quote: Steve Guttag

---

No, 4K is not the equivalent of 70mm. 4K is the equivalent of 35mm 1.85:1 in resolution (give or take). Where as 70mm's frame is over twice the width of 35mm's and about double 1.85's height..it will take more than 8K to capture 65/70mm 5-perf and three times that for IMAX.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

I wonder what percentage of us at Film-Tech have actually worked with 70mm prints.

---

It's been over 25 years, but when I was a relief projectionist with 224 in DC I worked plenty of 70mm on many different machines (Bauer U2,Century JJ, Phillips AA) never found them particularly difficult. The muscle memory in the fingers could take awhile to catchup. I remember one day I had to do a 35mm show at one theatre, a 16mm at another and 70mm at a third (it was a long day).

The real reason 70mm died is no one wanted to carry those cans upstairs.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-19-2010, 12:35 PM:
 
I believe that, from the studio standpoint, the only real reason 70mm remained an option was because of its sound capability.

The studios abandoned the 65mm taking format long before they ditched the 70mm projection format. Honestly, most of the 70mm screenings I have seen are of 35mm blowups. And, boy, is it obvious!

But some of those soundtracks sound like they could've been mixed last week!
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-19-2010, 01:01 PM:
 
I agree with Manny, a good 70mm mix is far superior to ANY digital soundtrack in use today.

A big problem is today's directors and sound mixers are too fixated on the "more is better" school, piling on so much crap the soundtracks essentially never shut up.

Listen to any of the films prior to say 1990 and you'll notice the restraint used in the tracks which makes them compliment, rather than override, the visuals.

As for 70mm, one of the main factors killing it, according to those from the studios I spoke with, the cost of the prints, coupled with some chains/theatres that consistently damaged the prints, led to the demise of 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-19-2010, 01:05 PM:
 
When I lived in Michigan, I caught 70mm releases of WILLOW and DIE HARD and both were damaged within the first month of release.

WILLOW had mag. dropouts throughout the climax (the Witch's demise).

DIE HARD had print damage and missing footage, probably in the first reel.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-19-2010, 01:14 PM:
 
LOL Manny, do you remember the Gateway 5 in La Mirada?

I saw "Amadeus" there in 70mm..and they had a dropout that brought unintentional laughs..it was during the scene where Saleri was talking about Mozart's compositions, it was right after the line "...a single note, hanging there unwavering".

Oops.

I told the manager about it and two days later they had a replacement reel.

That theatre was opened by SRO and they knew how to do film right..the presentations were always bright, clean prints, in focus and started on time. They even had waterfall curtains (!) that they used to do curtain calls between trailers and the feature!!

But when SRO went under and a certain chain took over it all went to shit in a very short time.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-19-2010, 01:30 PM:
 
Yikes, Tony! This was the 80's -- a loooong time ago!

I'm pretty sure they were both United Artists "The Movies at..." ??

I don't remember which suburb. I want to say Farmington Hills, but I'm not even sure that's a real place in Michigan.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 09-19-2010, 02:01 PM:
 
Yep it was a long time ago, and yep it was the 80's.

But the Gateway 5 was in So. Calif., just off the 5 freeway.

I take it you were in Michigan back then?

SRO was an independent chain which had great theatres, excellent staffing and quality presentations. I think they went under due to over-expansion.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-19-2010, 02:48 PM:
 
Let me say first that I LOOOOOOOOVE 70mm! My fondest memories of running film were at the GCC Northpark in Dallas where we ran lots and lots of it. Given a choice, I will still to this day take a 70mm print over a 35mm print (assuming they are both in equal condition).

With that being said I'm curious to a bit more details on Steve's numbers. Steve, are those numbers based upon resolution in film TODAY or back in the 80s?

Digital sound on 35mm is what killed 70mm, although I do agree carrying those damned things up the stairs wasn't much fun.

Still though I have to point out that since most 70mm prints were actually blowups, and of those we're talking mostly 80s, that is the basis of my post. With that being said, lets take a blowup from the 80s. Comparing that to a 35mm print of the same title (from the same printing), the 70mm blows it away. Its not even funny how much better the 70mm is. (If Joe was comparing it, he would probably use an analogy of a high bitrate blu-ray vs. a 3 generation "EP" VHS dub.)

BUT...compare that 70mm print from the 80s against a general release print made at a Technicolor lab (not the crappy Deluxe high speed prints from Canada) over the last 10 years and suddenly the 70mm print isn't so special due to technology advances in printing and filmstocks. I've seen regular release prints over the last decade that are superior visually to the 70mm blowups from the 80s. I can make that statement fairly because I have the capability of side-by-side comparisons today, whereas most of the people on the internet do that comparison based from their memory 20+ years ago, which is not fair nor accurate at all.

We also have to consider what happens when we take an 80s 70mm print and compare it to a recent 35mm re-print of the same title. Its sad but true, the 35mm reprint made within the last several years HAS A SHARPER IMAGE than the 70mm original print! This is no joke. Welcome to reality.

Then we get into sound. I am in the camp that 70mm mag sound was phenomenal and better than digital sound today...BUT the trick is finding a print that doesn't have mag damage! Once the tracks have wear or damage to them from an incompetent operator (or setup tech), the print is junk. All it takes is one pass.

From there we can compare sound mixes. I would imagine a mix such as Star Trek from 2009 or Inception as being even better on SR 70mm mag...but can anyone really find a mix from the 80s that was better than those recent examples of great sound mixing???

It is because of this that I am often surprised that people flock to 70mm revivals featuring blowups. Sure its worth the trip to go see something SHOT in large format like Baraka or Lawrence of Arabia (if you can stay awake), but when I see 70mm prints such as Ghostbusters being in a 70mm revival all I can do is laugh, because that is NOT 70mm in a good light.

Lets concentrate on the Ghostbusters example for a minute. The grain on that is ABSURD! There is simply no reason for it to look sooooooo shitty, but it does. I've ran many high speed 35mm prints from the 80s with the older technology lab work and filmstocks of the day that looked better than Ghostbusters in 70mm...and this is all assuming that the print being shown is in mint condition...which if we all wake up and come back to reality, is not. Most of the 70mm prints out there have wear and print damage. It doesn't take us back to those glory days. Back then 70mm was the best available. Today, we can and have achieved better results.

If only we could see what 70mm was capable of TODAY! Now THAT would be something to see!!!

Contrary to popular belief, 70mm is not just bigger. It has different tolerances on loop sizes, twisting (if platters), mag sound carries its own set of problems making sure everything is degaussed, etc...but gate tension is especially critical. For example, I've never come across a Century JJ machine that had optimal 70mm gate tension just by switching over from 35mm. It has ALWAYS been too much. (That isn't to say there aren't machines that magically are.) On single lens JJs a suitable sized allen wrench can be used to prevent the gate from fully closing at the stopping point needed, but on a turret JJ...well, that's just a pain in the ass to realign.

Most people also don't acknowledge that 70mm is not 70mm. There are different thicknesses of 70mm. One specific match that comes to mind was when we ran Brainstorm. That print was thinner (or thicker, I can't recall) than the other feature we were running as a double feature. Had we not made the proper adjustment to the trap before we ran the "thicker" print, we would have put unnecessary stress and possibly wear onto the print.

Enter 70mm dts...no more mag sound wear concerns, but also no more mag sound for the purists! At the same time we were treated to polyester film base, but if we look back at the example of Titanic in 70mm, the late John Pytlak was sent around the country to personally screen all of the prints 5 months into the run and the GCC Northpark in Dallas was his last stop. He said that most of the prints had bad wear on them that there were only 2 prints prior to ours he had seen which were acceptable (he noted those did have wear, dirt and scratches on them, but weren't too bad). He proclaimed that our print was absolutely flawless, which it was...and for the purists, that was running off of a platter.

Fast forward to TODAY. Does anyone here actually think 70mm has a chance in hell of being presented and the prints NOT be destroyed by incompetent operators???

Nope.

The "glory days" of 70mm are over, but I have to ask, when 4K comes out and a direct comparison is made given all of the technical improvements in filmstock and such...will it be lower, equal or better than regular 70mm blowups? How about films shot in 65mm such as Lawrence of Arabia (with the technology they had at the time vs. today)? A lot of that will depend on what care is taken in how current movies are shot and handled in post production. Time will tell.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-19-2010, 04:36 PM:
 
And let's not forget to add that even if a film is shot on 65mm, any film print may well come from a digital intermediate. In which case, a digital presentation would be closer to the distribution master than a film print.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-20-2010, 05:18 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

That said, the last big movie to be shot in 65mm was, what? Far and Away?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

The "glory days" of 70mm are over

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

If a 4k projection system can produce these measures as well as film can (at least release print quality film) then 4k digital will for all intents and purposes look just as good to the vast majority of the audience as 70mm. Additionally there is the benefit of not having to worry about dirt and scratches (irrelevant for film done right) and there is abosolutely no jump or weave which helps with percieved resolution.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

The problem is 4K DLP will give you a look that is too close to video. As I said in another post, Avatar digitally looks like Toy Story in the jungle, whereas on IMAX 15/70 the real action images and the animated ones merge much better and suspension of belief is also easier.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

And then there's another factor that will get in the way of the drive toward really high resolution digital imagery: age conscious actors.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Who will pay the price for the few 70mm prints that will be needed? Where will cinemas buy 70mm projectors? The economics are just against it.

