used to.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

So goes resolution in printing. The faster something is printed the lower the resolution. The slower something is printed the higher the resolution.

---

quote:

---

I feel that going down the road with a 70mm system like SDS-70 would restrict the viablity of any “commercial” 70mm returning as we have seen in the past, it only works at special venue Theatres and Films produced in their format, what we asking could it be a viable option for film Distbrutors to release and produce some titles on 70mm.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I guarantee you if The Matrix or Lord of the Rings Trilogy had been shot on 65mm, there would have been a rash of new 70mm projection installations across the country.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

1) Write a letter to Technicolor about the feasibility of 70mm dye transfer. Do you value the pictorial quality of the colours rendered with dye transfer printing? Do you appreciate the quality of the pure blacks produced with dye transfer printing? Do you appreciate the archival quality and the stability of the colours with dye transfer printing?

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

I'm pretty sure they'd tell you the feasibility was nil. A few years ago they tried to bring it back for 35mm, but even that never got beyond a small-scale pilot plant, and only a few films were printed this way. Dye transfer printing has only ever been used on 35mm stock, though 16mm, 8mm and Super-8 prints have been produced this way, in multiple on 35mm stock. To do it with 70mm everything mechanical would have to be designed and built from scratch. How much would that cost? How many 70mm prints would be required? How much use would the equipment get? I suppose it could be built to be convertable for 35 or 70mm, but that would mean loss of production during the time it was set up for 70mm, and again while it was returned to 35mm. How much would each 70mm print cost, prroduced this way.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

I can think of a couple of advantages that 70mm would have over 35mm for dye transfer printing: firstly there would be no need for the photographically-printed silver sound track, as there is with 35mm, and secondly, the print would be blown up less on the screen, so the reduced sharpness of the dye transfer print, compared to a chromogenic one would be less noticable.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

I think it's a total non-starter for the small number of 70mm prints which would be needed. Using the best quality Eastmancolor, or similar, chromogenic print stock would be the only sensible way to make such prints. Such stocks have improved greatly in the last 50 years.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Having dealt with a fair number of the recent IB Tech prints that came out in the 90s...I can say it isn't always a great thing. There were more problem prints than good ones...weird little red flecks that would appear and such. To my eyes it just wasn't worth all of the fuss as compared to say a vision premier grade of print stock. 70mm on its own will command more than its share of the movie going public. Once a film goes through the whole printing process, 70mm has a substantial benefit over the 35mm process.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Having dealt with a fair number of the recent IB Tech prints that came out in the 90s...I can say it isn't always a great thing. There were more problem prints than good ones...weird little red flecks that would appear and such.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Yes! I have also seen some of those problem prints around but I also did see some really amazing I.B. prints like "Rear Window". Although I much like the I.B. process I don't think its the proper way to archive a film as I never believed the colors present in any I.B. print to be true to life.... B&W seps are the real way to go for archiving any film. Also as far as I know all the I.B. printing machinery has now been dismantled and is no longer in service or available for use.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Yes quality vary greatly from print to print. Transfer or no transfer. Until people stop thinking these 35mm prints come from Heaven, there is no real good way to present the case for 70mm.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

As far as I am concerned, each 35mm print should be measured for resolution and it should meet a standard. A film handler should be able to reject a print because of poor resolution. In order to reject a print, you got to know what resolution is.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

The figures are a standard and you can read all about it in the SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering ISBN 0-471-81880-1.

---

The SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering was edited by Woodlief Thomas Jr., my first supervisor at Kodak! He sometimes called on me to help in the editing process. Many of the chapters were written by Kodak scientists and engineers. Nice to know that the DC folks are finally learning from us film people over 30 years later! Film technology has certainly continued to advance since that book was first published in 1973.

Kodak published many technical papers on evaluation of image sharpness over the years. Generally, the simplistic method of looking at resolution targets has long been replaced by analysis using cascaded modulation transfer function (MTF), weighted by viewing distance and normal human visual acuity data. Key Kodak researchers in this area included C.N.(Kelly) Nelson, George C.Higgins, Daan M. Zwick, John C. Norris, Ed M. Crane, Bob Lamberts, etc. (I've had the privilege of being mentored by a few of them).

As far as the sharpness that finally ends up on a typical theatre screen, most can easily see the difference between prints made from a 2K and a 4K digital intermediate, so the sharpness of the printing/projection "system" is certainly more than good enough to maintain that differential. And most of the "films" that used 24P HD cameras fall woefully short of their 35mm film counterparts on the screen, especially visible in the lack of image detail on long shots.

As has often been stated before, sharpness loss in contact printing is due mostly to slippage of the original film relative to the raw stock as the film goes past the printing aperture. Maintaining the proper film perforation pitch relationship is the most important factor in minimizing printer slippage, NOT the printing speed. Release printing is always done by printing a short pitch (BH-1866 perfs) printing negative to a long pitch (KS-1870 perfs) print film, so even the highest speed release printing has minimal slippage.

There is a reason that the SMPTE Projector Alignment films have resolution targets that go out to at least 80 line pairs per millimeter --- because film projection should strive to be good enough to show all the information that is on the film frame. And for 70mm 5-perf, that frame is 48.56 x 22.10 millimeters in size.

[ 02-17-2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-17-2006, 03:45 PM:
 
Ben Wales said earlier:

quote: Ben Wales

---

Ramon/Brian: Is it worth while for us to compose a list of 70mm equipped Cinemas in the UK as a starter?.

I am working on a list of places I know or visted that can still screen 70mm.

---

quote: Ben Wales

---

Perhaps some kind of 70mm Partnership programme with a Cinema and Technical Standards Body could ensure with site inspections at 70mm Cinemas could be devised?.

---

Brilliant idea - the key word is "partnership". Also ties in with Ramon's excellent ideas such as writing to industry Guilds and setting out Standards (of which there are several for 5-70, e.g. SMPTE Standards).

Re. letter to Technicolor, I could bring a draft to Bradford and we could agree a final version there. The task initially must be to establish technical feasibility from their end.
Certainly, they may not be able to make the required matrices - ever. Or, it may well be true that it is financially impossible.

But the only way to find out is to ask them. The other important thing I think is to initially omit the financial aspect. We can all argue that it's too expensive to do anything (try living in Ireland!). In fact, it's the return that matters. There's no problem investing STG£3 million in plant, if say the return will be STG£10 million over a period (just using these figures as a totally simplistic example).

To accurately quantify the return, many ideas can be looked at, including, can runs be made much longer for films released in this new format? Can an acceptable premium be placed on the ticket prices? There are whole areas outside the purely technical which will require detailed examination.

And don't forget the possibility that a 65mm shoot could be released both in 5-70 and IMAX. This is a potentially interesting idea, in that there could be a wider release platform available. That is worth studying properly.

I think the whole objective here should be to push forward and investigate every conceivable idea in this area. Creativity and passion can bring forth amazing surprises and breakthroughs, and everyone can get on this train. Already there have been fantastic contributions to this thread.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-18-2006, 04:22 AM:
 

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

This is very interesting Stephen. I did not know the 16mm, 8mm and Super 8mm had been produced as multiple on 35mm stock.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Yes, most certainly they would not go through the cost of designing new equipment for 70mm gauge, unless they got exclusivity on the printing of the 70mm prints and the number of cinemas and films produced every year was enough to make it a feasible business. Once again, if there isn’t a plan of action for a minimum of, let’s say 5 years, and a minimum of a number of films per year, no one is going to be interested in doing anything, and this includes the exhibitors, the distributors, the studios, the hardware producers, etc. Maybe if there was a serious compromise, Technicolor might be interested. I do not know, just out of curiosity it would be interesting to know the opinion of their technicians it terms of feasibility and advantages.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Certainly the alignment of the colour separations should be perfect. When they showed the first reel of the dye transfer print of The Thin Red Line and the NFT in London, everybody was marvelled and the quality of the colours and the perfect blacks. Can you get that with positive printing?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

How long do chromogenic prints last without losing colour? Also, please, how do you think best quality positive printing prints compare to the last generation of dye transfer Technicolor prints in terms of colour rendition, contrast, sharpness and quality of blacks?

---

How long is a piece of string? It can vary considerably. Storage conditions can make a big difference, and prints from some labs seem to last much longer than others. Prnts by Rank from the 1960s seem particurly prone to fading; surviving prints of 'Look at Life' were badly faded long ago. Look for a thread entitled 'What are the sound formats on 16mm film?' on this forum, go to the second page, and look at some pictures which I posted of film samples. Compare the ones from 'Moscow to Peking' and 'Electrostatic copying'. There's a vast diffrence between them. The 'Electrostatic copying' film would have been about 25=30 years old at that time. We do know that chromogenic print stocks have improved greatly with regard to fading.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Of course, if this becomes more of a hindrance than a benefit for 70mm to come back, I am the first one for dropping the idea. But, as I said, and out of curiosity, I would be interested to find out from Technicolor technicians what they think of the idea. Also, please, how do you think best quality positive printing prints compare to the last generation of dye transfer Technicolor prints in terms of colour rendition, contrast, sharpness and quality of blacks (apart from the problems you mention with the bad prints)?

