Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spiderman on the Big Screen? oh no!

This is topic Spiderman on the Big Screen? oh no! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000890

Posted by Don E. Nelson (Member # 1049) on 05-06-2002, 02:52 PM:

My kids wanted to see Spiderman on the "Big" screen, so I got on Fandango and got the 5:40pm "big screen" tickets for the local IMAX theater. The whole time iI was in line I was sipping my ($5.00) Coke and asking myself, is this a mistake? I know Spiderman will not be a 70mm print so what will the 35mm resolution be like, will it be in focus or fuzzy, will they use only a portion of the screen. etc. My kids just wanted a big image and a good story to be happy, I wanted something else, namely a well projected film.
The previews took some getting used to, the picture was so BIG, and a little fuzzy/hazzy on some of the teasers, but when the feature came on, I was pleasantly surprized how good it looked. It good have been sharper for my taste but it was OK. My question is, not all films will look good projected this way, what is the limiting factor for projection on an IMAX screen: the film stock, lighting, film format, camera type, optics, projector, etc.
Thanks

------------------
...more signal, less noise!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-06-2002, 03:12 PM:

With "Film Done Right", a 35mm camera negative can produce very acceptable images on very large screens. Since the mid-1960's, 35mm blow-ups to 70mm prints were used for the "Star Wars" trilogy, the "Indiana Jones" trilogy, and a host of other very successful pictures (e.g., "Titanic"). Ron Howard's "Apollo 13", shot on 35mm film, is being digitally reformatted ("Digital Intermediate") to 15-perf 70mm IMAX, showing the flexibility and "future proof" ability of film origination:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-032102a.html

One of the major challenges in filling a huge screen is getting enough light. A larger 70mm format allows "spreading out" the energy of the lamp, reducing heat-related problems. But even 35mm prints with "Film Done Right" can fill some pretty big screens. I recently went to a 35mm screening at a local IMAX theatre that was quite acceptable for sharpness and screen luminance. They were using a 6K Christie lamp (160 amperes), projecting onto the IMAX 3D (high gain) screen, with about a 70-foot wide scope image. I know that Gordon McLeod takes pride in the quality of the 35mm images he is able to project at the Toronto Ontario Place IMAX theatre.

You certainly won't be able to achieve 16 footlamberts on an 84-foot screen using a 35mm print --- that needs 70mm. But very acceptable results are achievable, and attracting audiences to these 35mm screenings on huge screens.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-06-2002, 03:18 PM:

John,

What would you say would be the biggest screen possible to achieve 16 footlamberts on with 35mm? 70mm? I know that throw distance and ambient lighting play a role. I don't know what the average thow distance to screen size ratio would be, but I'd be curious as to what the limits may be. But let's assume "best possible" conditions here.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-06-2002, 03:26 PM:

Sony screwed with the printing process for the "special" prints for the 35mm-on-LF screens. The prints were printed lighter to give the appearance of more light on the screen, but reducing the contrast.

We turned it down here, by the way.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-06-2002, 03:27 PM:

Scorpion King on an Edwards giant screen (Irvine Spectrum) looked OK but had some flaws. The impression I got was they didn't have the best lenses for showing 35mm on that screen. There was bad keystoning and the geometry wasn't the greatest out near the edges of the scope image.

With Spiderman being flat, did the image fill the entire width of the giant screen?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-06-2002, 03:30 PM:

Joe asked: "What would you say would be the biggest screen possible to achieve 16 footlamberts on with 35mm? 70mm? "

Lots depends upon the efficiency and alignment of the projector (lamphouse, shutter, lens, port glass), and the type of screen used. For 35mm prints, the Strong/Isco-Optic slide rule calculator shows that a 7K lamphouse should be able to light a 24 x 58 foot matte white (gain = 1) screen. Going to a properly curved 1.5 gain screen allows up to a 27 x 65 foot image.

I recall that the North Park in Dallas had plenty of light with 70mm and a much smaller lamp when they showed "Titanic". Brad can give the details. With 70mm having about three times the image area of 35mm scope, you can put much more light on the screen.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-06-2002, 03:38 PM:

Adam said: "The prints were printed lighter to give the appearance of more light on the screen, but reducing the contrast."

Usually a print "color timed" to look best at the 16 footlambert aim specified by SMPTE 196M will be the best choice for theatres that have lower light levels. Making the print less dense will change the tone scale, resulting in smoky shadows, pasty fleshtones, desaturated colors, and highlights without detail.

Taken to an extreme example, if you have a really dim projector, why not make the print so light that it is clear film without an image?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-06-2002, 03:38 PM:

At GCC Northpark 1&2 we were using Cinemecannica horizontal "Zenith" lamphouses with IREM power supplies. Those lamphouses were nothing short of magnificent. The screen was a matte Hurley. We used OSRAM lamps for years, but after pressuring Ron, he agreed to try a Christie bulb and we got even better light. This was only a couple of months before Titanic opened.