---

quote:

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is 4K DLP will give you a look that is too close to video. As I said in another post, Avatar digitally looks like Toy Story in the jungle, whereas on IMAX 15/70 the real action images and the animated ones merge much better and suspension of belief is also easier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

There are a lot of cinemas with 70mm capable projectors in them that haven't shown 70mm in decades, and others which have never shown 70mm, and were never fully-equipped to do so, but did have dual-gauge projectors. Most of these would need some work doing before they could run 70mm now, but how much work will vary from just an allignment of the sound system to replacing just about everything except the projectors themselves.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Well then, what kept these cinemas from showing 70mm in the past, and why should they start with it now? Because 'digital is not as good'?
What about the economics of the prints?

- Carsten

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

The reason Avatar is worth the price of admission in (real) IMAX 3-D is because Cameron may be a childish screenwriter but knows how to direct a film from the visual point of view. The slow editing and long shots allow the viewer to enjoy the images in 3-D.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Also the fact that Avatar is mostly a quite square film fits nicely the IMAX screen. The resolution was not perfect, I never said it was, but to be able to observe so many details on the IMAX screen and immerse so much in the film was a delight. Also with the IMAX screen there are less of the frame issues associated with 3-D in smaller screens.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

My point is that digital when transferred to film does not look like your ordinary Playstation (as it does when viewed on a digital cinema) but it gets some of the film qualities by means of projection, like the softness of the image as compared to DLP projection.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Well, IMAX really should know about the economics of 70mm - they are doing it for 40 years now. And they give up on it. What does that tell us?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Those are subjective factors that have nothing to do with the choices of shooting a movie on video or film as well as projecting via video or film.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Again, the IMAX version of Avatar didn't show a whole lot of extra image detail above what people could see in a proper 2K digital presentation. The source image is only HDTV quality in terms of native resolution. The only real benefit IMAX viewers saw was the frame opened up to 1.77:1 ratio (which is still considerably more rectagular than an IMAX film frame).

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The softness you're seeing is due to a source image of limited resolution being blown up far past acceptable levels onto a gigantic screen. IMAX' DMR process has to use a lot of interpolation and blurring tricks to hide the pixel grid of that video-source image. In the end the finished results are one huge, blurry image.

Do you know the uncomfortable feeling of what it's like to try to read something on a sheet of paper held too close to your face? Your eyes try to focus on it but the object is too close. Watching a video-sourced image in IMAX gives me some of the same sensation. I see a huge image covering much of my periphreal view, but the image is blurry and seemingly out of focus.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

As to the criticism of digital cinema, I don't agree with the dismissal that it looks like an "ordinary playstation." Digital projection doesn't dictate at all whether a movie looks like video or film. The origination format used when the movie is photographed does. Movies shot on film and projected digitally still retain the film look.

Digital projection has the advantage of showing a perfectly steady image with less flicker than film projection. Perhaps the lack of those flaws make the image seem a bit artificial. Digital projection is not as good as film in terms of deep black levels. It shouldn't be used on really big screens either because it runs into the same problems I see with IMAX blow-ups of video imagery: not enough native pixels in the source image.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Well, IMAX really should know about the economics of 70mm - they are doing it for 40 years now. And they give up on it. What does that tell us?

- Carsten

---

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

And Hamlet was over 4 hours long, making it the longest English language movie ever commercially released.

---

quote:

---

In fact Cameron would continue to use 70mm for True Lies And Titanic!

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I don't know what English language movie has the longest run time, but I know Hamlet doesn't hold the record. One movie that comes to mind is Little Dorrit (1988)

---

quote: Victor Liorentas

---

I was hoping for some 70mm prints of Inception and even The International but i guess the will to push for this is near dead.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Ideally, it would be good to have non-widescreen 3-D films on the IMAX 15/70 screens and widescreen films shot using 65mm or VistaVision on 5/70 mm on Todd-AO like screens (perhaps with less curve).

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

I'm not trying to be a troll here but, really, I think it makes us look like the ignorant ones when we make these declarations about what the experts should be doing when none of them will do it.

---

quote:

---

Yes, according to what I've read, Lean was assured that 'Scope would look just as good with blow-up release prints. So he agreed to do it and wasn't happy with the results. So he went back to Super Panavision 70 for his next movie. (Then, 14 years later, he ended his directing career with 35mm 1.85. Ouch!)

---

But had he done Nostromo it would have been in 70mm, or at least this is what he wanted to do from the original correspondence I have seen reproduced. But you know what, again the producers were saying no to him and this is probably what the producers keep saying nowadays.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-13-2010, 09:48 PM:
 
there's a rumour that Ron Frick's 'Samsara' might not go out in 70mm form even though it was shot that way - apparently it sounds like the printing/distribution might be cost prohibitive - hope this is bogus, since 4K digital projection wouldn't cut it in my opinion
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-14-2010, 08:37 AM:
 
Isn't it strange that the economics of D-Cinema are so important and clearly downhill, while for 70mm economics seem to be completely irrelevant and a 'just do it' factor?

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-14-2010, 07:18 PM:
 
sadly I wish Nolan and Tom Tykwer had filmed ALL of 'Inception' and 'The Internationalist' in 65mm -
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-15-2010, 03:23 AM:
 
IMHO, 70mm was a gigantic FAIL.

Only hardcore-people in the exhibition side seem to really care about 70mm these day...I guess its kind of nostalgic more than anything.

I can't see a mom and her two kids ponying up a few extra dollars per ticket for a showing of the latest kids movie on 70mm.

35mm is still the ultimate format as it is supported by filmmakers, exhibitors and fans.

If 70mm was so important, wouldn't we see Tarantino, Eastwood, Spielberg, Cameron, Allen, etc using supporting and using the format? Actually, have any of these filmmakers actually used the format for one of their films?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2010, 10:06 AM:
 
If 70mm was such a "gigantic fail" there would be no Hollywood movies being "DMR" blown up to IMAX.

There is absolutely no dispute about the technical superiority of 70mm over 35mm and especially over "digital." The 65mm/70mm process is the highest quality movie-making format currently in existence.

The real "gigantic fail" is the inability of Hollywood studios and theater chains to do their loyal customers the service of making and showing movies in the best manner possible. Instead, their standard is the business-friendly "good enough" standard.

Average people don't know their shit when it comes to making any sort of informed, educated choice on which movie presentation format is better. 70mm is the best movie presentation format. Nothing else is as good. Anyone who says otherwise is throwing bias in over terms of cost, ease of operation or just plain ignorance. In terms of image quality (sharpness, detail, brightness and contrast) 70mm beats everything else.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-15-2010, 11:25 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

If 70mm was such a "gigantic fail" there would be no Hollywood movies being "DMR" blown up to IMAX.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There is absolutely no dispute about the technical superiority of 70mm over 35mm and especially over "digital." The 65mm/70mm process is the highest quality movie-making format currently in existence.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The real "gigantic fail" is the inability of Hollywood studios and theater chains to do their loyal customers the service of making and showing movies in the best manner possible. Instead, their standard is the business-friendly "good enough" standard.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

70mm is the best movie presentation format

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

IMAX is a bit of a fail as well, true IMAX (documentary)films never did all that well to become relevant and now IMAX has expanded there theatres to be included with the major chains. IMAX has resorted to using "Hollywood" movies to plug their product.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Meh, thats great that is superior but nobody really films with it, nobody really shows it anymore. Pretty much nobody supports it.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

No. Hollywood tried that, so did the theatre chains, they made movies, adverstised them and charged more a point. 70mm FAILED...plain and simple.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Customers don't care if it is a better way of presenting a movie. You have to consider cost of making, printing and transporting the film as well.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The vast majority have never seen real 65mm/70mm material before.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Yeah, a 70mm print isn't cheap, but with no need to do mag striping anymore they don't have to cost a hell of a lot more than a 35mm print.

---

And compared to the cost of a $100million movie it is inconsequential. It never ceases to amaze me that studios will spend (squander) millions of dollars to get a film on the screen, but start cutting corners when it comes to what it looks like on the screen.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-15-2010, 08:31 PM:
 
How could 70mm 6-track Dolby Stereo compete with Digital soundtracks on 35mm and the demise of theater palaces with truly huge screens?
The brilliant idea was 70mm blow ups only benefit the audience in the multi channel sound department and now we have digital sound on film!Thats all we need! NOT
True 70mm and blow ups had the bean counters foolishly deciding its fate!In the 90s the direction was quantity over quality and 70mm was WRONGLY retired!
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 10-15-2010, 09:04 PM:
 
Absolutely agree that 70mm was killed by the very people who should have supported it.
I used to wonder how many people thought “Presented on the giant 70mm screen!” meant that the image would be about 3 inches wide. That promotional line for was to acknowledge the substitution of blow-ups for 65mm origination.
Any good marketer will tell you that names are better than numbers, so 70 was not the hook that Super Panavision or Todd AO were.
The promotion of Big Screen to cover all formats almost killed 2.35 full-width presentation. Common width screens and Digital Cinema could deliver the final blow.
The 2.35 full-width format is not promoted any more. It is sometimes difficult to find out what format was chosen until you look at the print.
Full-frame, full-width presentation could be a winner for cinemas as most home formats letterbox or crop these productions.
However, it needs a name. Although not accurate, CinemaScope would do. I heard that Fox doesn’t own it anymore. Cinemavision would be just as good.
Be that as it may, 70mm is still the best.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 10-16-2010, 11:01 AM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

If 70mm was so important, wouldn't we see Tarantino, Eastwood, Spielberg, Cameron, Allen, etc using supporting and using the format? Actually, have any of these filmmakers actually used the format for one of their films?

---

quote: Victor Liorentas

---

How could 70mm 6-track Dolby Stereo compete with Digital soundtracks on 35mm and the demise of theater palaces with truly huge screens?

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Does anyone know the actual cost to produce a 70mm theatrical print?