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

Great idea - sounds like you've already done so by now. There's also info on other 70mm venues worldwide on the web. Hard figures are the key for the economic side of the equation.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

Brilliant idea - the key word is "partnership". Also ties in with Ramon's excellent ideas such as writing to industry Guilds and setting out Standards (of which there are several for 5-70, e.g. SMPTE Standards).

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

Re. letter to Technicolor, I could bring a draft to Bradford and we could agree a final version there. The task initially must be to establish technical feasibility from their end.
Certainly, they may not be able to make the required matrices - ever. Or, it may well be true that it is financially impossible.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

To accurately quantify the return, many ideas can be looked at, including, can runs be made much longer for films released in this new format? Can an acceptable premium be placed on the ticket prices? There are whole areas outside the purely technical which will require detailed examination.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

Re. letter to Technicolor, I could bring a draft to Bradford and we could agree a final version there

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

And don't forget the possibility that a 65mm shoot could be released both in 5-70 and IMAX. This is a potentially interesting idea, in that there could be a wider release platform available. That is worth studying properly.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

I think the whole objective here should be to push forward and investigate every conceivable idea in this area. Creativity and passion can bring forth amazing surprises and breakthroughs, and everyone can get on this train. Already there have been fantastic contributions to this thread.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

Super-8 was only three up on 35mm stock, I believe that this was because larger perforations were needed at the edges of the stip for registration during printing.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

If you were to be able to give Technicolor a guarantee of, say, one feature per week, with several hundred 70mm prints of each, for maybe a ten year period, then there might be a chance that they would be interested

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

I was also at that show at the NFT. That reel that they showed did look very good; I seem to remember that they said that it was the only print that was produced; it must have been very expensive. This print was made by Technicolor to show how good the process could look, they obviously took great gare to get the best possible results with it. It certainly looked a lot sharper than the old Technicolor prints did. As others have said, the quality of the new Technicolor prints was varyable, and did not always live up to this standard.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

Release prints are not acchival elements, they don't have to last forever

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

I meant archive in the sense of being able to screen the same print over an important number of years.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

I believe Martin Scorsese wanted to give The Aviator a dye transfer look.

---

quote:

---

I beg to differ here Stephen. If you want to see a 70mm of Around the World in 80 days (one of the nicest examples of Todd-AO) you can’t. It has disappeared, as simple as that, and we are not likely to ever see it again. Warner do not want to release a new print (too expensive they say) and so the only ones left are the pink ones. This is very sad, I would like to see it again in 70mm with Victor Young’s gorgeous score in six mag track. However, the dye transfer reduction prints still keep their colour.

---

Sorry, but I must beg to differ with you. A release print is not an archival element, or, to put it another way, something which is not replacable should not be sent to cinemas and run through projectors. All sorts of things could happen to a release print. It could be damaged by bad handling, or by an equipment failure; it could be destroyed in a fire or flood at a cinema; it could be lost or stolen in transit, if nitrate or triacetate the base itself could degrade, if nitrate it would be just about unusable for exhibition anyway as there would be almost no cinemas that could still show it, or it could fade. There are many reasons why you must expect to have to replace a print from time to time. Of course, with the exception of the fading, all of these issues will apply equally to any type of print, silver, chromogenic or dye transfer. In the case of the fading, dye transfer traditionally had a much better performance than chromogenic materials. Dye transfer prints are not totally immune to fading, I have a few frames which spent several years on display with a fluorescent lamp behind them, and they have faded. In this case it is the magenta dye which has faded most, as often happens with printing inks on paper, and the image has turned green. Several years exposure to fluorescent light is not a situation that a film print would normally be exposed to, but it does show that dye transfer is not totally stable; it is just much more so than traditional chromogenic materials.

I've found how to copy the image links from my previous post:





The first sample is older than the second, but only by a few years.

We know that modern chromogenic print stocks are considerably better than the old ones. Given that the second sample shown above is on old type stock, and was at least 25 years old at the time, I would say that a print made today on modern stock, if looked after should last at least 40-50 years without noticable fading, possibly longer than that.

I really do feel that this is 'long enough' for a print. What is important is that the true archival elements are preserved in good condition, so that a new print, or negative, or digital transfer or whatever is required can be made when required. If this is done, the cost of a few new 70mm prints every few decades is not that great. What is expensive is when the elements have beed allowed to deteriorate to the extent that a major restoration, if that is indeed possible, rather than simple preservation is required. OK, it's Vista, not 65mm, but 'Vertigo' would be a good example. 80 days looks like being another. In many cases the owners of films don't even seem to know what elements they have in their vaults, nor what condition they are in. This is simpy bad asset management. In the past there was little incentive to look after most old films; they were not perceived as having any great commercial value. Once they had finished their cinema release the odd black and white print for television, in the case of British television on two, and later three channels, was all that might be needed, and given the quality of television, and telecine equipment at that time, nobody would notice if the quality wasn't very good.

Today things have changed; video, many more broadcast channels, several showing only feature films, Laserdisc and, most importantly, DVD have created a vastly greater market for old films, and the quality of the transfers being made has improved greatly. What we do need to ensure is that the elements being preserved are good enough not just for DVDs, but for future digital systems, and for 70mm prints of course.

A release print is not an archival element, and if you find yourself in a situation where that's all you have left, then you're in trouble, because it's not really suitable for duplicatig from, it was never intended for that purpose.

Mention was made at the NFT show of the value of the surviving Technicolor 'reference reels' when reprinting or restoring a film. Of course, if you're going to make new prints then you need to know how they're supposed to look. On more recent films, such reels do not exist of course, and so other means are necessary. This is certainly a place for digital technology. Given properly cillibrated scanning and display equipment an accurate record of the original colours can be preserved for reference purposes when new prints are made.

As to whether Chromogenic print stocks can have the depth of blacks, and intensity of colour that dye transfer ones can, I would say that with the new stocks they can look very similar, if that is the look that is wanted. I ran 'Charlie and the Choclate Factory' yesterday morning, and it struck me that the 'look' of parts of that film were very like some of the old Technicolor prints. Of course, Technicolor doesn't have to look like that; take a look at 'The Great Mr. Handel' sometime for a film that doesn't. I saw an original nitrate dye transfer print of it many years ago. By the way, the BFIs new 35mm print of this film made some years ago was quite badly scratched very soon after it was made; exhibiting prints always carries risk.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-19-2006, 07:12 AM:
 
Brian, you asked also for the negative aspects. I have given you some, so far with solution. The next ones come without solution.

I think that the art of photography on film (at least in the past) was related to printing the negative onto film, the whole process negative/positive was part of the art, and the feeling of film was preserved. This has gone now when chemically captured images get into the digital domain. I will not deny the advantages that digital postproduction gives. However, I must regret the loss in terms of the film texture and also the fact that with digital it is not so much about capturing reality through film but being able to edit that image afterwards.

Last year at the Widescreen Weekend we were given a very illustrative DVD produced by Kodak where they give accurate information about the benefits of film capture as opposite to digital capture. They did not, however, mentioned any benefits regarding film exhibition as opposed to digital exhibition. They know a lot about the business and they probably reckon that film has lost the battle in terms of exhibition because its costs and because all post production is done nowadays digitally. Once images have entered the digital domain they may remain there as well. Since the idea is to remain in the digital domain, as soon as they can get rid of the analog capture of images the best for them.

As I said, I like very much film-captured images printed onto film, without digital artefacts. But how many of us like it? Not enough, and this is the reason it will not succeed. It is a dying art, what I regret is the happiness with which some people celebrate the dying of this art.

I hope you all prove me wrong, but if the idea is to work digitally with images at any point of the process (like post-production), this will lead eventually to a complete digital process in a not long future.

It irritates me even more that institutions like the NFT are so happy that they are able to show digitally films that were never meant to enter the digital domain. One can argue that a film post-produced digitally may as well remain digital for exhibition, but films like Casablanca, Singing in the Rain, or Gone With The Wind were never meant to touch the digital domain. If people like the British Film Institution or the other Film Institutions in the world have not got the money or do not care about preserving the “film feel” what are just few of us going to do. The NFT uses two auditoriums unfit to show films, NFT2 and NFT3 are atrocious and in NFT1 and NFT3 the screen is so low that I always have to put a jumper on my seat to see the screen (and I am not short). Also in NFT1 70mm presentations are smaller than scope presentations!!! So, what are we going to do? We stand very little chance.

It also upsets me how the producers of hardware lie. They say that digital 3-D can only be shown in cinemas. This is so false! You just need to go to any 3-D forum to find out that digital 3-D is obviously easier to reproduce at home than dual 35mm polarised 3-D. I saw all the films shown in the recent 3-D season at the NFT shown in interlocked polarised and the films looked astonishing. They did not care to promote stereoscopic cinema in the past because of the extra cost of having another projectionist and the extra cost of an extra print and this is the reason it disappeared in the 50s. Single strip processes in the 80s (polarised) looked good as well, but the studios just did not put any interest in it. And now they are trying to come back again with 3-D, for how long? Anyway, as I said, no serious film director is going to agree shooting a film flat to have it “redecorated” with fake 3-D gimmicks.

