Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70mm Alive And Well In San Francisco

This is topic 70mm Alive And Well In San Francisco 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=004163

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-19-2005, 09:47 AM:

Looks like the Castro in San Francisco has scheduled a 70mm fest for August. Diverse lineup includes the usual suspects ("Lawrence," "2001"...), new "Hello, Dolly!" print, original version of "Apocalypse Now," plus blowups of some well-liked movies.

http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm

http://www.castrotheatre.com

quote:

Aug. 1 ... Vertigo
Aug. 2 ... 2001: A Space Odyssey
Aug. 3 ... Lawrence Of Arabia
Aug. 4 ... The Bridge On The River Kwai
Aug. 5 ... Apocalypse Now
Aug. 6 ... The Road Warrior
Aug. 7 ... Ghostbusters
Aug. 8 ... Dragonslayer
Aug. 9 ... Tommy
Aug. 10 ... Edward Scissorhands
Aug. 11 ... Hello, Dolly!

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-19-2005, 06:19 PM:

Unless it is on a really VAST screen, 70 is just another Yeah, So What. Even then, after the first impression wears off, it's just a movie. Just my opinion guys. I ain't impressed.

If a film is originated on 35, other that the potential for brightness, what is the benefit of a 35 to 70 blowup? The resolution can never be any better than the original 35mm neg.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-19-2005, 07:01 PM:

70mm may be alive in San Francisco, but it certainly isn't "well". If it were well, it'd be more than special venue and many theaters would be playing prints, and new movies would be uprezed from the pathetic HDTV resolution (which Kodak and Dolby feel is plenty good enough for the general public due to their low standards) that they are currently shot/scanned in to 5-perf 70mm prints.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-19-2005, 07:11 PM:

What I find incredibly stupid is all of the IMAX DMR stuff. These are not 4:3 shows but some form of wide screen...as such the picture though still bigger than a 5/70 frame is not that much bigger. If WB wants to really recover their costs...go back to 5/70 and increase the number of venues that can possibly show it and not have to cut IMAX in on the deal. From what I can tell...these new IMAX (MPX?) theatres are not the super big screens normally assoicated with traditional IMAX 15/70 process.

If you are going to show films on that size screen...then 5/70 is the logical choice. What does IMAX have to offer? I guess their DMR process...but I counter with shooting in 65mm...then all prints are improved...even those weird digital ones.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-19-2005, 08:21 PM:

There is a huge difference with 70mm the ability to present films in six-track mag Dolby stereo with split-surrounds, and Lucasfilm THX sound system, yeah 70mm is still very much alive 35mm regular in the days before the dawn of the digital domain, was just a routine film showing leaving 70mm for the eventful road show presentations totally indispensable…

Also I believe a few of those films where shot in 65mm originally like “Lawrence of Arabia” “2001: A Space Odyssey” and the visual effects in “Ghostbusters” where 65mm by “Richard Edlund” Boss group.

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

I love the smell of 70mm six-track Dolby A type, in the morning…

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-19-2005, 09:15 PM:

I agree with Steve, the IMAX DMR stuff is pretty silly. You're going through a very expensive method to deliver something honestly no better than a 5/70 blow-up of a 35mm originated film. On top of that, some the digital methods used to "up-rez" the 35mm film actually introduce other problems into the image.

The IMAX DMR version of "The Matrix: Reloaded" often had this subtle but noticeable flattened newsprint quality imagery happening. It seemed as if the image had been put through something similar to Photoshop's high pass filter to sharpen up things. But it resulted in this dirty look that reminds me of photocopies of photos.

Here's another thing I find extremely stupid:
Giant screen stadium seated theaters with only 35mm projection equipment. Now and then some exhibitor has to open a theater with what they claim is the biggest screen in town or the entire state. The Dallas area has a few of these (two at the Galaxy 9, a couple at the Cinemark 17 - Webb Chapel/LBJ and a couple at the Cinemark in Grapevine). These houses boast screens over 70 feet across. I have never seen 35mm projection equipment properly light any screen that big ever. Only 70mm can do it.

Given the Dallas area has at least seven or more screens like this, it would be a conservative estimate that there are at least more than 100 or 200 of these types of giant screened stadium seated theaters in the United States alone. And they all need 70mm entirely all the time to show a properly bright image. But nooooooooooooo. 35mm on giant screens is good enough. Oh, but wait, let's go one better --VIDEO of roughly HDTV quality on giant screens. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
[Mad]

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-19-2005, 10:30 PM:

Does anyone know how much filming in 70MM would add to a movie not directed by a multitake maniac like Kubrick? And filmmakers could always mix in 35 and 70MM based on the scene and the maximum value of a shot if they can get away with it.