I heard $14,000 for one print, and that info came from my T2 Special Edition Laserdisc, I am going off memory so I would have to check the actual disc as it has been many, many years.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

As Bobby says, 15/70 prints are much more expensive and yet they seem to be profitable since they seem to be releasing more and more films on this format these days.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The $14,000 figure on those prints of Terminator 2: Judgment Day were correct. However, that figure was the price of 70mm Dolby SR magnetic striped prints. The mag stripe process added a great deal of cost to a print for the extra steps involved. The mag coated print had to be sounded in real time.

70mm prints are no longer mag coated. The audio is either DTS via time code or one of the IMAX audio processes. That should deliver a significant cost reduction. At the right volumes 5-perf 70mm prints shouldn't cost more than 2 to 3 times the cost of a 35mm print.

---

quote:

---

Even without no mag soundtrack there is no chance of success. Lets say a print costs $8000, average theatre runs and opening week grosses make the cost way to high to be worth it. Factor in a projectionist, shipping, etc...no chance!

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Can anyone confirm this...can 70mm be played off a platter or would you need a change-over?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

That's kind of a rookie question to ask. 5/70 prints can be run from a platter. However, my understanding is certain distributors prefer it if the theater has a changeover setup. IMAX prints are run from platters. Big ones.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Back when 5-perf 70mm prints were more commonly used, it was a common occurrence for those 70mm engagements to make quite a bit more money than 35mm shows.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

IMAX show regularly get bigger shares of the total audience. I don't remember the figure, but The Dark Knight did very well with its IMAX prints.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

$8000 per print would be a bit on the high side for 5-perf 70mm prints produced in a reasonable volume (dozens to a couple hundred prints).

---

I highly doubt a 70mm film print is less than 12k, most likely it is very close to 14k, plus being in low volume. Fact of the matter, is that you really don't know, but I would estimate it is closer to 14k than it is to 10k


 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-18-2010, 12:53 AM:
 
That little graphic is way too small. Nice scratch on the 35mm, by the way. Even the IMAX is scratched. For reference, a DLP chip should be laid next to those.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-18-2010, 06:25 AM:
 
Unless something has changed...Kodak has priced 70mm print stock at 2X 35mm. Since 70mm is 25% longer you have 1.25x2 the cost or 2.5 the cost of 35mm for the raw print costs. I do not know what the premium is on on printing.

However...$14K sounds very high for a non-mag striped print. It is likely far less than $10K and reasonable would be to use the 2.5x figure for printing as well.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 10-18-2010, 12:27 PM:
 
Just on the 70mm print cost question, with a DTS (now DDE) track a 2-hour feature comes in at roughly $ 9000. This information is relatively recent and makes for an interesting comparison with e.g. the $ 22,000 cited earlier for a 15-70 2D print.

It should also be taken into account that with 70mm, print volumes would typically be less than for 35mm, yet may still attract a certain level of discount.

To "Roadshow" a major title (shot on 65mm) via a limited number of 70mm prints would be a relatively small investment in terms of overall P&A spend and could recoup that in terms of higher admissions etc.

It should also be noted that the 65mm format greatly benefits 4K and 2K presentation, and facilitates high-quality release across all current theatrical and domestic formats, including, incidentally, 15-70.
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-18-2010, 03:39 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

I wouldn't say 70mm was a gigantic fail... mostly because I'm not up-to-speed with the new, hip, incorrect grammar. Furthermore, I wouldn't call 70mm a failure either.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

I would compare 70mm to the laserdisc format. For a time it was the best you could get but then the easier-to-use format came along and almost instantly won the battle. (I'm talking about exhibition, I suppose, since there was never much of a question that shooting in 65mm died many years before 70mm printing went away.)

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

Film is dead.

---

quote: Brian Guckian

---

To "Roadshow" a major title (shot on 65mm) via a limited number of 70mm prints would be a relatively small investment in terms of overall P&A spend and could recoup that in terms of higher admissions etc.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Are you kidding me? What year is it? Roadshowing a picture is done. People are not going to migrate to the one larger theater in the city to see a 70mm show...the theater owner will do much better by just showing a kids movie in Digital 3D

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Are you kidding me? What year is it? Roadshowing a picture is done. People are not going to migrate to the one larger theater in the city to see a 70mm show...the theater owner will do much better by just showing a kids movie in Digital 3D

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Shit, with that attitude why should anyone bother going to a movie theater at all? The average stadium seated multiplex theater is very unremarkable and the audiences are unruly. 2K digital cinema is hardly showing any better picture quality than one can see at home using Blu-ray and a good HDTV set.

Tom, I suspect you have never seen a native 5/65mm movie projected in 70mm in a "flagship class" theater. The way you dismiss the roadshow movie-going experience raises a giant red flag. I wonder if you're crapping all over 70mm just to stir the point and get some angry exchanges going.

I used to drive considerable distances, 100-200 miles or even more, to watch movies projected in 70mm in great quality theaters. And that was the whole trip. Drive down to Dallas to see a movie at Northpark #1. Maybe have dinner afterward and then drive home.

In the D-cinema and digital 3D age, I have not gone out of my way at all to see a movie shown in "digital." These days if I happen to see a movie at a theater in metro Oklahoma City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Austin, etc. I'm usually visiting friends or relatives there. The movie going thing is a secondary priority.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

You didn't take a one hour train ride to see the movie in digital, you took the trip to see the movie, period. You said you couldn't wait to see it. The format didn't matter, the movie did.

---

I had no choice but to see it in digital. I was trying to hold off until this Friday as my local independant would likely play it in film.

But yes, I couldn't wait to see the movie, going forward I won;t hesitate to see the movie in Digital if in fact that is the format it is playing in.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-20-2010, 02:30 PM:
 
I am amused by the postings of someone registered in 2003 with only 74 posts making such authoritative and bold statements.

There have been naysayers since 1998 claiming that film is dead, and yet here we are 12 years later and there are still far more film venues than DLP venues. And that's how it will be for the next 12 years with the current economic climate.

Yes, even I will admit film is on its way out, but I don't ever see it going completely away. Even if it is confined to specialty uses only, film will be around "forever".

As some have pointed out before, think for a minute about archival uses..we can project and save film from over 100 years ago..do you honestly think that 100 years from now someone will be able to replay DLP content, even if they have the key? The technology will so rapidly outgrow the current standard (hell it's already happening with 2k-4k, next will be 8k and 16k) that no one will be able to (or want to, as it would be cost-prohibitive) reproduce today's D-Crapema content.

As an analogy, who here knows of ANYONE or anyplace that can read data from the old 5 1/4 inch floppy discs?
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-20-2010, 03:03 PM:
 
Just to followup, a couple of years ago Variety did a piece on film preservation in the digital era. The studios were noticing signs of decay in their digital backups in as little as nine months.

Add to that and the need to constantly make new copies of digital sources everytime the technology upgraded and the studios came to the conclusion that the best way to preserve their films was with B&W separations on film.

It seems that after a generation of two of upgrading digital sources, the studios may just turn all of their rep back to 35mm for release to specialty houses.

That may make too much sense, but we can always hope.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-20-2010, 05:00 PM:
 
I realize it is too harsh and flippant to say "film is dead." In the moment I just couldn't find the right words. I think it's better to say that "film is history."

When today's version of "Hollywood" makes something which is worth preserving for more than nine months then I'm sure the technology will exist to do it.

EDIT: Does anyone know if other, "superior" formats like Cinerama ever offered a good profit margin for the theaters? Did the theaters charge a premium to customers because of the format? How much did the theater owners worry about keeping up with the formats Hollywood was throwing at them?
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-21-2010, 04:11 PM:
 

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

As an analogy, who here knows of ANYONE or anyplace that can read data from the old 5 1/4 inch floppy discs?

---

I went to the trouble to mount a 5 1/4 floppy and found that what I had saved then was of no interest or value now.

Much like the "D-Crapema" Tony discussed earlier.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-21-2010, 05:27 PM:
 
i still have 5 1/4 drive in my older os2 machine along with a jazz and zip drive
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-21-2010, 11:07 PM:
 
I have a bunch of S-VHS tapes with until recently nothing to play them on!
They really don't make a S-VHS machine that will play all 400 lines anymore.
D-VHS has the same problem but digital stuff seems to change every minute so...
I will stick to film till they pry it from my cold dead hands!
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-22-2010, 10:05 AM:
 
This week I bothered to watch the 1996 Hamlet on DVD since I never bothered to see it on film (because it was not available in 70mm in Salt Lake City). Now I'm convinced that this movie was deliberately designed to kill 70mm. It would be a perfect cure for insomnia if not for Branagh's often loud over-acting. The people who made this movie declared it an "epic" before shooting the first frame. The whole thing smacks of a desperate effort to be important... and it just fails.

If I took a state-of-the-art photo of a pile of dung would that make it worth seeing?
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-22-2010, 03:10 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

This week I bothered to watch the 1996 Hamlet on DVD since I never bothered to see it on film (because it was not available in 70mm in Salt Lake City). Now I'm convinced that this movie was deliberately designed to kill 70mm. It would be a perfect cure for insomnia if not for Branagh's often loud over-acting. The people who made this movie declared it an "epic" before shooting the first frame. The whole thing smacks of a desperate effort to be important... and it just fails.

If I took a state-of-the-art photo of a pile of dung would that make it worth seeing?

---

quote:

---

I realize it is too harsh and flippant to say "film is dead." In the moment I just couldn't find the right words. I think it's better to say that "film is history."

When today's version of "Hollywood" makes something which is worth preserving for more than nine months then I'm sure the technology will exist to do it. [Smile]

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

If I took a state-of-the-art photo of a pile of dung would that make it worth seeing?