It is very sad that film is dying such a mediocre death. I wished film had died in full 65mm/70mm form, at its best.

As I said, once you create a digital intermediate you might as well remain in the domain, and they will try and capture images digitally as well. The resolution is not yet there but there is no denial they will get there.

The majority of cinemas in London are unfit to show films, there are plenty of bad conversions. I very rarely go to the pictures nowadays since it is a very sad affair, with small screens, poor presentation, load of munching, crunching, talking, mobile phones, people getting in and out when the film is shown, …

As I said, I hope you prove me wrong.

This is very depressing, sorry. Yesterday I got through different forums on film-tech and I noticed how many projectionist are so enthusiastic about 2k projection and the digital projectors.

I would like to add also that although digital imaging has improved a lot and many things would not be possible without it, I can still tell when something has been added digitally, like in Gladiator. Many filmakers have abused the digital effects ad nauseam, like our friend George Lucas who has got enough lack of taste as to make millions out of rubish like The Phantom Menace.

Anyway, I still keep the positive approach though!

[ 02-19-2006, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Ramon Lamarca Marques ]
 

---

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 02-19-2006, 03:18 PM:
 
How about countries that do not speak English? Those who are
dubbing their films can use DTS. But the rest... I understand
subtitling a 70mm print is very expensive? I very much doubt any
Swedish distributor is willing to pay for 70mm prints and sub-
titling. They will figure how many 35mm prints they can get at
the same price as one 70mm print.

Besides archive prints at the Swedish Filminstitute, there are
no 70mm prints at all available in this country. Sad, but true.

Another aspect; If the dream come true, and 70mm prints are
released in "large scale", how will the movie-goers react - will
they be aware of the big difference and start turning their
backs on 35mm? "If I can´t see it in 70mm I can as well see it
in DVD at home!" Just a thought...

Thomas
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-19-2006, 04:03 PM:
 

quote: Stephen Furley

---

Sorry, but I must beg to differ with you. A release print is not an archival element, or, to put it another way, something which is not replacable should not be sent to cinemas and run through projectors

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

I have a few frames which spent several years on display with a fluorescent lamp behind them, and they have faded

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

A release print is not an archival element, and if you find yourself in a situation where that's all you have left, then you're in trouble, because it's not really suitable for duplicatig from, it was never intended for that purpose.

---

quote: Thomas Jonsson

---

How about countries that do not speak English? Those who are
dubbing their films can use DTS. But the rest... I understand
subtitling a 70mm print is very expensive? I very much doubt any
Swedish distributor is willing to pay for 70mm prints and sub-
titling. They will figure how many 35mm prints they can get at
the same price as one 70mm print.

---

quote: Thomas Jonsson

---

Another aspect; If the dream come true, and 70mm prints are
released in "large scale", how will the movie-goers react - will
they be aware of the big difference and start turning their
backs on 35mm? "If I can´t see it in 70mm I can as well see it
in DVD at home!" Just a thought...

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

35mm is going to go away as a distribution medium much faster than most people here wish to think

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

As theatres actively close the gap between home and theatre (commercials that they foolishly think don't keep people away)

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Regal is opening a new 15-plex here late this year, directly across the street from their 8-plex which is to be closed. I wonder if they'll move the old 35mm projectors (circa 1995 Simplex) and fill out the other 7 screens with digital. Or is Eugene still considered too small a market to take a big plunge into digital yet. Or do Regal's new builds always get all-new equipment.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

35mm is going to go away as a distribution medium much faster than most people here wish to think.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

I personally think this is not just a technical issue, it is also an artistic issue.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

However, it seems pointless to me, as it has been said before, to film in 65mm to then get the film into the digital domain, especially at a lowest resolution than 65mm offers.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

As far as artistic differences go, I hardly think there's little art involved on the video end -at least as long as the digital proponents continue to try to make the video they shoot look like film. If video is so great then why not embrace the video look fully? I've seen multimedia exhibits at major art museums that used video footage and didn't try to make it pretend to look like film. There are some storylines where the video look might have a more immediate, documentary-like feel to it.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It's pointless to shoot a movie in 65mm if you only want it to play on current video projection gear and don't care about how it will work on future formats. In the decades to come there will certainly be formats that far exceed the pixel counts of any video formats today. The one constant in all digital technology is change.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

We are talking about the directors of photography tools and they are the best suited to talk about it. I believe we could write a letter (another one!!!) to the directors of photography guild. It would be interesting to find out their opinion about the use of 65mm photography in films who can make good use of its advantages, printed on 70mm, avoiding digital intermediate as much as possible, and what would they think, if it was possible, to use the advantages of dye transfer printing for colour grading. Also to ask them about the possibilities of using wide angle lenses, like D-150 for some shots to enhance the film and make it different from other visual mediums.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

I'll be attending both events. Would you like me to bring up to some of the cinematographers the subject of 65/70mm and ask them in what way the format can have a future?

---

quote: Ben Wales

---

As for the sound issue on 70mm, I would say DTS and perhaps a Digital Audio Hard Drive like the Imax Sonics system for the Ultimate Sound.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

Could existing lab equipment currently used to make IMAX prints be modified to make 5/70 dye transfer prints? Costly though that may be, it may be an awful lot less expensive than having to build plant from scratch.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

This week I'm scheduled to interview the president of the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC). In addition, next weekend is the ASC's annual awards weekend which includes their big awards dinner and ceremony as well as their "open house" event for which many cinematographers will be present.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

Just to clarify, when I mentioned the possibility of releasing in both 5/70 and 15/70 in NO WAY did I wish to imply the frame would be cropped in 15/70. The image would obviously have to be letterboxed if projected in the latter format.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

On post-production matters, there is a way to intelligently cut digitally but still keep in touch with the film texture. Good productions these days have both a non-linear (digital) editing cutting room AND a parallel film cutting room. When a viewable cut is reached, prints of the selected material are ordered up and film editors conform these to create a film workprint for critical viewing.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Really..... I think I.B. 70mm or 35mm for that matter is a step down from the current Kodak print stock....at least if the Kodak is done right. I.B. no matter how well its done is going to have LESS resolution available in each format doe to fringing effects of mis-registration. Even Dr. Kalmus acknowledged this fact back in the 1960's.

---

I agree with the problems of misregistration, although the reel of The Red Thin Line I saw looked very, very aligned! And I love Technicolor, specially three-strip films. As I said, I am for dropping the idea if it can be more of a hindrance since there seems to be a lot of debate about the virtues of dye transfer and this uncertainty would not help to put the project ahead, so for me, we can forget about it, I do not know about the others.

Also the advantage is that then we would have Mr Pytlak full involvement , and he could come up with all the necessary numbers to take this project ahead, from negative stock to quality printing in 65/70
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-20-2006, 06:39 PM:
 

quote: Ben Wales

---

As for the sound issue on 70mm, I would say DTS and perhaps a Digital Audio Hard Drive like the Imax Sonics system for the Ultimate Sound.

---

Just to echo some of what Mark already said in his response, the DTS XD-10 would be great to use for 70mm theatrical and 70mm special venue shows. The system has a built-in hard disc drive for storing movies and performing playback.

The DTS-XD10 right out of the box supports up to 8-channel audio playback in a wide range of formats. It will do the standard theatrical DTS format, as well as play the "home" codec of DTS as well (including the 6.1 discrete ES format). The XD-10 also supports lossless surround playback in various bit-depths up to 24-bit 96kHz. The XD-10 is also scaleable in that expansion cards can be added to increase the number of audio channels it can play.

Dolby also has new sound compression formats (Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD) which scale far above the capabilities of standard Dolby Digital. However, Dolby (to best of my knowledge) doesn't have any theatrical playback unit to deliver these two formats. Right now they're geared for delivery in the future on HD-disc based movies for home viewing. And they could be incorporated into Dolby Digital Cinema systems as well. However, I haven't read anything on Dolby's website that seems to indicate they'll offer this for 35mm projection systems or 70mm-based special venue systems either.

For now, DTS seems to have the most simple solution for delivering higher standards of audio for film-based shows than anyone else.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-20-2006, 07:37 PM:
 
I hate to be the pessimist in this, but I think as soon as you start talking to exhibitors and distributors about 70mm, all they're going to think is Oh Shit! We'd still have to deal with multiple reels of film that costs more to ship than what we have now; all that lab processing with the required chemicals and labor; splicing reels of film together in the theater; retraining our Usher Bs to handle and run 70mm without damaging it; finicky setup of mechanical projectors that wear out and require skilled maintenance, and, what's even worse, SKILLED OPERATORS!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-20-2006, 08:54 PM:
 
You might be right. But that pessimism will begat even more pessimism.

Why do I need to go to the movie theater when I can just wait a couple months and watch the movie with equal video-based quality on my HD set at home?

Or, from the point of view of some corporate guys:

Why do we even need these theaters? We have product that is ready to go to video stores right now -since it's all video based now.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-20-2006, 09:07 PM:
 
It seems much more likely that we could end up with 2K in "regular" digital cinemas, and 4K will be for "deluxe" digital cinemas. Maybe screen size and number of seats will be determining factors, or just how upscale the place is (or wants to be).