Also how much would printing 100 70MM blowups add to the overall distribution cost ?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-20-2005, 06:16 AM:

Bob Harris has given figures for the shooting aspect of 65mm. I seem to recall that the increase to a typical feature would be on the order of just under 1-million...a rather reasonable amount given the many-millions put into the making of one film.

For distribution...70mm normally represents a 7-10 fold increase in cost. However, those 70mm prints have normally heavily out sold their 35mm counterparts. I would think that the cost of printing in 70mm would vary with the number of prints ordered. The cost of the print stock alone will set you back 2.5 times since 70mm is 25% longer and twice as wide. I believe Mr. Pytlak has stated that 70mm print stock is roughly twice as expensive to purchase.

However...and IMAX release is 3 times more than a standard 5/70. The difference mainly being, the amount of black letter boxing on the IMAX film...one is spending an awful alot of money to project black bars (and print them). Choose 5/70, "its the environmental thing to do!" (now I think I may go puke)

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-20-2005, 07:10 AM:

'Hamlet' managed to shoot on 65mm, and that wasn't a particularly high-budget production; I wouldn't imagine that 'Baraka' was either, but I don't have the figures for it. Of course, there are many productions where this difference would be totally unaffordable, but I would have thought that there would be several each year where it could be justified.

The vast majority of cinemas do not have screens so large that they cannot be reasonably lit with 35mm, though there are some that do.

I think there would be a greater benefit in shooting on 65mm, or Vista or other large format than there would be from making 70mm blow-ups from 35mm productions. Large format origination benefits all cinemas which show the film, not just the few that are equipped to run 70mm (and manage to get hold of a 70mm print). Once you've made the interneg a 35mm print of a 65mm production costs no more than one from a 35mm production, yet gives better quality, with no extra expenditure in distribution or exhibition. I've seen some very good-looking 35mm reduction prints, and these days 70mm no longer has the sound advantage that it used to, given that any new release would be likely to be DTS, which is the same with both gauges. 'West Side Story' had a limited re-release here a few years ago, and the prints of that were as good as any I've seen.

Of course, you would still have the option to make a few 70mm prints if you wanted to for those few venues that do have very large screens.

Where you need a small, lightweight camera the Arri 765 is not much bigger or heavier than a 35mm one. You would still have the reduced depth of field, but with todays faster stocks you could probably shoot at a smaller stop to partially compensate.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2005, 07:47 AM:

The other thing that must be stated regarding 5/70mm or VistaVision 8/35mm for feature film production: it is better for home video release too. Larger film formats deliver superior color quality and image sharpness for transfers to HD and NSTC formats.

The higher resolution of a 5/70 or 8/35 image makes the movie more forward compatible with future video formats than 4/35 or current HD video standards. Given the fact movies can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and market, it would only seem to make sense to protect that very expensive investment by producing the movie in a better quality format.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-20-2005, 08:00 AM:

Vistavision also has extra image area above and below the 2.21:1 area, which gives extra head- and foot-room, allowing for more options to improve the composition of a 1.33 full-frame TV version of the film. Super 35 also has this advantage, but VV will give better quality, due to the larger frame area.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-20-2005, 09:16 AM:

quote: Bill Enos
If a film is originated on 35, other that the potential for brightness, what is the benefit of a 35 to 70 blowup? The resolution can never be any better than the original 35mm neg.

So what. The audience never sees what's on the negative.

Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 07-20-2005, 09:52 AM:

While archaic at this point in time, if one wished to print to both 35 and 70, an interesting alternative, which gave superior results from a stability standpoint, was Technirama.

RAH

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 07-21-2005, 01:15 AM:

Just added 8 more 70mm screenings at the Paramount in Austin.

see www.in70mm.com for details

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 07-21-2005, 01:24 AM:

speaking of the castro, i heard the other day that their upcoming calendar will include some 3-d. i didn't note exactly when. within the last few years they had gotten rid of their silver screen, so i guess this means they got, or will get, another one. (at least one would hope so.)

carl

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 07-21-2005, 02:12 AM:

Fresh thoughts about shooting in 65mm here

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-21-2005, 11:35 AM:

The US list price of Kodak VISION Color Print Film 2383 in the March 1, 2005 catalog was only $ 0.1796 per foot for 70mm, and $ 0.0869 per foot for 35mm.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-21-2005, 02:02 PM:

Okay...70mm cost 2.067 times as much. [Wink]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-21-2005, 02:47 PM:

per foot; then you need 25% more feet of it.

If you make a 70mm print then it will cost much more than a 35mm one; several times as much, even with DTS rather than mag striping. You need to recover that cost from the fairly small number of people that will see that print, you can't charge more at cinema A which is showing a 35mm print just because cinema B in the next town is running it in 70mm. You would probably sell more tickets for a 70mm show than for a 35mm one, but would the difference be enough to recover the extra cost of the print during it's lifetime.