---

I guess it would depend on the lighting
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-22-2010, 05:30 PM:
 

quote: Tom Petrov

---

"Terminal" is a better choice....films lovers should make the best of how long is left.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

"Terminal" is a better choice....films lovers should make the best of how long is left.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

distributors have an ethical responsibility

---

ROTFLMFAO

"Distributors" and "ethics", two words that are hilarious together
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-23-2010, 03:13 AM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

In twenty years, people will look back on this period (probably from about 2005-2015) as being a golden age for moving image formats.

---

quote:

---

Right now, film is still readily available [/QUOTE

Film is still readily available because the film network is just so massive. It has been the same for 100 years. However, every time a new multiplex opens up, digital takes over.

[QUOTE] (and if Lucas or Spielberg wanted to release something in 70mm, I guarantee that AMC and Regal would be installing it and also refurbishing existing 70mm equipment nt and developed in a bathtub),

---

quote:

---

I do feel strongly that older films (say, pre-mid-2000s) that were originally photographed and intended to be exhibited on film should be shown on film,

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

Tom Hamlet did play the Odeon York Toronto Sherway did not get a print even though it had 3 "70mm equiped" screens due mainly to management refusing to guarantee no print damage during the lockout that happened then

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

i meant a 70mm print i am familiar with sherway all too well did many a THX recert there in its early days

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

actually when it opened it had kintek self powered subs they probably failed over the years and were not replaced
after garth got short of cash they dropped the THX certification of all but Canada Sq and The York in the GDA and THX pulled there cards in many cases and 3rd party crossover cards were used in the frames

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

Spielberg/Lucas did shoot 70mm for the Raiders series, although not with 65mm cameras. Motor drive 35mm still cameras (Nikons, from memory) were used as stop-motion devices for effects shots. The exposed area is similar to VistaVision.

My memory is a little hazy but I think a VistaVision camera was also used for some shots.

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

I'm gonna say there's no way they did principal photography with 65mm on these movies. Watch Raiders of the Lost Ark (the actual movie without even needing behind-the-scenes stuff) and the anamorphic optical artifacts are obvious all over that movie.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

IMHO, 70mm was a gigantic FAIL.

---

And I'm thinkin'..."is he just plain retarded, or is he stupid just plain ignorant or perhaps he is just trying to get some people to flame"

It has to be one of them because it isn't a matter of "opinion," humble or otherwise... the 5/70 process was a gigantic success by most any measure. I differentiate 5/70 from 8/70 or 15/70 as they go for different markets and only 8/70 could remotely be called a fail though it did serve its place for a period of time. In fact 8/70 could have done better had the studios embraced it a bit more and not pull back on it like they did...but I digress.

The 5/70 format...coming out in 1954 has had over a 50-year run and is still a current format for both taking and projecting though certainly not like in its heyday nor in projecting like in its reincarnation of the 80s/90s as a projection format, primarily.

Just about (though not quite all) every major projector manufacturer had a 70mm projector in their line up and they are still available new to this day. Both Arri and Panavision have 65mm available for production. The film is still available as is processing.

The success of 70mm releases (either from 65mm origination or as 35mm blow ups) is documented. A typical 70mm take is 5 times that of its 35mm competitor...historically. Even when a theatre shows some tired old 70mm title, like Lawrence of Arabia, people continue to line up for it...even in this day and age.

On the technical side, it advanced the motion picture experience in almost all respects and took almost nothing away. It remains, to this day, the best origination format as well as presentation format in terms of resolution, color, contrast, longevity. To put it in perspective, 65/70 has almost 16-times the current 2K DCP image in terms of resolution. And there in lies one of its problems with "modern" film makers.

If you are going to shoot in 65mm...you have to think about it for EVERY stage in your production. All of your special effects, all of your scenery all of your make up...EVERYTHING has to have that resolution in mind...or it will show. The increase in time and money to have EVERYTHING in the work flow has a compounding affect.

Then there is the photography itself...a DP that is used to composing for 35mm or even Video will have to change everything when shooting on 65mm. It takes more light to light up that bigger aperture...all of your depth of fields change as all of your lenses are different. It isn't a simple matter of choosing the 65mm camera today...everything in the production changes with that one decision.

As such, any director that would otherwise want to shoot in 65mm will face a mountain from the studio and production on it due to the ramifications. I remember talking to Ron Howard after a screening of Backdraft about his then upcoming production of Far and Away and complimenting him on choosing to shoot in 65mmm (the screening of Backdraft was in 70mm)...he made some remark about with the star power (Tom Cruise) and his success, he was able to force the issue. Note, Ron Howard was already a pretty darn successful director before Backdraft! Some speculate that had Far and Away been a better story that 70mm would have had a rebirth. And it wasn't that Far and Away was a flop...it just wasn't the next Star Wars...it wasn't the format's fault...it never is...It has always been about the story. The technicalities are there to help tell the story; not to replace it.

As a release format 70mm always delivered and has never really been properly replaced. It was, mistakenly, thought that 70mm allowed only superior sound...when in fact, it allowed larger screens to have brighter, steadier pictures...even with 35mm origination. No, 70mm from 35mm won't look like 65mm origination but it will get rid of projection specific problems like steady pictures and getting the light to the screen. When hasn't 70mm not delivered as a release format? No matter which picture, the 70mm theatres took far more of their share than the 35mm theatres did on the same title.

As for the current crop of directors...what makes you think they are as good as the people of yesteryear? James Cameron can't even figure out how to shoot in CinemaScope and instead ponies up grain ridden Super-35 (and now digital) images. Mind you, he is the best at Super-35 that I have seen but if he learned to shoot in 65mm, it would be that much better. I really don't think the current crop can cut it with 65mm. Mostly from a lack of desire to improve the picture versus putting that effort into some non-special effect.

But back on topic...70mm a fail...not in any sense...it might have run its course due to whatever reason (I hope not) but its success story is well documented, it is your comment that fails.

As for 4K being the next 70mm...that would be impossible. 4K is the next 35mm. 2K is merely a stepping stone to get there. 35mm 1.85 already has about 4K of resolution...CinemaScope having yet more. Digital still has a ways to go to catch up to 70mm. I also note that whenever one has put out a 4K demo...they keep going to The Sound of Music as an example...a film shot on 65mm back in the 1960s...all of those advances in film stock that even allowed Super-35 to have any use also applies to 65mm stocks. The 5/70 format remains the best that we have offered yet to the regular movie audience.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-30-2010, 05:22 PM:
 
Steve, Tom knows everything, thinks theatres with no masking are ok, knows for sure that AMC ETX setups are Sony 4k, had to ASK if 70mm could be run off a platter, and has no intention of ever listening to any of us with experiences or knowledge that doesn't match his.

Hell, he can't even phrase his response right on whether Raider's was shot in 65mm, as he says one thing and means another. :

quote:

---

(Greg Anderson said :I'm gonna say there's no way they did principal photography with 65mm on these movies. Watch Raiders of the Lost Ark (the actual movie without even needing behind-the-scenes stuff) and the anamorphic optical artifacts are obvious all over that movie.)

Tom's response:

You are right. They did you 65mm to shoot Raiders. Speilberg has never used it for principal photography.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

And I'm thinkin'..."is he just plain retarded, or is he stupid just plain ignorant or perhaps he is just trying to get some people to flame"

---

All of the above.

He had registered here all the way back in 2003 and doubled his post count in the last month, mainly in this thread and THIS THREAD, where he has gained zero credibility.

He's entitled to his opinions as much as anybody here, but his motives for what he says don't seem to be in the spirit of contributing or learning anything of substance.

And even though Steve and I don't always agree on everything (like twisting speaker wire ) Steve has summed up the 70mm format's virtues spot-on.

A closed mind, like a closed room, grows useless, dead and stale quickly.

And Tom I don't care if you like me or not, but you need to listen to Steve, Brad, Joe, Chris S, etc. as I have learned a LOT from them over the years I have been on this board.

The best folks in this industry always listen to what others have to say and are willing to change their mind or methods if their ideas are wrong. (Like me in regards to D-Cinema.)
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 10-31-2010, 12:27 AM:
 

quote:

---

Steve, Tom knows everything, thinks theatres with no masking are ok, knows for sure that AMC ETX setups are Sony 4k, had to ASK if 70mm could be run off a platter, and has no intention of ever listening to any of us with experiences or knowledge that doesn't match his. [Roll Eyes]

Hell, he can't even phrase his response right on whether Raider's was shot in 65mm, as he says one thing and means another. :

quote: (Greg Anderson said :I'm gonna say there's no way they did principal photography with 65mm on these movies. Watch Raiders of the Lost Ark (the actual movie without even needing behind-the-scenes stuff) and the anamorphic optical artifacts are obvious all over that movie.)

Tom's response:

You are right. They did you 65mm to shoot Raiders. Speilberg has never used it for principal photography.

You said it best right here:

quote: Steve Guttag And I'm thinkin'..."is he just plain retarded, or is he stupid just plain ignorant or perhaps he is just trying to get some people to flame"

All of the above.

He had registered here all the way back in 2003 and doubled his post count in the last month, mainly in this thread and THIS THREAD, where he has gained zero credibility.

He's entitled to his opinions as much as anybody here, but his motives for what he says don't seem to be in the spirit of contributing or learning anything of substance.

And even though Steve and I don't always agree on everything (like twisting speaker wire [Big Grin] ) Steve has summed up the 70mm format's virtues spot-on.

A closed mind, like a closed room, grows useless, dead and stale quickly.

And Tom I don't care if you like me or not, but you need to listen to Steve, Brad, Joe, Chris S, etc. as I have learned a LOT from them over the years I have been on this board.

The best folks in this industry always listen to what others have to say and are willing to change their mind or methods if their ideas are wrong. (Like me in regards to D-Cinema.)

---

Wow! You are sensitive.