If exhibitors end up with a mix of 2K and 4K projectors, does it require dual inventory of movies? I would guess it probably does. Like, if an exhibitor installs 4K in their large houses and 2K in the smaller ones, can the 4K version of a movie easily move to a 2K house? I.E. can the 2K system can down-res the 4K source?

What are they gonna do on a busy Saturday night when a Greek Wedding is suddenly doing boffo business and they want to move it from the small 2K house to a larger 4K house? Assuming the exhibitor can download the 4K version quickly (because the 2K version can't be moved), do they have to pay more to "rent" it?

For that matter, can the 4K system up-res 2K source? (for better or worse)

Sorry I'm so negative about 5/70 but there's not a chance in hell that it's coming back. Better to expend the effort in making DC as good as it can be, cuz that's where we're all going, whether we like it or not.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-20-2006, 10:14 PM:
 

quote: David Stambaugh

---

If exhibitors end up with a mix of 2K and 4K projectors, does it require dual inventory of movies? I would guess it probably does. Like, if an exhibitor installs 4K in their large houses and 2K in the smaller ones, can the 4K version of a movie easily move to a 2K house? I.E. can the 2K system can down-res the 4K source?

---

quote:

---

It all goes back to the thrill of being in the middle of the public and witnessing with the public .. SOMETHING NEW and EXCITING and being a part of that crowd!

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

but it's getting pretty damned cool nonetheless.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

We'd still have to deal with multiple reels of film that costs more to ship than what we have now.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Certainly the quality of 65mm would ensure the predominance of film as the best medium to capture images and hence maintain business for the film-stock industries. They should come up with a tempting offer though.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

One question, when are the 4K projectors going to be available and how expensive are they going to be? Does anyone know how they would compare to excellent film projection of 65/70? I have read on the Internet that some cinemas are already employing 4K projectors.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The main problem is this whole "good enough" attitude.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

What can we expect next? Perhaps local TV stations will get rid of their fancy studios, expensive equipment and then rent studio space in a tool shed

---

• Saw it in 2K DLP. Looked very good. You can see my technical comments in the Film Handlers Forum.
• I never expected a digital presentation to look this good.
• My DLP experience was just the opposite [of film]. There was Zero grain, exceptional color balance
• the picture and sound were phenomenal.
• Just saw this today in both DLP and film. What an awesome movie! [no negative comments were made]

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Yet I can't recall all that many Film-Tech people actually seeing it and commenting on it here. Of those few who have, I can't recall anyone saying anything negative about it (via an eyewitness report, not a rehashing of the paper technical specs).

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

If we just look at the technical specs of D-Cinema and film, film should lose.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

How did the early film people arrive at 24fps projection? That was the slowest speed they could get away with! It was NOT about getting the best image quality.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

No one has ever described to my satisfaction, how do these nanomirror modules age? They conveniently skip right over that part. Exactly what happens to these DLP modules which being pumped with 7K lamps with no shutters day in and day out? That is alot of light energy, even for the heartiest of man-made materials. But what do these things look like 2, 3, 5 years down the road? Do these nano-mirrors permanently wink out or stay on? Do you get color dots all over the screen of either a steady spec of light "on" or a black dot when they have stopped functioning in the "off" position?

---

quote:

---

A company like Kodak should approach film studios with a package deal for 65mm negative for a fixed number of films and a fixed numbers of years. This should certainly be attractive for studios in the sense that they would not need to spend much more money and also interesting for Kodak, they should not lose money either (perhaps not to earn as much). This should also be offered with information of the advantages of 65mm, like for instance, as being future-proof, and excellent as well for future home-cinema systems (as you all know home cinema is a very important business for film producers nowadays). The advantage for Kodak could be that this could help to establish 65mm as the new standard and preserve the use of film negative as a medium for the future (for some years at least!).

---

quote:

---

Here's the spectral sensitivity and technology to widen your palette of expression. KODAK VISION and VISION2 Color Negative Films deliver excellent grain and sharpness and true speed ratios. You'll find flexibility and long latitude so you can work efficiently without losing the detail or richness of color. And you can depend on Kodak to deliver exacting results.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Saw it in 2K DLP. Looked very good. You can see my technical comments in the Film Handlers Forum.

---

quote:

---

Today I saw Narnia in 2K DLP (Auditorium 17, AMC Pleasure Island). Screen was roughly 32 feet wide (scope) and I was roughly 30 feet back). Here are my comments and I have a question.

The last thing I saw in DLP was Star Wars: EP II in 1.3K DLP. The improvement in picture quality from 1.3K to 2K was unbelievable. 1.3K DLP looked OK but I could easily see the pixel grid and the image wasn't very sharp (obviously the source had a little to do with this but the trailers were the same at the time). Average 35mm projection was clearly better than 1.3K DLP.

2K DLP looked 100 times better than 1.3K. Most of the time it looked much better than average multiplex 35mm. The contrast and colors looked great. Picture detail was very good (much sharper than 1.3K). There were a few "jaggies" on certain size and font text but it was much less noticeable than it was on 1.3K. The only time I noticed any type of grid effect was either on a bright background made of mostly one color or sometimes when a bright object would move around in a dark scene, I could see a "screen" on the bright object. When I did see a screen effect, it was different than the 1.3K. On 1.3K it looked like a pixel grid. Here it looked more like a piece of very thin scrim in front of the image.

Strangely the biggest "artifact" was due to the curved screen. Since there is no aperture plate to cut, the image did not go all the way to the masking as you got towards the edge of the screen.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

One can bring up the fact HD-DVD and Blu-Ray content will be heavily data compressed. But the D-Cinema shows won't?

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

If we just look at the technical specs of D-Cinema and film, film should lose.

---

Of course I said that backwards. D-Cinema should lose, not the other way around.

Apologies to everyone. I composed that in a hurry and that statement was a blunder on my part.

Some more random observations...

Any D-Cinema system below 2K is a non-contender and shouldn't be taken seriously when evaluating the format. Those sub-2K systems currently in operation will maybe end up in the dollar theaters in a few years.

If you sit too close to the screen, it doesn't matter whether it's digial or film, the image quality usually suffers. Maybe it suffers more with digital. But you can't disqualify digital solely on that basis.

One of the favorable comments was for "Narnia", presumably originated on film.

I totally agree that 35mm doesn't always look very good on very large screens, and 2K digital will have the same problem (maybe more). How true-4K looks on large screens has not been reported here yet as far as I can recall.

Also also, I have to add the disclaimer (once again) that I haven's seen a D-Cinema show yet so all I can go by is what other people are saying about it.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 02-22-2006, 11:06 AM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

I'm not privy to the details, but as mentioned before, Kodak has offered incentives to encourage 65mm production and 70mm releases.

---

quote:

---

2K DLP looked 100 times better than 1.3K. Most of the time it looked much better than average multiplex 35mm

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

It would be interesting as well to approach DTS and find out about their ideas.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

A lot of marketing is needed. We live in a marketing orientated society. The majority of the times this marketing is used to sell worthless things, in this case the product is sensational and so marketing should not be that difficult.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

I bet the incentive is not enough for a 35mm director to say, hey lets use 65/70 5 perf instead because it's only 20% more then 35mm.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

This seems to imply that 2K DLP does not look better or looks the same as properly projected 35mm. Since you have seen a good example of 2K DLP, how do you think it compares to 5/70mm originated on 65mm please?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Your comment of 65mm being "only 20% more than 35mm" is really pretty stupid. With an image area 250% larger than full frame 4/35mm, the quality gain of 5/65mm is going to be A LOT MORE than 20%.

---

quote:

---

70mm is just twice the film as 35mm and not 250%.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Hasn't John Pytlak said many times here that 70mm is roughly double the cost of 35mm?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Then I do not think the studios will pay the extra money.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

Evidently IMAX has a viable business case for the feature films that have been released in that format during the last few years, despite the significantly higher cost per print. Distributors value the "system" of print and exhibition quality IMAX can offer on large screens, even in commercial theatres.

---

... called a "successful tradeoff", of sorts. IMAX played the last trump card in their favor and this might be the "rebirth" of the 70mm special engagements.

Just have it done with the right film releases, potiental reisses, plus excellent marketing skills and techniques and IMAX could be smiling all the way to the bank with this "re-incarnation".

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2006, 07:49 PM:
 
I just find it completely strange that studios like Warner Bros. are willing to pay a lot more money to have a film digitally scanned, resampled digitally frame by frame to higher resolutions (at least possibly higher than 2K), manually processed through digital manipulation tools and then laser recorded to 15/70 film.

There is a good number of auditoriums across America with screens getting in the same ballpark of size as an IMAX screen -yet they're stuck with 35mm. With a 5/70 print the shows on these screens could actually look as good or even better than those IMAX DMR blowups. And the damned print wouldn't cost anywhere near as much to make.


Obviously the intent of releasing IMAX DMR prints is that "halo effect" in marketing. Woo-hoo! A 35mm movie blown up to IMAX. That makes it more of a movie. But since I don't live within 200 miles of a IMAX screen showing it, I'll just go watch the video version of it instead.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-22-2006, 07:59 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Obviously the intent of releasing IMAX DMR prints is that "halo effect" in marketing.