If you shoot in 65mm, or other large format, then the difference in cost applies to the total production budget, and is much smaller in percentage terms. High quality 35mm reduction prints can be run in almost every cinema in the world, and everybody seeing the film would benefit from the higher quality, so you could charge a slightly higher ticket price. Let's say you charge 20 cents more on each ticket sold, with the cinema keeping just a small part of that, after all they have no extra costs in running a film shot in 65mm, and the rest going back to the production company. How many tickets would a film have to sell to recover the extra cost of 65mm production? How many films are produced each year which do sell enough tickets to recover the extra costs. I would have thought that there would be quite a few. I assume that this would be for mainstream titles; I doubt that 65mm would be viable for anything else.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 03:11 PM:

To

Robert Harris

The transfer of “Lawrence of Arabia” to DVD format, now you and “Gene Katz” laboured lovely care into getting all the elements together for major restoration treatment for “Lawrence” back in 1987 was it not, and the 70mm presentation at the “Odeon Marble Arch” in 1988 was fantastic.

Sound and image was all there, and focusing on the dialogue panning was cool, I have say I do like sound, the sound that drives the emotional elements up there on the screen was total indispensable…

But again with the DVD format offering the promise of better performance, well I think someone don’t know who, but there is a scene in the film where “Maurice Jarre” score makes, what sounds like a 2 second jump, my instinct told me to check the other language format….

Oh yes that sound ok but I don’t understand German, switched back to English language, and did I soon get board with it and turned it off…

So what is the funny hear with this as a former cinema projectionist, and we are all consumers hear every one of us, I don’t understand the film was looking good and sounding good until chapter 39, check it out where “Lawrence” walks across the top of the train carriage…

Also other works I have are “Vertigo” & “My Fair Lady” where on the audio commentary you mentioned out how great SDDS is and with the five screen full spectrum channels now back in position.

With HD-DVD on the up and coming horizon, it will be great to have a 10.1 or 10.2 in the home cinema arena with this newer format in home cinema entertainment would it not, five channels up front, two for left and right sides one for the back one for height surround and two LFE channels, not impossible very doable.

And going back to the issue the transfers from film to DVD and HD-DVD have to be monitored by people who care more about the film transfer than the money, I not saying you where not there during the transfer for DVD release, but someone as made a total bodge up, and therefore I have started to lose faith in some of the technicians and re-recording mixes.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-21-2005, 03:11 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I seem to recall that the increase to a typical feature would be on the order of just under 1-million

That sounds about right when the movie "Far and Away" was being shot. Because the added cost is in the Post-Production budget of the feature. From the cutting to the mixing to the final preview screenings. The cost is in 65MM and 35mm film footage and all the Post-Production steps, before the final release 70MM print can be released.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-21-2005, 03:44 PM:

Mr. Furley sez:

quote: Stephen Furley
per foot; then you need 25% more feet of it.

If you make a 70mm print then it will cost much more than a 35mm one; several times as much, even with DTS rather than mag striping.

What I said a couple of posts ago:

quote: Steve Guttag
For distribution...70mm normally represents a 7-10 fold increase in cost. However, those 70mm prints have normally heavily out sold their 35mm counterparts. I would think that the cost of printing in 70mm would vary with the number of prints ordered. The cost of the print stock alone will set you back 2.5 times since 70mm is 25% longer and twice as wide. I believe Mr. Pytlak has stated that 70mm print stock is roughly twice as expensive to purchase.

Now look at that last line of mine...70mm stock being roughly twice that of 35mm according to Mr. P...then John posts and I make my sarcastic remark out to 4 significant figures (since John's price was to the 100th of a penny) which showed that 70mm was roughly 2X the cost of 35mm.

In my quoted post above, I denoted that print costs of 70mm releases are more than a mere 2X and even denoted the 25% increase in length.

Going back in my memory bank...I seem to recall a quote in one of the trades where a 70mm release represented 4% of the screens running the film and they brought in over 20% of the income. Is that due to 70mm or due to the fact these theatres (probably larger than most and in high density areas) is up for speculation. Then again, some of of why people go to do things is for the "event" of it all. 70mm certainly adds to the event feeling. 70mm can often give credibility to a film too...That is make it more significant than it is. This is not always the case but a 70mm theatre will generally get more than its share of attendance.

I know that a large twin theatre we ran had one 70mm screen and on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom...70mm theatre would sell out while the the other theatre would not running same title in 35mm (rather than booking a short run feature we decided to wait for the next big break feature to put in the other auditorium so ran TOD for a couple of weeks on the other screen).