I will lay off the anti-70mm chat
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-31-2010, 01:37 AM:
 
i've got pictures of spielberg shooting raiders and temple of doom with a panavision 35mm camera -- i'd be surprised to learn that budget-conscious george would spring for 65mm -- and spielberg prefers the 1.85 ratio

yes they used a modified nikon to shoot the mine shaft miniatures but, as pointed out, this is really the vistavision format

yes, vistavision yields a larger image than standard 4-perf 35mm, but it's technically not 70mm
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 10-31-2010, 09:57 AM:
 
Greg and Manny are right - TEMPLE OF DOOM was shot in 35mm Panavision, not in 65mm.
Visual effects scenes were filmed and composited in 8-perf Vistavision because this was ILM's in-house large format to compensate for losses in multi-generation optical printing. (IIRC, the decision was made before STAR WARS based on the availability of different film stocks in 35mm, 65mm would have been Special Order every time. It has been discussed in detail in older issues of CINEFEX.)

I saw one of the TEMPLE OF DOOM 70mm blowup prints just a few weeks ago, and anamorphic origination can be seen all through the film.

People often claimed that some older 35-to-70 blowups (DR ZHIVAGO, THE CARDINAL) were shot in 65mm because they looked at set photos and didn't believe a huge beast like a Mitchell BNC could shoot anything smaller than "70mm".
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 10-31-2010, 01:20 PM:
 
Greg, Manny and Christian are right..I did go back to those "making of" books and the cameras are clearly Panavision 35mm. I stand corrected. DOH!

Shows I'm not right every time.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-31-2010, 01:55 PM:
 
Actually all of the footage that was combined with any special effect was originated in VistaVision. almost 90% of Who Framed Roger Rabbit was shot in VistaVision exclusively.

On many of the Raiders and Star Wars films they had to conbine live action and effects shots and many times the effect for a given shot existed before the live shot did! That was partly the reason for the Empireflex and other computer motion controled VV cameras.

quote: Tom Petrov

---

IMHO, 70mm was a gigantic FAIL.

---

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

3rd party crossover cards were used in the frames

---

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

knows for sure that AMC ETX setups are Sony 4k

---

quote: Christian Appelt

---

TEMPLE OF DOOM was shot in 35mm Panavision, not in 65mm.
Visual effects scenes were filmed and composited in 8-perf Vistavision because this was ILM's in-house large format to compensate for losses in multi-generation optical printing. (IIRC, the decision was made before STAR WARS based on the availability of different film stocks in 35mm, 65mm would have been Special Order every time. It has been discussed in detail in older issues of CINEFEX.)

---

quote: AMC Sales Blurb

---

A movie-lover's dream come true, this new state-of-the-art theatre is the first all-digital theatre in the area and is equipped with Sony® 4K digital cinema projectors, capable of producing images with more than four times the resolution of HDTV.

---

Let's underscore the phrase "CAPABLE of producing images with" blah blah blah. A 4K projector that is fed mostly with native 2K content is hardly 4K at all. Aw, but who cares about things like important details?

It's just like the laughable nonsense that exists in tens of millions of homes across the United States (and probably much of the rest of the developed world). They have widescreen HD-capable TV sets that are being fed only with SD-quality video, often 4:3 ratio and artificially stretched. Yet many of these folks probably think they're watching shows in high definition based solely on the TV hardware.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-31-2010, 11:21 PM:
 
very true bobby -- i predict the next generation of kids who grow up watching a stretched version of sesame street will not see any difference between a circle and an oval, or a square and a rectangle
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 10-31-2010, 11:42 PM:
 

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr

---

Greg, Manny and Christian are right

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

A 4K projector that is fed mostly with native 2K content is hardly 4K at all. Aw, but who cares about things like important details?

---

quote:

---

So the problems with 70mm over the years make me sad. But to me it's more sad to think about people who still expect 70mm to make a comeback someday. You can argue about it for 8 pages on a web site but let's be realistic: This wonderful 70mm revival will never happen! Our efforts will be better spent promoting the future which is, like it or not, higher-resolution digital presentations with higher frame rates than that awful, ugly, jittery 24 fps. And digital solves one of 70mm's major problems: The inexperienced operator can switch to a higher-quality projection system without needing any additional skills or experience than they needed with the standard-quality system.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Didn't they blow up 35mm for 70mm showings?

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

This is why I maintain that 70mm is a fail. High print cost, expensive production, you need an experienced operator that costs money per hour and you must have a long theatrical run to get your money back. 35mm is much more efficient and profitable

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Also the biggest hurdle is without filmaker support, you have no chance.If James Cameron and George Lucas support digital, then RIP for 70mm. .

---

quote:

---

This wonderful 70mm revival will never happen!

---

quote:

---

James Cameron and George Lucas aren't the only powerful filmmakers. To go with an obvious example, Steven Spielberg can pretty much do whatever he wants. As long as his films continue to make money, the studios won't have a problem keeping him happy --

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

even if that means a few hundred 70mm prints. If those 70mm prints can be proven to outsell the other formats, a comeback is completely possible.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Most of us don't believe it's going to happen. A big reason why these threads generate a lot of pages is because many of us just aren't going to tolerate it when someone makes the extremely dumb-assed claim that 2K digital or 4K digital is somehow equal to 70mm. It isn't! Those "digital" formats are NEVER going to be as good as 70mm.

70mm may not ever make a comeback, but Hollywood movie studios and movie theater companies should not be let off the hook for dropping the standards of production and presentation quality to a permanently lower level. 35mm isn't as good as 70mm. Digital sure as hell isn't as good either. Movie fans are stuck with lesser quality imagery because the "filmmakers" and theaters are more concerned with using systems that are faster and easier than something using something better.

Video ("digital") production and projection will have to improve to much higher standards in numerous areas before it could ever honestly pass itself off as being equal or superior to 70mm. IMHO, it still hasn't matched 35mm.

On the production side new video cameras with native 8K or 16K resolution (and appropriate lens systems to match) would be necessary. Digital intermediate use and CGI renderings would need to match those resolution levels. Right now 2K is still the de facto standard and many of those "2K" projects are really rendered natively in 1080p and blown up slightly to 2K. My understanding is most DI systems with 4K capability won't let you edit in color at 4K resolution; you have to do color work on lower resolution "proxy" footage and then apply the changes to the 4K data. 8K DI work has been used in a handful of cases, mostly on 65mm/70mm film material for a few Blu-ray projects.

Companies like Red, Panavision and Canon can keep on developing new CCD and CMOS imagers as much as they like. It's a bigger step to build full camera systems and lens packages around those new chips and a more difficult step above that to get movie productions to actually originate across the board in that higher resolution. A movie production that uses a Red camera to shoot in 4K, but then dump the footage down to 2K in post is only a 2K movie in the end.

Digital projection has a couple serious drawbacks: unsatisfactory contrast and brightness. 4K just doesn't seem to be ready for giant sized screen use with the complaints I've seen about brightness levels. No digital system has black levels that match that of film. 70mm can be used on really huge screens and deliver unmatched levels of brightness along with superior contrast.

There may never be a 70mm revival, but nothing as good as 70mm is coming along anytime soon.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

You call people dumb all day for making there point but the people going to movies are spending money on what they want, and that is digital. These people are the opinions that matter the most.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The general public, by and large, doesn't know any better about the difference between film and "digital." They're not "voting" for digital. There has been a long running joke about the movie theater industry and its customers in particular: if you put out lawn chairs and projected the movie on a bed sheet people would still pay to see the movie anyway.

It's stupid to assume the public knows about the nuts and bolts details of what technology is used in a projection booth much less expect them to make a buying choice based on that technology. At best the theater can only try to put across a basic idea of what their new system does and hope that impresses the customer.

Even though the customers may not know (and can't honestly be expected to know) where a new technology such as "digital" or 3D is succeeding or failing, the damned movie distributors and movie theater operators sure as hell do know the difference. They know full well when they're delivering a product with no compromises in quality versus something merely good enough. The standard of good enough is what we have now. The "digital" buzz word doesn't make it any better. It just adds a pretentious layer of marketing bullshit to the equation.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Well, this is were I disagree. The consumer full well knows the difference between 35mm film-vs-digital.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

There has been a long running joke about the movie theater industry and its customers in particular: if you put out lawn chairs and projected the movie on a bed sheet people would still pay to see the movie anyway.

---

Once when we were in the middle of getting new seats, we only had 30 seats and a vast expanse of bare linoleum for one night. We got an unexpected big group of high school kids. Every one of them sat ON THE FLOOR for the duration of the movie. The next night the word got around and we had people showing up with lawn chairs, bean bags, etc. and they had a great time. A couple days later the new seats were in and I heard a couple of people saying "Awwww, we can't sit on the floor!"

So we thought, why are we spending all this money on new seats? Should have just taken ALL the seats out!
 

---

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 11-01-2010, 02:16 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

No they don't. And you have never offered any proof, just your own opinion of "digital" after seeing it in a couple recent movies. All you're doing is repeating the same nonsense over and over just to keep this thread going.

---

Well I disagree again. Everyone I have talked to about this issue can tell the difference. Good or bad, they can tell it, and the biggest difference they can tell is that digital is more clear.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2010, 02:20 PM:
 
The judgment standard of "everyone I've talked to" is hardly scientific at all. It's just another way of saying "I know a lot of people agree with my opinion, but I want it to sound more like fact than what it really is: just an opinion."
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 11-01-2010, 02:37 PM:
 
With the 2k DI brick wall of most films i can still see more detail in a decent 35mm print projected on well maintained equipment! It is uncanny how more clear and sharp it is with depth and resolution to boot!
If its 4k or a pre DI print forget it,35mm blows DCinema away entirely!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-01-2010, 02:37 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Manny... What packages... Only just a few 65mm cameras exist at each company! Dream on though...