---

quote: Don Furr

---

What the hell is DC going to look like on an 80' screen? Has anyone seen a digital presentation on a really W I D E screen?
What is the largest screen that's seen a 2K?

---

quote: Don Furr

---

What the hell is DC going to look like on an 80' screen? Has anyone seen a digital presentation on a really W I D E screen?

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

IMHO, it's not just the marketing. IMAX offers distributors a "system" where there is some expectation of better and more consistent presentation quality because of the elements that are under the control of IMAX to protect their brand reputation. Despite the many good 5-perf 70mm installations and operators that might still exist, distributors seem more wary of trusting that their very expensive 70mm print will be treated and presented well in some theatres.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

Evidently IMAX has a viable business case for the feature films that have been released in that format during the last few years, despite the significantly higher cost per print. Distributors value the "system" of print and exhibition quality IMAX can offer on large screens, even in commercial theatres.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Kodak should approach the head of the five families...er major studios and offer 65mm negative stock for 5 features of their choosing (5 features per major studio). One of the only stipulations is that 70mm release prints must be made available.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Kodak stands the most to gain by the reintroduction of 65/70 in the mainstream movie market. The winfall of such a move will not only sell film where it is presently not being sold (70mm features) but also prolong film's exisitance in movie theatres.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

35mm's days are numbered and, in my opinion, mainsteam exhibition is going to look radically different in the next decade with far fewer viable screens. About the only thing you are going to be able to offer the public in the not too distant future is something akin to a 70mm roadshow performance. Video just doesn't cut it...the customers will already have that in their homes at a fraction of the cost (and at identical or superior perceived quality) with FEWER commericals at home. After all, the studios are pushing for day and date home release with the theatre.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Kodak should approach the head of the five families...er major studios and offer 65mm negative stock for 5 features of their choosing (5 features per major studio). One of the only stipulations is that 70mm release prints must be made available.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

How do you fairly choose which 25 features get 65mm film for the price of 35mm film? If you were a producer already using lots of 65mm color negative for IMAX or other large venue productions, wouldn't you expect a similar "deal"?

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

I bet most would decline the offer because it's analog, it's more hassle (read: it's more labor-intensive) and nobody (outside of us) wants it or cares.

5/70 is NOT coming to a theater near you.

---

You probably just need one important exhibitor saying yes to 70mm and probably the others will follow suit, they would not risk their competitor putting up a considerably better presentation.

Also give them the example of IMAX, “just” analog and people pay higher prices just for that.

The analog beast is back, 70mm in a theatre near you soon! (and you won’t get that at home)
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-23-2006, 12:16 PM:
 
Ramon: Nothing would make me happier than to see 70mm make a comeback. I mean that sincerely.

Memo to exhibitors or other industry people who might be following this thread: Don't listen to me. I may be full of


 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-23-2006, 01:32 PM:
 

quote: David Stambaugh

---

But Kodak could GIVE AWAY the filmstock, and it would not be enough incentive. DTS could GIVE AWAY the 70mm readers and even pay for their installation and I seriously doubt there would be very many takers, if any at all.

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

It's being said here before but how about getting better quality 35 prints into Theatres firstly. I see no point in having a few 70mm screenings and then upon seeing a film that not released in 70, still having to put up with shoddy made 35mm prints.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

All of the decision makers also belive the cattle that makes up our general public is all too happy to accept declining image quality standards. Audiences kept coming to theaters after 1970 when most native 65mm production stopped. I heard lots of crazy "digital is better than film" drink the kool-aid bullshit when those 1/2 HDTV quality 1.2K DLP systems were first deployed.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Ramon: Nothing would make me happier than to see 70mm make a comeback. I mean that sincerely.

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

I'm not saying all prints are shoddy but on fair number of occaasions they are. The 2 first Matrix films and the first Harry Potter experiences I had were terrible. Lack of sharpness, poor contrast, excessive grain, poor black levels. I doubt the films looked like this at their "premieres".

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

Yeah I have heard that to but a question I have is did the exhibitors voice concern over the decline in 70mm prints in the early/mid 1990's or did they just accept it on the basis that compressed digital audio was superior? Or did even blink at it?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

How about if we start a workgroup to bring all these ideas into practice? Maybe we should start a new thread called “65/70mm independent workgroup” or something like this and try to bring as many people into it as possible.

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

I'm all for Film not Digital but I won't go see a film just cause it's in 70mm. That's stupid. There has to be more reason to see it than that.

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

I'm all for Film not Digital but I won't go see a film just cause it's in 70mm. That's stupid. There has to be more reason to see it than that.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

How do you fairly choose which 25 features get 65mm film for the price of 35mm film? If you were a producer already using lots of 65mm color negative for IMAX or other large venue productions, wouldn't you expect a similar "deal"? And what film R&D programs would you cancel to pay for such largesse?

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

IMHO, 65mm film is fairly priced, and any incentives are negotiated on a picture-by-picture basis.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I'm not suggesting placing a freaking 5/70mm blowup print in a 200 seat auditorium for use on a 35' wide screen.

---

Why the hell not??!! That means 70mm would never come to Eugene.

Actually, why wouldn't 70mm on a 35' screen in a smallish theater look absolutely spectacular? Would there be issues with the optics or something that would limit the resolution in such a screening situation?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-24-2006, 07:26 PM:
 
Nope, I've seen 70mm on tiny screens...looks painted on those screens. The smallest commecial screen I've put it on is 26-feet wide...looked notably superior to the 35mm version of the same title on the same size screen in the same complex (True for Star Trek IV, Untouchables...are the ones that come to mind...and that from a mere Simplex PR-3570 using "blow ups"). The Untouchables was noted by it was a 2.35:1 AR on the 70mm relesae prints with thick frame lines (hard matte) to ensure the proper ratio.

Steve
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-24-2006, 07:36 PM:
 
To promote 70mm only for large screens seems like a flawed strategy. Today's multiplexes need to move movies around to different-sized houses. If 70mm is gonna be a marketing tool that equates to the best possible presentation, then it shouldn't matter what size theater we're talking about. The exhibitor needs to be able to advertise the movie as being presented in "Panavision-70/HD", or whatever it ends up being called, through the entire run of the film in their theater. A movie like "Narnia" needs that 70mm presentation for longer than just the first couple of weeks. It would be criminal if "Narnia" got bumped from 70mm to 35mm just to make room for Big Momma's House 2's opening weekend. Any multiplex committing to 70mm needs it on at least 1 large screen AND 1 small screen.

Speaking of Untouchables in 70mm: Anyone who saw it probably remembers that one crane shot of the city street which looked absolutely incredibly sharp and detailed. It almost looked like that few seconds of film was from a 65mm negative.
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 02-24-2006, 08:33 PM:
 
You will never get Kodak to give away film although, free cameras is another story. Kodak has a history of giving away cameras to sell film. In the end, I think that is where it's at. The free rental of camera equipment just might point a production crew toward 65/70mm.

Then again, I don't think Kodak is in any financial position to give away anything even if it was designed to sell more film.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2006, 09:22 PM:
 
You would have to talk to companies like Panavision and Arri for free camera rentals.

When studios are paying actors like Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler $30 million or more to star in a movie with more than $100 in the budget, it seems a little odd the relatively small cost of camera type and film type would be such a sticking point.

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Actually, why wouldn't 70mm on a 35' screen in a smallish theater look absolutely spectacular? Would there be issues with the optics or something that would limit the resolution in such a screening situation?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I doubt if the print was the problem.

There are two likely culprits for the issues you described. 1.: the theater is running operations on the cheap, turning down lamp power and their projection equipment might be crap in the first place. Not all film projectors and lens packages are created equal. 2.: the theater might have had good equipment but was showing the movie on a screen far too large for 35mm projection.

---

I am sure it was the prints. Among many films I saw there in the same auditorium others always looked a lot better. For example "Lord of The Rings 3" and "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" looked dazzling on that same screen. Had it being in 70mm they would had to supply you with sunglasses. The Cinema also played host to many years for the Melbourne International Film Festival and many films looked and sounded great. At those Matrix and Harry Potter screenings, I dare say some of the trailers in 1.85 looked brighter and sharper. I know when a cinema has poor standards and this place was not one them. The screen in question was somewhere around 60-65ft wide.

And of course 35 on a 80ft screen looks stupid, i'm not dissputing that. Point I was making was that a film has to be worth seeing in the first place. And these days to me less and less new release films are worth seeing at all... 70mm or not. It will be interesting to see with the quality of current films whether a full roll out of 5/70 or DC will bring more people in.
Bringing back 5/70 is a step in the right direction but it ain't the only factor in having a great night at the movies, There are other issues to address as well. Can you really gurantee that prsentation will be at it's best with 70mm. Many Theatres get it wrong with 35, who's to say they will get it right with 70? A lot of venues have lame average sound, will it be better with 70?
And what about the ads and trailers. I suppose they will have to be digital if the main show is in 70. Will they go back to doing trailers in 70 as they have done in the past?