I absolutely think one could charge more for showing a film in 70mm and get the money. There is no question in my mind that a 70mm release would make its money back and in fact would improve the overall bottom line to the studio.

It is hard to do a study though...you can't release a film in 35mm only....see how it does...go back in time and now release the film with a certain percentage of 70mm theatres and see the difference.

There are too many factors in how a film will do. A bad film will do poorly, regadless of film guage...a good film will do well regardless of format. The key to the presentation (including picture/sound quality) is to get the most out of the movie that it has to offer...both artistically and financially. 70mm can't make a bad film good but it can make a good film better.

Of course, I have the position that if you are shooting a wide screen film for a mainstream feature release and don't think it justifies 65mm origination...it probably shouldn't be shot to begin with. (my positions are not always popular ones)

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 03:51 PM:

Hallo there

Steve

What did Indiana Jones and the Temple of doom sound and feel like in Dolby A type and did you have the boys from TAP/THX around to do any alignments for the the exclusive 70mm presentation.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-21-2005, 04:33 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
...70mm theatre would sell out while the the other theatre would not running same title in 35mm...

Gosh, replace "70mm" with the word "Digital" and ya have what's happening in the cinemas with those TV projectors... [Wink]

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-21-2005, 04:47 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I seem to recall a quote in one of the trades where a 70mm release represented 4% of the screens running the film and they brought in over 20% of the income.

Were you thinking of this from a 1982 issue of Variety:

quote:
Paramount Pictures worked 68 70mm copies of Star Trek II. Impressive statistic is that some 20 percent of Trek's $60,000,000-plus gross has been earned in only four percent of its theaters — those booking the 70mm version.

Another example from 1984 trade coverage and incorporated into the following Indiana Jones
article

quote:
The gamble with making a lot of expensive large format prints (which cost roughly eight times that of standard 35mm) paid off as it was reported following the film's first week of release that the 70mm engagements, which were booked into 13 percent of the theatres playing the film, accounted for 30 percent of the total gross. Lucasfilm Ltd. Senior Vice President Sid Ganis told the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner at the time that "everything George [Lucas] and Steven [Spielberg] have been hoping for — an awareness by exhibitors and audiences of the value of a quality presentation — has come of age."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-21-2005, 05:35 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I absolutely think one could charge more for showing a film in 70mm and get the money.

Isn't that already happening with some of these IMAX DMR releases, such as "Batman Begins" or "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"? Those DMR movies will typically be found on an IMAX screen in a multiplex where 35mm versions of the same film can be found (and watched for less money).

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-21-2005, 05:41 PM:

Steve,

So we both agree that the cost of a 70mm print is going to be considerably greater, several times, the cost of a 35mm one. The question then is whether, and how, the extra revenue generated by the 70mm print can recover the extra cost involved in producing it.

quote: Steve Guttag

Going back in my memory bank...I seem to recall a quote in one of the trades where a 70mm release represented 4% of the screens running the film and they brought in over 20% of the income. Is that due to 70mm or due to the fact these theatres (probably larger than most and in high density areas) is up for speculation. Then again, some of of why people go to do things is for the "event" of it all. 70mm certainly adds to the event feeling. 70mm can often give credibility to a film too...That is make it more significant than it is. This is not always the case but a 70mm theatre will generally get more than its share of attendance.

I know that a large twin theatre we ran had one 70mm screen and on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom...70mm theatre would sell out while the the other theatre would not running same title in 35mm (rather than booking a short run feature we decided to wait for the next big break feature to put in the other auditorium so ran TOD for a couple of weeks on the other screen).

I don't disagree with what you say here, either.

quote: Steve Guttag
I absolutely think one could charge more for showing a film in 70mm and get the money. There is no question in my mind that a 70mm release would make its money back and in fact would improve the overall bottom line to the studio.

Ah, I think you have misunderstood what I said; maybe I didn't word it very well. You could charge extra for a 70mm presentation, and I agree that you would probably still get more people through the doors than you would if you had been showing 35mm. However, the number of people who will see the film in 70mm will be only a small proportation of the total number who see it in all formats. Let's say that 10% see it in 70mm. I think that figure would be somewhat opimistic, given that there are large areas, and entire countries, that have no 70mm equipped cinemas, but let's use that figure for now. You could charge those 10% a higher price, but only those 10%. You couldn't charge extra to the 90% who see the film in 35mm, or indeed who see it at home on DVD, on the grounds that other people somewhere had seen it on 70mm. You would be able to generate extra revenue from only a small percentage of the total audience to pay for the much more expensive prints.