Oh yes and for Mr.Guttag I might add that according to Paramount we were the only theater to run that film in 70mm that did not scratch it, replace at least one reel or have any damage whatsoever to it...and we did it on a platter! The theaters that ran it changeover damaged their prints to one degree or another.

For more useless history about Northpark, that print of Titanic in 70mm was also the only print ever to be interlocked there. Rather than break it down only to build it right back up or try to move it (which would have been basically impossible) I interlocked it from cinema 1 to cinema 2 after hours for the final week of it's run.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 05-06-2002, 06:30 PM:

Brad what model Zenith lamphouse is it that you ues, im just fitting a Zenith 4000h running a 3k in it for use on 35 and 70mm films, its only a 10.5 meter wide screen so i hope it should look spectacular, the 2k lamphouse at the moment is finding it hard to look great, allthough a new mirror wouldnt go a miss!
Darren

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-06-2002, 06:31 PM:

You can see pictures of the booth in the warehouse on this site. The theater closed a few years ago.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 05-06-2002, 10:01 PM:

There were "Drive-In" prints of Spiderman struck for Imax screens - I don't know if any actually got to drive-in cinemas though...

I went to the downtown Toronto drive-in (the Docks) on a "poor light" call - they were showing "Panic Room" and "Resident Evil". They weren't kidding about the poor light. It was actually funny listening to the sound track and trying to guess what was happening. Occasionally a blob of light was visible on screen. (not kidding)
The light was obviously bad - but playing 2 films that are set almost entirely in the dark at a site plagued by stray light doesn't help.
Passes were given out, some embarrassment resulting from the staff coming to the cars to hand them out... Quite a few cars stayed through both invisible features.
I think I improved the light quite a bit after Panic Room - quite a bright light beam was visible in the fog that rolled in during intermission. None of it seemd to hit the screen though.

If you're planning a night out at The Docks nightclub, the drive-in is actually a cheaper way to get in than paying the parking and cover charge for 2 people, so some folks may have been inside having a different sort of party than in the rocking cars. Drive-in patrons are admitted to the nightclub without paying extra, so 2 at $12.00 is less than the $5.00 parking and $10.00 cover charge. (The Docks is a popular nightclub as well as a drive-in, golf driving range, beach volleyball centre, outdoor pool hall, and general amusement area)

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 05-07-2002, 01:22 PM:

Yeah, Century 22 out here in San Jose had TWO 70mm prints of Titanic and managed to all but destory both of them.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-07-2002, 04:01 PM:

We ran our print of Titanic with changeovers with no damage for 4 months but it did go to a platter house after wards that scratched it and then cinched it when they broke it down

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-07-2002, 05:25 PM:

I still have my ticket stub from seeing "Titanic" in DTS 70mm at Northpark #1 (as well as stubs from a number of other shows there). That house was easily my favorite place to watch films.

I found out about the place only by accident when passing through Dallas during my move from Georgia to Oklahoma in 1993. I wanted to see "Jurassic Park" in THX-DTS, and Northpark 1-2 wasn't far out of the way. I was impressed when entering the #1 theater, finding it to be every bit as cavernous as the big premiere houses in New York City. The sound quality was the best I have ever heard in a commercial movie theater.

It really sucks out loud that this theater (Texas' Best) is gone.

To get back on topic, most know how I feel about blowing 35mm prints up on giant screens (hate it). The image quality might be "acceptable", but it sure doesn't touch what 70mm can do.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-08-2002, 08:11 AM:

Bobby Henderson said: "...it sure doesn't touch what 70mm can do."

65mm and 70mm films are still readily available from Kodak:
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/colorNeg.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/print.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/inter.pdf

DTS offers a viable 70mm digital sound system.

Labs offer 65mm / 70mm processing and printing.

State-of-the-art 65mm cameras are available.

There are thousands of 35mm/70mm projectors in theatres.

70mm...waiting in the wings to rise again?

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 05-08-2002, 12:45 PM:

According to many of the drive-in owners across the country who played Spiderman this past weekend, most of them received a "special" 35mm IMAX print (what the label on the can read). They were printed 2 points lighter than the indoor versions and the results were tremendous!!

Years ago, studios used to print a special "drive-in print" that was printed lighter to accomodate the light needs of the larger drive-in screens. Since the total number of drive-ins has dropped to around 400 nationwide, the special prints were discontinued somewhere near the mid- 1980's (or so I'm told).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-08-2002, 12:51 PM:

Two printer points (0.05 log printer exposure or 1/6 of a stop) is not much lighter. But that lighter print is not optimum for any "normal" screen that meets the specifications of standard SMPTE 196M (12 to 22 footlamberts, with an aim of 16 footlamberts).