---

quote: Greg Anderson

---

Also, I'm not comfortable accusing Arriflex of not giving top-notch service to someone just because they're not a Hollywood studio. I can only guess that the Mormons paid full price for what they got.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

No they don't. And you have never offered any proof, just your own opinion of "digital" after seeing it in a couple recent movies. All you're doing is repeating the same nonsense over and over just to keep this thread going. ....and: The judgment standard of "everyone I've talked to" is hardly scientific at all. It's just another way of saying "I know a lot of people agree with my opinion, but I want it to sound more like fact than what it really is: just an opinion."

---

Thank you Bobby, couldn't have said it better. Some people are just trolls who like to cause contention and stir the pot. I don't even bother to read it anymore.

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Once when we were in the middle of getting new seats, we only had 30 seats and a vast expanse of bare linoleum for one night. We got an unexpected big group of high school kids. Every one of them sat ON THE FLOOR for the duration of the movie. The next night the word got around and we had people showing up with lawn chairs, bean bags, etc. and they had a great time. A couple days later the new seats were in and I heard a couple of people saying "Awwww, we can't sit on the floor!"

So we thought, why are we spending all this money on new seats? Should have just taken ALL the seats out!

---

quote: Victor Liorentas

---

With the 2k DI brick wall of most films i can still see more detail in a decent 35mm print projected on well maintained equipment! It is uncanny how more clear and sharp it is with depth and resolution to boot!
If its 4k or a pre DI print forget it, 35mm blows DCinema away entirely!

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

The consumer full well knows the difference between 35mm film-vs-digital.

---

quote:

---

I think you need to step back for a bit and look at your comments. I honestly believe that you don't realize how stupid and inexperienced you sound when saying things like this. It makes it extremely difficult for people to take what you are saying with any amount of seriousness.

Bottom line: The consumer only thinks that digital = better. This is what they have been taught to believe since the compact disc was introduced. That's where their "knowledge" ends. Sad to say, that's where their concern about the exhibition format usually ends as well. I've had people request that I rewind movies because they were late. When I tell them "no" they become confused and say things like "Aren't you just using some kind of fancy DVD or whatnot?" I'm sure many people who actually work in the exhibition industry have similar stories. This alone proves that the customer has no clue and usually no concern about the format. There are indeed some educated customers out there, like Bobby for instance, but the rule of thumb about the general public is as I've laid it out.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

If you don't think the consumer can tell the difference, then keep believing that. From the conversations I have had, the consumer can tell the difference.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Better or worse, there is a difference, and don't discount the people who are paying for the ticket. They are smarter than you think.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

After all, if 35mm was superior to digital, then consumers would choose the film version and vice versa

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Customers do not ask for digital or film at the box office nor do theater showtimes denote either format unless it is in 3D. They take what they are given. Very few customers are educated enough to notice the difference on a level which they can explain.

I really do believe that you are a troll and not "stupid retarded" like Steve suggested, mainly because it would be impossible to have that low of an intelligence level and still be able to use a web browser. But then again, comments on your average Youtube video prove otherwise so I could be wrong.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Oh really? A quick browsing of the AMC and Cineplex web sites for the Toronto area only denote 3D showings in digital. The Empire website is awful and I can't even find showtimes when I select "showtimes" and select a theater.

You are WRONG. Otherwise, prove it with screenshots/links and not just words.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

You win this round, Tom Petrov. (I never made it down to the final theater which is the Y&D)

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Since this seems to be the only theater in the Toronto area that denotes non-3D digital presentations, I assume everyone goes there? Because not everyone goes to the all-digital AMC here.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Yeah, so like I asked, does everyone go to the digital theaters with only a few trickling to the film theaters? The customers have chosen digital, after all.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

A decent number of people here in town have insisted on driving to Lawton's west side to see movies at the Carmike location for its better show quality

---

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

Cineplex Entertainment (“Cineplex”) (TSX: CGX) will debut a world-first showing of a movie in 4K DLP® cinema for moviegoers this week

---

Crock of . There have been on-and-off 4K screenings for years. The DaVinci Code ran in 4K at both the Arclight and the AMC Century City in Los Angeles as early as 2006.
 

---

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-14-2011, 10:10 PM:
 
Those earlier commercial 4K screenings were Sony's SXRD, not DLP. No idea if this is in fact the first commercial 4K DLP, but it's at least plausible.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-14-2011, 10:23 PM:
 
there was an industry screening of 'North By Northwest' in 4K DLP (to showcase the technology), but this is the first news I've read that a commercial release of a film (in 4K DLP hard-drive form) has been made available to the public to view first hand.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-15-2011, 12:49 PM:
 

quote: Mark Ogden

---

Crock of . There have been on-and-off 4K screenings for years. The DaVinci Code ran in 4K at both the Arclight and the AMC Century City in Los Angeles as early as 2006.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

They were trying to show the remastered 'Taxi Driver' in 4k during Berlinale in February on Barco 4k DLP. Unfortunately, they ended up with issues around the IMB and couldn't show it in 4k, only 2k.

---

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

in regards to next week's two-night screening of TAXI DRIVER - it seems to be a Sony 4K "exclusive", since the intent and purpose of the screening is to showcase and demonstrate the 4K restoration/presentation without downrezzing it to 2K

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I wonder if it was a bandwidth issue (hardware couldn't handle it). While it's possible to compress down 4K imagery within the 250Mb/sec DCI limit using JPEG2000 (it that spec still current or did they raise the bandwidth ceiling?) when the imagery is decompressed for the projector it will require 4 times the bandwidth or 4 times the pixel count of 2K. A setup only designed for uncompressed 2K bandwidth just isn't going to handle 4K.

---

quote:

---

Tom Petrov:
What is really odd is that in Toronto, the TIFF Lightbox just printed a new print of Taxi Driver. Over in Waterloo, they just watched a brand new print of Back to The Future.

There is new 35mm prints of these movies out there.

---

correct, Sony also struck new 35mm prints (for archival purpose and distribution) from the new restoration, said new print is opening tomorrow at NYC's Film Forum.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 03-17-2011, 08:08 PM:
 
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=2199

(DLP 4k vs 70mm shootout)

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-17-2011, 08:48 PM:
 
That seems very unfair to me. 4K should be competing with 35mm.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-18-2011, 06:17 PM:
 
Great shoot out, really. They could have scanned real Todd-AO like CLEOPATRA, THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY or BARAKA (all available in new prints) or some Technirama 8-perf negative stuff. And I don't see why 70mm projection should be unsteady and dirty, unless someone chooses to present it that way. Even 50 year old Todd-AO or Technirama-70 films like THE GOLDEN HEAD or SCENT OF MYSTERY look better than todays's digital projection and many IMAX films.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-18-2011, 08:24 PM:
 
I think the fix is in!
4k is good 1:85.1 nevermind anything more!
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-20-2011, 01:21 PM:
 
From the dcinematoday article:

quote:

---

The split-screen demonstration was revealing, accentuating the anomalies of film-based projection such as noticeable vibration and dirt, effectively lowering the perceived resolution of the image, while the digital version featured excellent color depth, a cleaner picture, and greater image stability.

---

quote:

---

New Technology Report from DCS Advisory Board Member, Howard Hall:
Galveston Digital Symposium

The following observations on 2K, 4K, and 3D Large Screen Digital
Projection are a DCS member content contribution from Howard Hall, the
noted Underwater Filmmaker/Cinematographer/Photographer and Author
after attending last month?s Galveston Digital Symposium:

On January 24 I joined 127 other Giant Screen professionals at the
Moody Gardens Theater to see the debut of the Barco 4K 3D projector
system and to view a split screen 4K projection versus IMAX 70mm
projection comparison. The Moody Gardens giant screen is 72 feet by 53
feet.

During the two-day event we saw only digital projections (aside from
the 4K versus 70mm ?shootout?). Most of the films were projected in 2K
on the Barco 4K capable projectors. The 2K projections were shown via
both single and two projector systems demonstrating a variety of
glasses including Dolby, active, circular polarized, and linear
polarized glasses.

I learned little from the 2K projections other than the differences in
glasses technologies. I was very surprised at how effective the Dolby
notched filter anaglyph glasses were. These totally occluded the
opposite eye allowing no ghosting. This combined with the ability to
work with any screen surface made this a compelling choice. Glasses
cost about $10. The available Dolby glasses are too small for giant
screen viewing however. I am sure there is some color shift present
when using the Dolby system, but if so I didn?t notice it.

The linear polarized glasses produced the most ghosting which was made
more significant when tilting one?s head to the side. Circular
polarized glasses were better. Both had more ghosting than Dolby. The
active shutter glasses may have produced the best image, but were
darker than the others. Active glasses have other well-known
maintenance disadvantages when used in commercial venues. Both Dolby
and circular polarized systems can be used on single projector system
via a spinning filter wheel. They can be used on duel projector
systems via discrete filters.

The 2K projections produced a significantly degraded giant screen
experience. Although there was no direct comparison with 70mm, the
difference was obvious and visceral.

The 4K projections were another story. We saw a RED Cinema demo reel
that was stunning. My impression was that it looked as sharp as any
70mm projection. The image ?seemed? to fill the giant screen and had
excellent contrast, resolution, and saturation. It wasn?t until the
lights came back up that I noticed that the top of the screen had not
been used.

The ?shootout? between 70mm and 4K was most interesting. We saw two
clips projected via split screen then we saw the clips projected
alternately. The first 70mm clip from ?Pulse? was printed in the
traditional way via negative, interpositive, and duplicate negative.
The second 70mm clip (from Wild Ocean) was made in the more modern way
via 11K scan from negative, then a 4K down-conversion, then film-out
to 70mm. The digital projections were made via 11K scan and then 4K
down-conversion. The 4K file of Wild Ocean was the file used for the
film-out.