I contrast this situation with that for 65mm production where all of the total audience will experience improved quality, and can therefore be expected to contribute to the additional cost which, in terms of the total production budget will be relatively small, say 5%. Obviously it will vary somewhat for different films.

quote:

There are too many factors in how a film will do. A bad film will do poorly,

I'm not sure I agree with you here, there are plenty of films where my assessment of them differs from that of the general population. What do you mean by a 'good' film, or a 'bad' film? There have been many films which I thought were absolute junk, which did very well, and vica versa.

I'm certainly not opposed to 70mm projection, but I don't think it will ever account for more than a few percent of the total audience for a film. I think that 65mm production would benefit more people, and be easier to justify financially; and as I said before, you can stil make a few 70mm prints if you want to for venues that need them. Maybe if more films were being shot in 65mm, or Vista, or Technirama it would even be a spur to more 70mm exhibition.

quote: Steve Guttag
Of course, I have the position that if you are shooting a wide screen film for a mainstream feature release and don't think it justifies 65mm origination...it probably shouldn't be shot to begin with. (my positions are not always popular ones)

My views are frequently unpopular on various newsgroups to which I contribute; uk.railway, for example.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-21-2005, 06:20 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Going back in my memory bank...I seem to recall a quote in one of the trades where a 70mm release represented 4% of the screens running the film and they brought in over 20% of the income. Is that due to 70mm or due to the fact these theatres (probably larger than most and in high density areas) is up for speculation.

What we're really asking here is to what extent are customers willing to seek out and pay more for top-end technical presentation quality? My take on this one is that clearly (as in, clear to someone with no technical knowledge of cinema projection) bad presentation has an instant negative effect, but that above average technical presentation has a gradual and cumulative positive effect.

If a theatre continually has false fire alarms which stop shows, or the lamp is worn out and flickers like a dim candle, or the sound is so badly EQed that you can't understand the dialogue, I've known friends and relatives who've consciously decided to go to another cinema because they came out of the last one with a headache or not having understood the plot of the film. But if they see a flawlessly presented 70mm print they won't instantly decide to come back on account of the good technical presentation. More likely, that'll be one (in their mind) of the things which added up to a nice evening out. They'll probably go again the next time a film is on they like the sound of, word will get round the town and locality, and the cinema will build up a solid customer base from there.

IMHO, if 70mm is going to make a comeback as a technical selling point, it can't be a short term quick fix: no-one is going to justify higher ticket prices simply by whacking up a poster announcing a 70mm presentation. 99.99% of the population will neither know nor care what 70mm is, and the 00.01% who do will seek out and find good presentation regardless of what you charge them. Over the months and years, however, and assuming you do all the other things right as well, having a 70mm print may give you the edge over the venue on the other side of town which doesn't. But if 70mm projection is to make a sustained comeback, my guess is that it'll take that sort of long-term commitment to make it work.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-21-2005, 07:10 PM:

I think WB can highlight their 70MM movies through synergy. They can get CNN and other Time Warner channels to hype 70MM to a new generation. It's not like the media picks all their stories independently anyway. From what I read here, 70MM adds less than 5% of the cost for a typical blockbuster. I don't see why studios can't make 20 or so 70MM movies a year. It will pay off in the long run with higher quality masters. It will make people differentiate theater going from dvd sales.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-21-2005, 07:28 PM:

All of you "Bring back 70mm" advocates crack me up. You're dreaming. 70mm MISSED THE BOAT! It's like Elvis...many believers, but like him, 570 is dead.

While there was a time-window where it might have been a viable release format, not any longer. Video is the wave of the future...ride it.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 07:39 PM:

70mm 5pef as left the building!!!!

Like the dinosaur, its had its shot, and that saddens me, all there is, is the memories of the good ole days… Long

Long live 70mm 5perf…

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-21-2005, 07:48 PM:

What the heck is 5pef?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-21-2005, 08:09 PM:

Andy, you ***REALLY*** have to clean up your act.

In your posts, you're coming across as a 12 y/o kid and/or someone that has NO clue of the English language.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 08:23 PM:

Phil

Sorry about that, I’m just enjoying the evening with some “cream soda” and a good ole DVD running “Chicago” Dolby THX via the JBL, I don’t always proof read the whole thing that I’m typing out.

Its juts the way I type, and my hand writing is a whole lot worse…

So guys please bare with me, as I do with others…

And by the way I’m 38, acting like a 16 year old tonight not 12 as that’s not best time in my life!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-21-2005, 08:23 PM:

quote: Andy Summers
What did Indiana Jones and the Temple of doom sound and feel like in Dolby A type and did you have the boys from TAP/THX around to do any alignments for the the exclusive 70mm presentation.

Yes, yes we did have TAP inspections. Mr. Larry Shaw of Boston Light & Sound fame came down to do the K-B Cinema...we even passed.

quote: Phil Hill
Gosh, replace "70mm" with the word "Digital" and ya have what's happening in the cinemas with those TV projectors...