Got a petition to bring back 5/70 into Cinemas, I'll sign it with passion. I don't need to be convinced I know it's better.
On the same token how about getting better original scripts and Directors with better visions, then the one's that just churn them out and get paid quite a bit of loot to do so. Throw in 70mm and you may just have something to look forward to. I have to admit I have not being to a multiplex since mid august last year and that's strange for someone like me who used to go 2-4 times a week. Even the art house cinemas have been dissapointing. The only screenings I have attended are "2001: A Space Odyssey" in Oct (in 70mm 6-track ) and The Polar Express in IMAX-3D. Lack of good films and poor presentation have kept me away equally. Whether I go see the films or not though I hope that 70 does make it's way back but it's up to the powers that be.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2006, 10:41 PM:
 

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

Point I was making was that a film has to be worth seeing in the first place. And these days to me less and less new release films are worth seeing at all... 70mm or not.

---

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

Got a petition to bring back 5/70 into Cinemas, I'll sign it with passion. I don't need to be convinced I know it's better.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Speaking of Untouchables in 70mm: Anyone who saw it probably remembers that one crane shot of the city street which looked absolutely incredibly sharp and detailed. It almost looked like that few seconds of film was from a 65mm negative.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

What I remember most was wishing for the movie to hurry up and get over. Not because I thought it sucked (I didn't; I liked the movie a lot). I wanted it to get over so I could rush out and buy the soundtrack album.

---

Yep, I remember being struck immediately with how good the music score to The Untouchables sounded. It sounded excellent on the Loews New York Twin sound system. I, too, bought the soundtrack CD just a day or two after seeing the show. Still have the CD too:

quote: Larry Myers

---

Yes, I Pearl Harbor show print is a very good example of a 35mm print looking every bit as good as a 70mm print. As far as these 30 pages, yes I have tried to explain this every which way.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

I have a few Pearl Harbor trailers that look like they were taken directly of the negative and have that 70mm quality about them.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

You can have every Film-Tech member participate in such a thread, but we would all be preaching to the choir. It makes little difference to have some kind of "workgroup discussion" here. The topic of 70mm has been raised and discussed many times previous to this thread.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

As to what to take away from...for such an endevor, just about anywhere from within Kodak, its film future is truely at stake whether they see it or not. Yes, I would ratchet back on R&D briefly to invest in such a venture to sell the product.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Why the hell not??!! That means 70mm would never come to Eugene

---

quote: Ben Wales

---

A good place to start this campaign is at Film Festivals (World Wide) certainly at 70mm Screenings and gather support within the Industry.

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

The group felt there is no future of 70mm – only the past. 70mm is a museum piece. The future is clearly to preserve the past. The future of large format is some form of high definition digital projection.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Lots of people have got to stop drinking this "digital" kool-aid. There's a lot of bullshit flowing into it. One would think enough viewers could get past the "digital" label and observe the bad taste.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

So if you take into account the view distance to screen and screen size of a typical 5 perf 70mm setup, the result image would look close or exactly like IMAX regardless of how much film IMAX uses.

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

Bobby, disagree as you like but Dogme95 films are the premium example of videofilming and showing low-grade quality in cinemas with fantastic box office success. Amazingly - the audience likes those films very much - despite poor images and shaky images. And very often, the members of the press too, are enthusiastic happy about the acting and direction.

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

Fortunately, most of the [Todd-AO] film legacy is still available in a way Mike Todd never would have imagined. Today you can watch most of the Todd-AO library, in letterbox and wonderful 6-track digital sound on DVD in the comfort of your living room.

---

quote:

---

A few years ago in Bradford, during Widescreen Weekend, we had a 70mm Discussion Group with the audience about the future of 70mm.

The group felt there is no future of 70mm – only the past

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

Bobby, disagree as you like but Dogme95 films are the premium example of videofilming and showing low-grade quality in cinemas with fantastic box office success.

---

quote: Hillary Charles

---

I WISH! In January, I was helping out with my wedding photographer at her booth for the local bridal show. Several times, she'd be asked if she shoots digital.

---

quote: Hillary Charles

---

I would absolutely LOVE to see 65mm production and 70mm presentation again. I only wish I knew of a way to convince others that it's worth it.

---

quote:

---

As for 70mm; Thomas Hauerslev is an enthusiast if I ever saw one.
You are aware, I hope, that he is the "father" of in70mm.com and
the story of the DP70 etc, a massive site about 70mm. The "group"
in Bradford are probably as enthusiastic about 70mm as Thomas, or
they wouldn´t be there. If there was the slightest chance for
70mm to come back, I´m sure they´ll all (like me) jump up and
shout YES!!!!

---

Yes, I know about the work Thomas Hauerslev has done for 70mm, this is why I said in an early post that his help is very important. I am also sure that Thomas will agree that a DVD edition of a Todd-AO film has nothing to do with the real experience of seeing it on a curved screen, 70mm film print and five channels of stereophonic sound behind the screen. The beauty of those films is that they will never look good in a living room, no matter how big it is, they will not even look good on a small multiplex screen.

I like the Widescreen Weekend in Bradford very much and I have gone every year since I discovered it, but I also know from friends who have come at some point that the very extreme connoisseur level you find in Bradford can look a bit scary to outsiders who think we are a bit “freaky”. The beauty of 65mm filmed films printed on 70mm should come out of the closet of the few connoisseurs who have had the chance to see any of those beautiful analog beasts (as you can see I like the tag, Bobby ).

In this world of us anything can become trendy the most unexpected day. You just need to make film exhibition a cool thing and masses will go. Get some key people in the cinema industry saying that they like the film medium very much, make it trendy and you will get people going to see what they cannot get at home. It is unbelievable that DVDs come with longer versions of films, and extras a galore. It looks like cinemas show the poor version of the DVD deluxe edition. I am for a unique version of a film but due to the crisis cinema exhibition is experimenting I am for adding extra goodies to the film presentation instead of the DVD presentation. Imagine something like this on a film premiere: “due to the wide angle of some of the scenes in this film, they will only be seen in its cinema exhibition and not in future TV or DVD exhibition. This may sound silly, but I hope you get the gist, people have to experience and made aware that cinema exhibition is offering something they cannot get at home. So far, digital screening cannot provide this, why then, not provide a very good corpus of 65/70 for the pleasure of the audiences, the gain of businesses and the heritage of film history. Maybe 70mm comeback is very doubtful, but not as doubtful as cinema exhibition can be unless they do something.

Bring in the ideas!!!
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 02-26-2006, 05:31 PM:
 

quote:

---

And as a PS, I did like "Festen/The Celebration" - but I´m waiting for Thomas to re-make "Festen" as a full blown Hollywood musical in the big format ;-)

---

quote:

---

Light output meets SMPTE standard 14fL (film 16fL open gate) for screens 23m (up to 75ft width)

---

quote:

---

The Norwegian people are often said to be somewhat strange and crazy, and "You are crazy!" was 20th Century Fox first response when they were confronted with Oslo Municipal Cinemas' idea: to arrange a gigantic screening of "ID4" on a 40 (forty) meter/131 feet screen for an audience of 4500 spectators! The screen was to be installed at the Oslo Spectrum - a large combined concert hall and indoor sports arena in the very heart of Oslo, Norway.

After some negotiations and discussions with 20th Century Fox, Oslo Municipal Cinemas at last received a hesitating "Yes" to the project.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

So, if 70mm is so darn good (and I don't contend that it isn't), then it's up to impassioned individuals to take it upon themselves to evangelize that fact and support its use and exhibition. Resources need to be available to filmmakers, theater owners, and consumers alike to spread the word and encourage its adoption.

Are there any resources like that?

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I'd be willing to help with the resources side of things. If someone can help with compiling good, solid information, I will host it on The BigScreen Cinema Guide and make it available to the public.

So, I'm willing to pitch in what I can. Is there anyone else who is willing to put the words here into action? Or is this just a verbal exercise that doesn't stand the proverbial snowball's chances of becoming something?

---

quote: Thomas Jonsson

---

Since most European countries have their openings of american films
weeks or even months after the US premieres, the used 70mm prints
could be sold at a reasonable price. Using DTS subtitling the
prints could then be sold to a third country and so on. Could
make the print cost much cheaper for all involved.

Thomas

---

quote:

---

I recall rumors that some European exhibitors were able to arrange for 70mm prints by actually paying to have the prints made for use in their theatres. Kinopolis, and the Oslo Spektrum come to mind:

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I'd be willing to help with the resources side of things. If someone can help with compiling good, solid information, I will host it on The BigScreen Cinema Guide and make it available to the public.

So, I'm willing to pitch in what I can. Is there anyone else who is willing to put the words here into action? Or is this just a verbal exercise that doesn't stand the proverbial snowball's chances of becoming something?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Could you please explain to us in technical terms why 65mm produces much more depth of field than 35mm?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Could you please explain to us how much more resolution 65mm negative has got in comparison to 35mm and the reason for this?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Could you please explain in technical terms why 65/70 produces an immersive sensation (you are in the picture) whereas blow-ups and 35mm do not.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Could you explain to us if a 35mm reduction print from 65mm negative would look better than a 2K digital screening of the same negative?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Many thanks for your help. Also, perhaps you could help with names of people or companies who could be interested in taking this project ahead.