Just comparing the two 70mm clips was enlightening. The ?Pulse? clip
was significantly better than the film-out version of Wild Ocean.
Scanning and film-out of Wild Ocean had been necessary because so many
different formats in addition to 70mm were used in original image
capture (we saw only 70mm original capture examples). Andrew Orin from
FotoKem who made the film prints, estimated that even the ?Pulse? clip
had degraded to between 5.5 and 6K via the printing process (assuming
original camera negative is about 11K).

In my opinion the split screen comparison showed that 4K projection is
equal to or better than 70mm projection in all respects save one. The
digital images appeared as sharp or sharper, they appeared to have
more contrast in addition to equal or better resolution, and the color
saturation and fidelity was equal or better. These differences were
minor and debatable when the two ?Pulse? clips were compared. The
differences were dramatic when Wild Ocean was up.

The only remaining advantage to the 70mm projection was that the 4K
projection was 16x9 and did not fill the vertical axis of the screen.
That the bottom of the 4K screen image was missing was of no
consequence to me since audience heads occlude the 70mm image at the
bottom and to me this may be viewed as a distraction. The top of the
screen is another story however. Some of the experiential effect is
lost with the 4K projection though I confess I did not miss it much.
This was the only disadvantage to 4K digital capture and projection
that I could see and was but one point when scored against the myriad
disadvantages, both financial and logistical, of shooting and
projection in 70mm.

When the audience was asked which image they liked best, the
overwhelming response was that they preferred the digital projection.
As an IMAX 70mm veteran, I found that quite astounding.

I recognize that the 16x9 aspect ratio will be much more problematic
for giant screen dome theaters. Also Moody Gardens has a modestly
sized IMAX screen. Digital light levels may be problematic on the very
largest IMAX giant screens some of which are up to 100 feet wide.

---

quote:

---

The second 70mm clip (from Wild Ocean) was made in the more modern way via 11K scan from negative, then a 4K down-conversion, then film-out to 70mm. The digital projections were made via 11K scan and then 4K down-conversion. The 4K file of Wild Ocean was the file used for the film-out.

---

quote:

---

Just comparing the two 70mm clips was enlightening. The "Pulse" clip was significantly better than the film-out version of Wild Ocean. Scanning and film-out of Wild Ocean had been necessary because so many different formats in addition to 70mm were used in original image capture (we saw only 70mm original capture examples). Andrew Orin from FotoKem who made the film prints, estimated that even the "Pulse" clip had degraded to between 5.5 and 6K via the printing process (assuming original camera negative is about 11K).

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

IMHO, 70mm was a gigantic FAIL.

---

quote:

---

Just what I thought, the screen size is not the difference

I remember an projectionist friend of my saying "70mm has less to do with the screen size, and more to do with what is inside the frame", that was 14 years ago.

---

quote:

---

The only thing I was not happy with on the evening is that there was no buzz or marketing of the evening. Nowhere on the building, marquee, ticket counter did it say 70mm. Even on my ticket it did not say "presented in 70mm"

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I agree that common movies won't be made with a better-than-4K DI. But at that point, why even bother with the comparison? What are you comparing?

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

If one dismisses the observations of the 4K film of Wild Ocean vs. the 4K digital presentation of Wild Ocean, and just focuses on the Pulse clips instead, one could infer from the comments made in the press release and from Howard Hall's report that the 4K presentation of Pulse was still equal to, or better than, the 70mm film presentation of Pulse.

---

quote:

---

Andrew Orin from
FotoKem who made the film prints, estimated that even the ?Pulse? clip
had degraded to between 5.5 and 6K via the printing process (assuming
original camera negative is about 11K).

---

quote:

---

“We're proud to work with Barco in presenting these films as they were meant to be seen.”

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

I love seeing (and showing) films on film when the print is in good condition.

But you're kidding yourself if you think watching an abused print is closer to the musical truth.

Yes, I'd honestly prefer digital (even a Bluray) over a worn-out print.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Why digital is always compared to film done badly?

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

What I mean is that films that were never meant to enter the binary domain of zeros and ones should be preserved in the analogue domain as much as possible.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Because film IS done badly so often, and even if you want and can make it right, you're always stuck with the print you get. Keeping your machines in good condition can be accomplished with 35mm and digital. But a bad print just spoils the experience even on the best 35mm machine.

I wish we all had good 35mm prints all the time. Unfortunately, I just see too many used up or cheaply made prints.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

I wouldn't presume to know what the intent of the inventors was.

Technologically, the industry has a long history of being on the cutting-edge, often abandoning old technology completely in favor of the new.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Are you not happy that they are being preserved at all? Is it "film or nothing" with you?

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

I personally know of a theatre that recently inquired about underwriting/commissioning a new print of a movie from the 80s and the studio was not interested -- regardless of who was paying.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

the invention of colour does not mean that film directors won’t use black and white anymore.

---

Umm...for the most part, it does. For every major contemporary release that uses black-and-white, there are over a thousand that don't.

Sure. Spielberg can make "Schindler's List" in B/W. But that's a rare case. Go read that article in the industry news forum that talks about how film studios are deliberately pursuing younger/untried directors because they believe they will be easier to control. Directors of today and tomorrow are gonna make whatever the suits tell 'em to make. And that's actually nothing new. It's a shame I have to point out the obvious but I'd say color is going to remain a given.

Here's my current opinion of the situation: Digitally-restored and digitally-presented film does not "look digital." Assuming that it's "digital done right" then it will simply look like "film done right" to me. In fact, I would argue it will look better -- especially since the restoration print will have come from a DI and, thus, will be (at least) one generation removed from the restoration original. I honestly believe that level of excellence only offends some of us because we feel threatened by it. That is to say, we could never put on THAT GOOD of a show (with film) and so, in a sense, we are becoming irrelevant (or less relevant). Either that or it's just pure nostalgic "film hugging." Either way, it is an emotional response and not an intellectual one.

There I said it.

Let the flames begin!
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-30-2011, 02:32 PM:
 
The way movies were "meant to be seen" is the way that earns the most money the most quickly. The producers, directors, actors, etc. don't care what happens to the movie in 50 years, when they won't be around to enjoy the fruits of their labors anyway. What the fans want may be a different story but, then again, the fans only want to pay $10 for what they'll get.

I've been using up my free time for the past several months "restoring" pictures from the parents' slide collection. I am SO glad I can do this digitally. Imagine the waste of time and money if I had insisted on keeping all of this stuff on the medium of film.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-30-2011, 02:33 PM:
 

quote: Greg Anderson

---

The way movies were "meant to be seen" is the way that earns the most money the most quickly.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Umm...for the most part, it does. For every major contemporary release that uses black-and-white, there are over a thousand that don't.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Here's my current opinion of the situation: Digitally-restored and digitally-presented film does not "look digital."

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

In fact, I would argue it will look better -- especially since the restoration print will have come from a DI and, thus, will be (at least) one generation removed from the restoration original

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

True, but in many cases this is because the producers do not want to risk their investment, it is not an artistic but a financial decision.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

To me it looks like film projected digitally

---

C'mon. Be honest. You can tell because it looks "too good" doesn't it? You want to see the jump and the weave and you want to bask in the glow of splices and scratches. I get it. You love film - even if it's "film done wrong." There's really no point arguing with you. I totally get it.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

In any case since the majority of digital projectors are 2K and restorations are usually done at 4K or even greater a 35mm print will keep more resolution of the restoration than the 2K screening and will keep some of the charm of film projected.

---

Fear not, my friend -- Those projectors can and will be upgraded to 4K and then they'll outmatch the film print generated off a 4K DI. Especially since, the prints are going to be beaten all to hell in a matter of....oh, hell...they're trashed already.

Here, look:



A previous user obviously cared enough to try and clean the print.

This is the sort of thing that really lets you know you're watching FILM !!!
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-30-2011, 09:16 PM:
 
Manny, I know you are drinking the digital kool-aid and all and really do love the digital look...BUT I really DO find it inferior to the film look (both done right). 2K digital, in particular just looks bad to me...the film print would have to be pretty badly beaten (and I've seen more than a few that would qualify as that) before I would take a 2K version (or BluRay) over the film print.

When I see a 2K digital, I see a hyper-flat image that has less detail than the film version...unless the film version came off of a 2K DI...the worst thing to hit film distribution.

4K DIs will go a long way to improving the digital look though I have yet to see any real good 4K shows.

You want to know what looks REALLY bad...a Sony 4K with a Real D lens...oh my what a turd of an image that is. First, they take a 4K imager and drop it to a 2K effective resolution...IF the tech got the two images perfectly super imposed...if not...then not so much 2K. The image colors were pastel and when a picket fence came up on the screen...you can see the Morie pretty badly.

All the same, I'm looking forward to 4K as then we will finally start to have something that has the resolution of 1.85 on 35mm...not that of CinemaScope or 1.37 but at least we are in the same ballpark. While I like the colors better on film, I like the color uniformity better on digital. Mind you, most cinemas will probably not upgrade to 4K until their 2K systems have run their life and 4K is the standard. Then again, I'm working on a project that will likely have a 4K projector on a screen that is under 20-feet wide!

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-30-2011, 09:55 PM:
 
I prefer a DCP to a beat up print -- of which, there are far too many. -- or a print off of a DI.

It's great to show a beautiful print when one comes along. I still get the rush from running a show like that.