The problem there is that the Digital shows are NOT doing the numbers that 70mm did. Furthermore...digital shows are stiving to replace 35mm film as a mainstream format. 70mm was always a premium format denoted by being superior to its counterparts. That would appear to be true in the Digital TV era until their resolution gets up there.

quote:
Were you thinking of this from a 1982 issue of Variety:

WOW...to remember an article that happened 23 years ago! To get the numbers right too! Damn I must be right about everything! [Wink]

quote: Bobby Henderson
Isn't that already happening with some of these IMAX DMR releases

That was my point earlier...that the IMAX DMR stuff of widescreen films is showing the power of 70mm only that 5/70 can be done for a whole lot less $$.

quote: Stephen Furley
However, the number of people who will see the film in 70mm will be only a small proportation of the total number who see it in all formats. Let's say that 10% see it in 70mm.

You say this and yet two articles posted above yours just gave numbers where 70mm representing less than 5% of the theatres yielded 20% or better of the gross.

Those articles allude to the fact that 70mm draws considerably more than the same theatre running 35mm.

quote: Stephen Furley
What do you mean by a 'good' film, or a 'bad' film?

I was referring to grosses...not content. A film that only does 5 million dollars in 35mm will not shoot up to 100 million by the mere presence of 70mm theatres showing the film. I do feel that a 100 million dollar film will do more than the increased cost of the prints in increased sales and ticket revenue to justtify the prints.

quote: Stephen Furley
I'm certainly not opposed to 70mm projection, but I don't think it will ever account for more than a few percent of the total audience for a film.

Again, Michael has already posted financial evidence to the contrary.

quote: Phil Hill
Video is the wave of the future

Of this, I have no doubt. However, there is no reason why 70mm releases can not resume. IMAX has proven their viability in this day and age. Past experience with the format has shown it only helps overall attendance. Digital presentations move the preception of the "theatre experience" closer to the home experience. 70mm has always pushed the "theatre experience" as something far superior than what you can get at home. There is no reason to shun it.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 08:31 PM:

What would the cost be to buy “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” today be that is to own it for your self?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-21-2005, 08:44 PM:

$13.46 ($1.26 used) from Amazon, on VHS. $55.48 for the trilogy on DVD.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 09:14 PM:

Sorry about that Daryl, I meant…

The 70mm print, how much will “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” cost….

And yes I have the DVD trilogy, “Last Crusade” looks and sounds, like it did 16 years ago fantastic.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-21-2005, 09:22 PM:

The films are not for sale, Andy.

Further replies need to be on topic.

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-21-2005, 09:27 PM:

Sorry about that Brad, thanks for that bit of information, will do...

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-21-2005, 09:42 PM:

Phil is correct (unfortunately). 70mm in regular theatres is DEAD and it ain't coming back. Not gonna happen. It may be fun to discuss it, but it's all irrelevant. Video is the future.

Why isn't anyone beating the drum for better 35mm print quality? As it is, it seems that 35mm release prints are rarely as good as they could be (according to knowledgable people on this forum). So if video gives the perception of improved quality over current release prints, then we will have moved forward.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-21-2005, 09:48 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
The problem there is that the Digital shows are NOT doing the numbers that 70mm did...

But Steve, back when 70mm was "THE THING", a release, whether 35 only or 35/70mm, was NOT showing on 3500+ screens like today's releases. The ratio is totally different... There is NO comparison.

quote: Steve Guttag
70mm was always a premium format denoted by being superior to its counterparts. That would appear to be true in the Digital TV era until their resolution gets up there.

That was true way back when... but today's theatre-going generation is bombarded by and tuned into the marketing HYPE of "Digital! Therefore it MUST be better!"...NO MATTER the resolution. (Duh.... "Resolution"? ...isn't that something you promise for the New Year?)

Just look at Kodak and Dolby as to what "they" say is acceptable digital picture quality. While us pros know the facts, it's a sad commentary on the selling off of (and by) the industry to the general public for the sake of saving a few $$$.

quote: Steve Guttag
...there is no reason why 70mm releases can not resume. IMAX has proven their viability in this day and age...

Oh PULEEZE! That is sooo lame! You know as well as I do it's all about the "IMAX" name and hype. Nothing to do with what is better!

EDIT:

quote: David Stambaugh
Phil is correct (unfortunately)

So Dave, it's unfortunate that ***I'M*** correct, me, myself as a person?
OR,
It's unfortunate I'm correct in what I'm spouting?
[Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-21-2005, 10:48 PM:

Video may be the future.

However, video is a format that typically plays in homes. As video of HDTV quality gets pushed off on movie theaters I think that will be just one of a number of other factors that threatens the very existence of traditional commercial movie theaters.