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

In the 1950's Fox (in relation to Cinemascope) determined that the "best seat" is 1.5 times the width of scope.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

Say you photograph a group of licence plates all lined up in many rows. If a 35mm frame has 10 of these plates, the 70mm frame will have 30 plates to read.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

For 70mm prints, the "pull" has to come from exhibition. Theatres with huge screens need to convince distributors that the added cost of providing a 70mm print for large auditoriums with screens over 60 feet wide is a worthwhile investment. They need to assure that they have well-maintained equipment and skilled operators that will not damage that expensive print. And they need to have 70mm capability on some of their smaller screens, so they can move that 70mm print to a smaller house as the picture plays out its engagement

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

Actually, at the same f/stop, a larger format (like 65mm) actually has LESS depth of field. One of the issues cinematographers constantly DISLIKE about digital cameras with small CCDs is that they have too much depth of field, so you can't use shallow focus to direct the audience's attention.

---

Many thanks for all the info John. I used the wrong word here when referring to depth of field. What I meant is that 35mm scope films look flatter than 65mm films. Is this because of the anamorphic lens? People refer to 65mm films as being nearly 3-D, of course they are not, but this depth is what I meant when talking about the advantages of 65mm. 65mm printed on 70mm looks less "flat" that 35mm scope. Since I do not have the terminology perhaps you could help me and put the right words to what I am trying to explain. Thanks

quote: John Pytlak

---

With a film originated on 65mm, much closer viewing distances are possible.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

IMHO, the added image quality of these 65mm productions often can even be seen in the DVD release.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

But usually, the image would be composed to have the same 10 license plates across it, regardless of the format. So the 10 plates would be much more readable when using 65mm negative, since you have moved in, and the image of each plate on the film is larger.

---

Excellent John, this is the $1,000,000 answer we had been strugling to find. Now we have the explanation for the x3 times information.

quote: John Pytlak

---

For 70mm prints, the "pull" has to come from exhibition.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

The decision to originate in 65mm is driven by the filmmaker, usually the director and cinematographer. They need to convince the production company that the added cost for film, processing and post-production will result in superior image quality that helps make the film more successful. Examples of visionary showmen that come to mind are Michael Todd, Robert Wise, Darryl Zanuck, Stanley Kubrick, Ron Howard, etc.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Yes, but they will say that they won't adapt their premises unless there is consistency in the offering. As I said, only the best will do and in that sense it is not only 70mm prints, it is 65mm negative.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

The issue of screen illumination has come up several time on this thread. Christie claims in their specifications that their CP2000 DLP projector can light a screen up to 75 feet wide.

---

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

Cost of the projector would be fairly trivial since there are plenty of used JJ's laying in the woods. There are also a number 0f 35/70 Simplex and even Ballantyne's around.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Simplex 35/70s are probably easier to build since they are almost 90% the same as the current 35mm projector with spacers. The Century JJ also would be easy to build since the gear side is identical to the current Century 35mm projector.

---

..which draws a question, Steve: would both of these units that you mentioned above, have some sort of stronger reinforcements in the gear train to handle the pulldown weight of the wider film?

One would think that with sprockets being wider, that the longer shaft length would have some torque issues on the gear train...

thx-Monte

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 03-01-2006, 07:24 AM:
 
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques:

"Could you please explain in technical terms why 65/70 produces an immersive sensation (you are in the picture) whereas blow-ups and 35mm do not."

quote: John Pytlack:

"The much sharper image of a large format like 65mm allows you to sit closer, allowing a more immersive experience. With a smaller format, there is less sharpness and more graininess, so most people prefer to sit further away from the screen, making for a less immersive experience. I find that I can enjoy a well-photographed 35mm film as close as about 2 image heights from the screen before the graininess starts to be noticeable. With a film originated on 65mm, much closer viewing distances are possible."



An image does not have to be particularly large to be immersive. If you sit close enough to the screen, you will experience a sensation im "immersiveness", even if the screen is not larger than 60 centimeters (two feet). It is all about the angle of view.

"Angle of view" was one of the key points with Cinerama and Todd-AO, when they first came out with the curved screen and extreme wide angle lenses. The "First Person Experience" which is done
so well in Cinerama, in theory, only works well from 1 single seat in the theatre, when you sit in the center of the circle of the screen. The viewer experience the action, as if the person is in the film, because the angle of view (146 degrees) is very close to human vision. If you move back in the cinema, you will not get the same sensation. You have to be close to the screen to be "in the movie". You are not in the movie with IMAX, it´s just BIG.

Another reason why 70mm looks so good, even from blow ups is, that scratches often appears smaller and image stability is better compared to sub-standard guages (35mm and below). The "computer" on top of your head does not have to "image correct" as much with 70mm, and more "RAM" in your mind is therefore available to decode image information. It´s less distractive to see 70mm, because the bit rate is considerably higher.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 03-01-2006, 08:16 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I also don't agree with the assertion that everything shown on the screen must be originated from 65mm. That kind of ultimatum is just plain counterproductive. In the best years of the classic 70mm era, not all that many films were shot in 65mm. If we saw a great rebirth of interest in 65mm/70mm production that matched the output of the 1960's, there still would be nowhere near enough 65mm originated titles to keep a theater playing 70mm prints all the time.

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

"Angle of view" was one of the key points with Cinerama and Todd-AO, when they first came out with the curved screen and extreme wide angle lenses. The "First Person Experience" which is done

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

You are not in the movie with IMAX, it´s just BIG.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

I am not particularly interested in a return of blow ups, whereas I am certainly interested in a return of 65mm films. Yes, certainly, blow-ups serve big screens, but unless you clearly make a difference between them and proper 65mm originated films, you are risking killing the chance of 65mm production coming back.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

If you try to enforce some sort of rule that 70mm prints will not be allowed unless the source image is from 65mm then that would also make necessary a rule no theater should get built ever again with a screen more than 50' or 60' in width.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There is no way any movie theater will only ever be able to show 70mm movies originated in 65mm. One of the key sticking points against a 70mm projection install is a steady supply of 70mm prints. The only way to make that supply steady is by allowing 35mm/70mm blowups.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The only way 65mm production can ever have a chance coming back into the picture is by having an infrastructure of 70mm put into place. That infrastructure is only going to get put into place if theaters have lots of 70mm prints coming into the booth. All of those prints in the beginning would have to be blow up prints.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

35mm-only theaters with oversized screens represent the most urgent need for 70mm projection. If those installations can occur based on fulfilling minimum standards of brightness on giant sized screens, then there will be a good number of 70mm capable theaters in lots of key markets. This is a very practical, valid case for 70mm installation.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

In a nutshell, like it or not, you have to bring back 35mm/70mm blowup prints and do so on a frequent basis. That's the only thing that can lay any foundation at all for filmmakers going the next step: actually shooting a movie in 65mm.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Basically, I don't think it would be very difficult for theaters to do an inventory on screen size (along with seating count) for 1st run theaters. A list could be built to identify theaters where 70mm would be highly appropriate, both in terms of screen size and seating count. That is unless such an inventory already exists. It may just be a simple matter of trading information between exhibitors and film distributors.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Does anyone know how much work THX Theater Alignment Program is doing these days to evaluate theaters? Is anyone else doing anything along those lines? It would seem such evaluations would reveal trends about whether or not giant screened theaters are showing bright enough pictures with 35mm-only setups.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There is no way any movie theater will only ever be able to show 70mm movies originated in 65mm. One of the key sticking points against a 70mm projection install is a steady supply of 70mm prints. The only way to make that supply steady is by allowing 35mm/70mm blowups.

The only way 65mm production can ever have a chance coming back into the picture is by having an infrastructure of 70mm put into place. That infrastructure is only going to get put into place if theaters have lots of 70mm prints coming into the booth. All of those prints in the beginning would have to be blow up prints.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

You are not considering what I have said about the risk of allowing blow-ups, this could mean not getting 65mm production back again.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Again, as I said, we risk people getting the wrong idea about 70mm and by the time you get the real thing 65mm/70mm people have already formed their minds.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

As I said and for the reasons explained 35/70 can become a trip over instead of an intermediate step. I am for skipping this step and going for a thorough plan of action.

---

quote:

---

We tried to do this in the early days of The BigScreen Cinema Guide, using personal observations and some input from theaters. Some remnants of that effort still remain:

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

But they can't compile a simple inventory of seat count and screen size for all the theaters in which they book their prints. Frankly I think that's pretty screwy -especially with how fanatically anal-rententive distributors and exhibitors are about other details of operation.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Yes, I have considered your point -and I don't believe it makes any sense.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

First, consider history. The drop off of 65mm film releases in 1970 did not occur due to the arrival of 35mm/70mm blowups. 35mm/70mm blowups had been around well before 1970 and have been used on films like Dr. Zhivago. The end of the classic 70mm era was brought about by a variety of other reasons.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Next, I don't think you're considering the point few if any exhibitors are going to install any 70mm projectors to just have them sit and wait for whenever a filmmaker finally gets a wild hair to shoot a movie in 65mm. It simply is not going to happen that way.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There isn't any "risk" with using 35mm/70mm blowups because average people don't understand any of this stuff anyway.