But c'mon. That's not what is typical. Too often, it's down-right frustrating to have great gear and your heart in the right place...and then get a crappy print like the one pictured above.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-01-2011, 07:25 AM:
 

quote: Manny Knowles

---

You don't seem to "get" that this is so often the case -- more often than not -- dating back to the dawn of cinema. But you're also ignoring the rather large hints that they always wanted color -- look at their painstaking efforts to hand tint their prints. They always anticipated sound, etc. I don't think the filmmakers of yesterday would be offended by digital restorations/screenings. They might wonder why we're watching the originals at all, instead of remaking them with the newer technology. I say this because they often remade their films when new technologies came along.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

C'mon. Be honest. You can tell because it looks "too good" doesn't it? You want to see the jump and the weave and you want to bask in the glow of splices and scratches. I get it. You love film - even if it's "film done wrong." There's really no point arguing with you. I totally get it.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Fear not, my friend -- Those projectors can and will be upgraded to 4K and then they'll outmatch the film print generated off a 4K DI. Especially since, the prints are going to be beaten all to hell in a matter of....oh, hell...they're trashed already.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

(I would personally re-release Technirama and VistaVision films in 70mm)

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

If digital was being used properly, they should be scanning the OCN at a higher resolution than the film can represent, work on it at that resolution and then print the INs directly from said High-resoltuion. At that point, you have almost the same as the OCN doing the printing and you also improve the high-speed printing process.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

As for film motion...I don't consider that a good or acceptable trait of film and prefer digital, in that respect.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Digital also can not seem to deal with credit scrolls and is subject to Moiré, depending on content...where film is impervious.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

I have been doing a bit of surfing on the net and finding about other people who also like to see classic films on the big screen

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Not only I get it but also I fully know it and I have known it for a long time. Yet you use an ambiguous term when you refer to filmmakers. Who are the makers, the directors or the producers?

---

Anyone who had anything to do with the movie and who would care if it looked like shit on-screen. How's that? Specific enough for you?

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Billy Wilder disliked very much the Technicolor hues and preferred black and white, Woody Allen would have used more black and white had it not been because of the producers, Fritz Lang was forced to use Cinemascope which he thought only good to film snakes and Hitchcock never used anamorphic even when outside Paramount production values and did not like stereophonic sound because it meant different versions of his sound mix. And how about Chaplin’s dislike of sound? You do not get much more filmmaker than him.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Some minor jump and weave on film done right doesn’t disturb me and I would accept that this is because I have always seen films with a bit of jump and weave and therefore it feels natural to me.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

So, you have concluded that I love film even if it is “film done wrong”, well it is your prerogative to believe this as it is your prerogative to believe that a DCP is better than a good 35mm print.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

I recently saw Ben Wales’s 70mm print of Dersu Uzala, which is an original print from the 70s (Russian colour does not fade) and I was amazed, the quality was outstanding. After seeing these beautiful images (with technology from several decades ago) to go back to the true feel and look of a Playstation on a 2K Super Digital Cinema? Frankly not, not in a lifetime.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Manny also seems to miss that when things were done as technology came out...the technology almost always improved the image/sound and was often HARDER than what came before it. Digital has not been about better, it has been about cheaper/easier on the production side. It is what happened to the recording industry all over again. It isn't like the music has gotten any better with the new technology...in fact, with MP3, it has gotten much worse.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

'll go out of my way to see a movie projected from 35mm or 70mm film if the post production

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

Anyone who had anything to do with the movie and who would care if it looked like shit on-screen. How's that? Specific enough for you?

---

Manny, there was no need to make this a personal issue. You can keep your , you need it more than me.

You are spreading blatant lies by saying I like scratched and faded prints, shame on you for manipulating the debate.

I will reiterate it once more. I am not talking about the future of cinema production and exhibition. I am talking about the history of cinema in the 20th Century, both in terms of how the films were made and how they were presented. What’s wrong with you? Why can’t you understand that some of us like to experience those old films as they were originally shown?

I am comparing a 2K DCP with a properly produced and projected 35mm or 70mm print. You are the only one who is comparing the 2K DCP with a trashed film print.

Isn’t it funny how DCP body snatchers are unable to use the word film without accompanying it with words like scratches, jump, wave, faded, trashed, …

As I said, I prefer to see a 4K restoration on a 35mm print than the DCP on a 2K DLP projector. No restoration of a classic film will be done at lower than 4K and so, unless you have a 4K projector, you are better off with a 35mm. I saw the 35mm print of the 4K restoration of The Sand Pebbles and the print was beautiful. I would always choose the print if there is, at least, a 4K DI because of the element of the mechanical projection that adds to the original experience.

When I mentioned that I would accept some minor motion when seeing classic films I did not say it is a good quality of film projection, I said it does not disturb me and I assumed that it is probably because I am used to it. But in any case, part of the experience of seeing those old films is that element of motion inherent to film projection. I insist, however, that the stillness of digital projection does not help some static shots (in my opinion).

You call me hopeless for wanting to see classic films on proper film prints on the big screen. You also seem to forget that Christopher Nolan, who probably is also hopeless to your eyes, insisted that all premieres of Inception were in 35mm, at least in Europe, and NOT in 2K DCP. I have read a recent interview with Christopher Nolan where he says that 35mm projection is the best. Tarantino and Spielberg are also advocates of film screenings.

This is an interesting debate and there was no need whatsoever to be nasty.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-05-2011, 06:52 PM:
 
Before dlp was invented and perfected to its 2k level of quality,no one said anything bad about film done right or wrong really.It was more about the incompetent operators or bad lab work.
Film projection was magic,movies could be powerful and stunning and film was the only way to do it!
With dlp and sxrd we suddenly have those who choose to wax poetic about how horrible film is and it must be abolished!
Digital instantly solves many of films downsides but unless it all moves to 4k,higher frame rates and brighter cost effective lamps it will remain a pale static imitation of the magic of film!
I don't really think the present model of theaters deserves to survive! It mostly sucks! The pathetic greed mentality of the studios and most chains makes me want to
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-05-2011, 08:29 PM:
 
Light wise...Digital is now starting to win on a watt/lumen ratio. Cost is likely to drop as digital becomes the norm and the quantity of lamps made for digital exceed those for film.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-06-2011, 12:09 AM:
 

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

This is an interesting debate and there was no need whatsoever to be nasty.

---

quote: Manny Knowles

---

I dunno -- you got a little stupid with the whole "what is a filmmaker" maneuver. I don't have patience for quibblers

---

quote: Victor Liorentas

---

The Social Network was directed by David Fincher.

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Ramon, I get what you are saying about filmakers using and advocating film and such....but those directors who are talking are far and in between.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Ramon, just pause two seconds and think how you can assure that prints are handled properly. I can't see it. Then think how much easier this is with digital from the viewpoint of the distries. DCP/harddisc destroyed, lost, whatever - don't care, send out a new harddisc. With 4k releases, they will not even accept the quality aspect anymore.

Sorry Ramon, nothing but wishful thinking.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

I was talking about specialised cinemas in big markets where there is an audience for classic films shown on film.

---

quote:

---

Well, you need to setup a strict set of rules and also a strict monitoring system, in this forum we have the experts but I would imagine using changeovers only, film-guard,

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

for some releases in 70mm like Inception

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Ramon, you are not thinking logically here. Suppose I run a 70mm theatre and show Inception in 70mm. I have get a print which costs about $15,000. How long will it take till I break even?

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

Ramon, there is no market for specializied cinemas. You must have new product to successfully make it. Movie exhibition is about playing new movies which drives people to your theatre, from there you sell them food.

---

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

Tom, there are many films like Inception being shown in 15/70 in many cities, which is much more expensive and there is still a business case and so I suppose there could be a business case for some select titles in 5/70 in some markets and big cinemas

---

quote: Tom Petrov

---

You need a long successful run to make a 15/70 worthwhile

---

Certainly, I agree. Also, not all films need to be shown in 15/70, Borat would gain nothing in 15/70 Yet films that have a strong visual element gain by being shown in above average conditions. With Avatar, although the original resolution of the image is very low, I thought IMAX provided an amazing experience because of the way the film was shot. Moreover, whenever I see the film on an electronic device it has a videogame look that was somewhat softened on the 15/70 version and to me this helped me to immerse in the film.

Also, what I would like to say is that there may be different models for different films and cities. It has always been like this in cinema exhibition history. Big cities have had always the best because it has been financially sound to do so. Nowadays there is nothing like Todd-AO or Cinerama for big cities anymore. In the past we used to have special presentations for special films and this added to the excitement, now all presentations are the same.

In any case, as I said, current exhibition practices is a very difficult subject. My interest, being passionate about film history but also about film technology history, is to keep that experience alive, at least in some major markets.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-09-2011, 12:17 AM:
 
I feel the same way Ramon!
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-09-2011, 05:23 PM:
 

quote:

---

I feel the same way Ramon!

---

Thank you Victor

I have just read a post from someone who went to see the 4K DCP of Taxi Driver and it was screened in 2.40:1, the image was obviously cropped. Some people also report blurred and dark images and cropping during the end credits. To be fair, some people also praise the 4K version very much.

It is interesting to read about the different views and to see how many people seek the 35mm prints screened of the restoration. It is clear that there are very polarised views about it. In the past everybody would glow if there was a good new print of a classic film, now with the DCP releases there is no unanimity as to the preferred format. I hope that, at least in some cities, we will be given the option for a long while.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 08-18-2011, 09:42 AM:
 
I read that Ron Fricke's latest 70mm shot film 'Samsara' is having it's world premier at the Toronto Film Festival - but in 4K digital projection, not 70mm -

I'm assuming the theatrical rollout will happen in 2012 and it's still up in the air if 70mm prints will be struck.

I'm hoping at least, the film will be released in 4K DLP and 4K LCoS (Sony)
 

---