Many insist 70mm isn't coming back. Perhaps not for commercial releases. But the business model of regular feature films is not doing a Goddamned thing to support traditional movie theaters. In the long run special venue may be the only thing left standing.

I was talking with a friend who is an assistant manager at the Carmike location here in Lawton. We were comparing the home video climate of 10 years ago to that of today. It's an extremely different climate, and I think it is one of the things making business tougher for movie theaters.

A decade ago, it would take as much as a year for a movie to hit VHS. And when movies arrived on VHS, most were priced for rental -that is something along the lines of $89.95 for a freaking VHS tape. It would take another six months or longer for the movie to go to "sell through" pricing. If the movie was a really good show, you had to see it at the commercial theater or wait a fairly significant amount of time for the video, especially if you wanted to buy it.

DVD has always been priced as a sell through item. But even in the early days of DVD most movies would take at least several months to debut on the format. The players were more expensive as well. And the majority of VHS tapes were still debuting with rental pricing. Some movies would take more than a year after release to hit DVD. Remember "Saving Private Ryan"? I seem to remember "American Beauty" taking around a year to hit DVD. Again, if you just had to see the show soon after it debuted you had to watch it on the big screen.

Now that isn't the case. It typically takes less than 6 months for a major event release to appear on DVD. A good number of releases may take 3 months or less to go from big screen release to discs hitting store shelves.

With all the "video is the future" push of digital projection in theaters, the combination of video projection, rising ticket prices and generally bland releases spells a lot of trouble for commercial cinemas, IMHO. I can see people installing decent quality HDTV setups in their home -all with the claims that it is every bit as good as anything in the theater. And you know what they're going to do with that setup? They're going to play their Goddamned X-Box 360 games on it.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-21-2005, 11:03 PM:

Bobby, calm down...take a valium.

No matter how bleak of a picture you paint for commercial movie houses, they will survive. Perhaps NOT in the current numbers, but simply because people WANT to get away from their home NO MATTER how kewl their home theatre is.

That includes mom and dad as well as the teens wanting to "get lucky" that night without adult constraints..

All that will NEVER change.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-21-2005, 11:11 PM:

Phil, I meant it's unfortunately correct that 70mm is NOT coming back. Never, ever, no how, no way. We can crunch the numbers till we're blue in the face and talk about how 70mm could work and be cost-effective and draw crowds, but it's just not gonna happen. Though I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Looking 10 years down the road, I bet there will be 30%-40% fewer screens nationwide than we have now (I pulled those numbers out of my ass - the point is there will be substantially fewer screens). Marginal theatres that today are barely profitable, will be shut down. Those are the ones where the digital conversion doesn't pencil out due to a combination of dated amenities (like no stadium seating), poor original design, neglect that's reached the point of no return, and/or lousy locations. Viable locations will be converted to digital (and of course new builds will be digital within a few years). But to survive they will have to put on a pretty darned good show. Which is why d-cinema has to be damned good and not just good enough.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 07-22-2005, 01:34 AM:

I want to thank Michael for posting this thread. I had no idea this was coming up, and would have missed it if I hadn't read this post. I will probably try to make several of these screenings. It will be difficult to make the drive into SF for some of the earlier ones on weeknights, but it will be worth it.

My only lament is that it's the Castro which is showing these. It's a well run theatre, but unfortunately they have an academy ratio screen. When showing 5/70, they use top masking. The resulting image is awfully small. I saw "2001" there a few years ago, and while I was glad I went, it was a little frustrating the screen wasn't bigger. Something like the Century 21 in San Jose would be a much better venue for a festival like this.

I'm almost more interested in what's on the Casto's calendar for the weeks following the 70mm screenings, namely, 35mm screenings of Harold Lloyd films such as "Saftey Last".

I forsee myself spending a lot of time driving to SF in August. Thanks again for posting this Michael!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-22-2005, 05:35 PM:

quote: Phil Hill
No matter how bleak of a picture you paint for commercial movie houses, they will survive. Perhaps NOT in the current numbers, but simply because people WANT to get away from their home NO MATTER how kewl their home theatre is.

"Perhaps not in the current numbers" is the point I think is worth underscoring. Sure, some premiere class theaters in big city centers and other high traffic locations may survive in some form. I think the theaters that do survive in the long term will have to reinvent themselves.

It is tough to predict what will happen to business in the future, be it good or bad. It seemed like stadium seating would be really great for business in 1995 when the AMC Grand 24 in Dallas helped start that building trend. I would not have predicted so many circuits would go into bankruptcy by the decade's end.