---

quote:

---

My plan has specifics to it and I believe it would work. My plan identifies a real, tangible problem in giant screened 35mm-only theaters and gets 70mm in there to solve it. That's the only practical way to get over this chicken versus egg problem that has 70mm stuck in a coma. 70mm will remain on life support (or just quietly die) if we have to just write letters trying to get filmmakers to shoot something in 65mm when there's hardly any theaters that can show a 70mm print!

---

Ok, I have to respectfully say that I am not interested in your plan. The chicken versus egg problem could be solved with the mentioned agreement between exhibitors, distributors and producers. Writing letters to filmmakers will do nothing, I agree, what I am trying to say is that we should do all the hard work that no one is bothered to do, collate information, and then show it to the different parts involved.
Also you will have all the digital PR people saying that 70mm (based on blow-up presentations) is not that good and blah, blah, blah.
Blow-ups are not improvement enough for the expense they require. Good use of all the advantages that 65mm photography offers and conceiving films for the big canvas of the cinema screen and not the TV screen is what is needed to bring audiences back, not blow-ups.
Anyway, as always, I might be wrong. Blow-ups do not interest me. I will not go as far as you did and say that your plan is nonsense. As it has been said, film-stock producers could offer a better deal if studios signed a compromise to produce a minimum number of 65mm per year for a minimum number of years with 70mm prints. In that agreement we should include distributors and exhibitors. Unless they work together nothing will be achieved. Unity is what is needed and a plan of action.
Also, there is an important question we have not looked into properly and this is: Why did they stop 65mm production when they had all those magnificent cinema palaces to show the beauty of the system.
There are two possible answers I can think of:
a) The system was too expensive and it was not recovering its cost. If this is the reason I do not believe there is any chance of 65mm production coming back.
b) They thought that people would not see the difference between 65mm and blow-ups. This then would be the reason they stopped blowing up when digital sound arrived and the screen sizes diminished.
If the second answer is correct we stand a chance to bring back 65mm production, if the first one is the correct I do not think we stand a chance.
Exhibitors have invested in very expensive 2K digital projectors because they have been assured they will get the product. The same path should follow for 70mm installations with an agreement on 65mm production.
I feel passionate about 65/70 but not about blow-ups. I will follow the path of 65mm film production to encourage improvement of image quality.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-02-2006, 10:14 AM:
 
The key is to give people something completely different, therefore a radical approach is appropriate IMHO, including dye transfer, D-150, etc. Everything is (and should be) on the table.

Another thing that is coming up is to make this work across a variety of distribution formats and exhibition conditions. 65mm origination would even benefit material projected in !!!

A multi-purpose approach will bring great gains, including economic. Lots to play for!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2006, 11:09 AM:
 
There is a number of large problems with trying to revive curved screen processes like D-150 or the original Todd-AO design.

The biggest problem is construction cost. It would be very complicated to retrofit a lot of existing theaters to be able to use such a screen. Most new auditoriums really don't have the physical depth available for it. In most cases you would have to build an entirely new auditorium for that.

The next problem is IMAX. That's the real big-screen format now. Going to a bunch of trouble to build a fancy curved screen theater that may or may not ever show anything in 70mm is a non-starter businesswise compared to IMAX. You can proclaim D-150, Todd-AO or whatever out there in the marketing but a lot of folks are just going to say, "well it ain't as big as IMAX."

That's the trouble that will be invited by insisting on such an all or nothing "radical" approach to reviving 5/70. In my opinion the only shot 70mm has at coming back to commercial theaters is by way of a gradual transition. And that transition would have to occur first in existing giant-screen theaters under-lit by 35mm. If you don't start by addressing that legitimate problem the other hopes for 70mm are going to go unrealized.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

The majority of people who like 70mm are not particularly keen on blow-ups.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Ok, I have to respectfully say that I am not interested in your plan. The chicken versus egg problem could be solved with the mentioned agreement between exhibitors, distributors and producers.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Studios decided to put the emphasis in the sound aspect, six mag, and forgot about the image quality. Money was the reason they stopped producing 65mm and also the fact they thought they could get away with blow-ups.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

That's wrong.

After 1970, the use of 70mm dropped off a great deal -not over the cost of 65mm. The real blame goes to the change in what movies people wanted to see.

70mm was often tied to musicals or overlong costume epic period pieces. Lots of people got sick of that. Some of those movies were pretty silly or just downright bad. On top of that, 70mm was hardly ever used on anything MODERN. Outside of 2001: A Space Odyssey can you name any 70mm movies made during that time that were contemporary? I can't. Chaning politics, the Vietnam War and other social issues brought about more grungy movies that seemed socially aware. The thing that hurt 70mm was the fact no one making those new kinds of movies was intereted in using large format film.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There is a number of large problems with trying to revive curved screen processes like D-150 or the original Todd-AO design.

The biggest problem is construction cost. It would be very complicated to retrofit a lot of existing theaters to be able to use such a screen. Most new auditoriums really don't have the physical depth available for it. In most cases you would have to build an entirely new auditorium for that.

The next problem is IMAX. That's the real big-screen format now. Going to a bunch of trouble to build a fancy curved screen theater that may or may not ever show anything in 70mm is a non-starter businesswise compared to IMAX. You can proclaim D-150, Todd-AO or whatever out there in the marketing but a lot of folks are just going to say, "well it ain't as big as IMAX."

That's the trouble that will be invited by insisting on such an all or nothing "radical" approach to reviving 5/70. In my opinion the only shot 70mm has at coming back to commercial theaters is by way of a gradual transition. And that transition would have to occur first in existing giant-screen theaters under-lit by 35mm. If you don't start by addressing that legitimate problem the other hopes for 70mm are going to go unrealized.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Ok. I have thought this myself in the past, the change in audience’s taste and the grungy movies you mention influenced. I have myself always thought about the example of Easy Rider and the change in audiences taste. However, I believe the money aspect was also there as mentioned with Dr Zhivago.

---

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Exhibitors will be making a mistake if they don't also equip the multiplex with a small house that can also show 70mm, in addition to their largest screen.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

It matters not to each viewer if the screen is 80 ft wide viewed at 90 ft or or 8 ft wide viewed at 9ft. The screen will look exactly the same size.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I'm not sure when the first 35mm/70mm blowups occurred.

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

Much as I would like to encourage 65mm production for feature films again

---

quote: John Pytlak

---

(e.g., anamorphic origination, avoid underexposing the film, use 4K post-production, etc.).

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

The key is to differentiate the blowups from the "purebreds" easily. It shouldn't be hard for consumers to understand or diminish the overall positive message that you want to impress people with, but there should be a way to pick out the 35>70 blowups from the 65>70 presentations.

---

This is a very interesting point. Actually the numbers itself could be used. Nowadays everybody likes to use “versions” one could be the big screen experience version 35.70 and the other the big screen experience version 65.70 .

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The dawn of the multiplex era happened during this time as well. Numerous shoe-box sized screens built in cookie-cutter fashion replaced a great deal of palacial single screeners during that period. That factor alone probably did more to kill 65mm production than anything else.

---

quote: Larry Myers

---

So if you have 4 viewers on a 8 ft wide screen or 800 viewers on a 80 foot wide screen, it will matter not to the viewer. It might be a bid deal for the theater owner as far as ticket sales but the viewer could care less.

---

I personally could not care less about this theory, which obviously does not apply to my perception of screens. Shoeboxes multiplexes are crap, killjoys, and have done a lot of damage to cinema exhibition. It was a short-term solution. They have got no future at all and they might as well demolish them. Now when the video projectors are installed they have got even less sense. Why pay £8 for one of those small, badly decorated and full of popcorn mini screeners to get a video projection when you can get a video projection at home without the popcorn?
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 03-02-2006, 05:30 PM:
 
Again it's all in the numbers and these are text book numbers. It all has to do with visually geometrical relationships between film resolution, screen size, view distance. Again text book stuff.

So let me get this correct. You want to call a meeting together of experts in the motion picture industry and tell them 70mm is way cool stuff and why don't you people give us some more?

That's dumb guy stuff right out of the projection booth. They are all going to come back and say hey, just take the film out of the can and load the projector. We would really just like to see the damn movie.

I do admit though, there are a few technical reasons why an image may look better blown up very large and viewed from a greater distance. This is in contrast to a much smaller image viewed at a closer distance. The reason is the Modulation Transfer Function or MTF designed into movie film. Anyone know what this is?

[ 03-02-2006, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-02-2006, 08:05 PM:
 
The DC sales force promises extra revenue to offset the gigantic cost; showing football finals, for instance. In our State we have massive clubs in every town; they make their money like casinos, with alcohol and gaming. They show all the big sporting events in their auditoriums and it will be petty cash to them to go 2K digital and oh, pity the local cinema closed coz it can’t get film any more. No matter, you can watch it at the club with a beer.
The best DC demo I have seen was a Sony on a 60 foot screen, but the source material was film – large format, including IMAX.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2006, 09:02 PM:
 

quote: Larry Myers

---

It matters not to each viewer if the screen is 80 ft wide viewed at 90 ft or or 8 ft wide viewed at 9ft. The screen will look exactly the same size.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

The DC sales force promises extra revenue to offset the gigantic cost; showing football finals, for instance.

---