I think the not better than HDTV quality of digital cinema and the shortened video release windows of movies in the long run can be a very bad combination for theaters in most suburbs, smaller cities and towns. Exhibitors will operate unprofitable theaters for only so long. Sure, there's always going to be some people who will visit a theater even if they have to sit in lawn chairs. But you've gotta have enough of those customers to stay in business.

I saw a commercial last night advertising the DVD release of "XXX: State of the Union." Didn't this movie get released to theaters at the end of this past April -just a few weeks ago?

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 07-25-2005, 05:07 AM:

quote: Aaron Haney
My only lament is that it's the Castro which is showing these. It's a well run theatre, but unfortunately they have an academy ratio screen. When showing 5/70, they use top masking. The resulting image is awfully small. I saw "2001" there a few years ago, and while I was glad I went, it was a little frustrating the screen wasn't bigger.

Top masking is not evil in itself. Its application at the Castro is correct, yielding the best presentation.

Top masking is evil in modern auditoriums, which are short, so they chop the top of small screens for wider pictures. The Castro is a proscenium theatre, so it's design difference is that it's about a billion times taller than neccessary for pictures of a wide aspect ratio when they extend from the left & right extremities of the screen. Having top (& side masking) means that the Castro (& other proscenium theatres) can carve out the largest picture possible from the screen area for all formats. They only have an "academy ratio" screen when the top masking is completely out & the side masking in all the way. With the logic of wider aspect ratio movies not being good at the Castro because the top masking comes in, it would also be neccessary to say academy ratio pictures aren't good there because the side masking comes in. In fact, the top & side masking make possible the largest pictures possible on that screen.

There's a picture of the Castro's original screen here, & its current, larger front end here.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-26-2005, 08:43 PM:

quote: Phil Hill
But Steve, back when 70mm was "THE THING", a release, whether 35 only or 35/70mm, was NOT showing on 3500+ screens like today's releases. The ratio is totally different... There is NO comparison.

You are so wrong. Back when 70mm was "THE THING" as you put it...it DOMINATED the available audience...it matters not how many screens are showing it...you could (and did) have 35mm screens within the same theatre and people waited for the 70mm show. People would and did drive right by a theatre with a 35mm version and go to the 70mm theatre. All the screen count would do is FURTHER slant the number of theatres running the film in 70mm versus the amount of money made by 70mm. More people are not going to the movies due to screen count...the 70mm theatres would just take their high percentage of the pie.

quote:
Oh PULEEZE! That is sooo lame! You know as well as I do it's all about the "IMAX" name and hype. Nothing to do with what is better!

How can you claim my statement was lame when you throw out that "Status quo" statement that is total crap. The IMAX name is not what is bringing the people in beyond the perception of quality associated with the IMAX name. Just like 70mm. About the only time 70mm took hits in its time was when it was for 1.85:1 films where most people also mistook 70mm for the widest picture format. I even had a manger come into the booth while running ET in 70mm in 1982 to measure the width of the film to verify it was 70mm and not somewhat skinnier.

5/70mm is the real deal and it has always delivered. Give it a film worth showing and it will bring em to YOUR theatre. If people want to convert Hollywood product to IMAX...I suggest they give FlixFx a shot...then they will have Sky, Sky, SKY!!!

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 07-27-2005, 04:03 PM:

I also think 5/70 is a better choice than DMR, but I should point out that I have never seen a DMR print.

The 5/70 shows I've run/seen were more satisfying experiences than any Imax film I've run/seen. Resolution aside, some 35mm shows I've run were more enjoyable than Imax due to the level of showmanship involved.

The MPX projectors, which are hawked as being more monkey friendly, may cause plexes to multitask the Imax operator and have shows running unattended. And even with the flattener on auto-cycle, shows cannot run completely unattended. The FF still needs to be manually hit once and a while and sometimes auto-cycle needs to be turned off.

If a mega-plex has a filmguarded 35mm print in one house and a DMR print in an unattended MPX booth, it's possible that the 35mm version will be the better show, because of the lack of crap on screen. And this is assuming there's no film damage.

When you consider 5/70 can be filmguarded, can have a curtain, is cheaper, and is big enough for the mini-large-format auditoriums, the choice is obvious. 5/70 is the way to go.

[ 07-27-2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: George Roher ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-27-2005, 05:36 PM:

1000 and 2000 print releases were common throughout the 1980's and much of the 1990's. I have quite a few stack ad clippings from the late 1980's showing legions of theaters playing a movie like "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" where huge numbers of theaters had 35mm prints and a few 70mm bookings would be peppered throughout the area.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 07-28-2005, 03:23 AM:

William: Admittedly I have not been to the Castro in several years, but I have seen two films, "2001: A Space Oddessy" and "Metropolis", there within a relatively short time frame. Perhaps things have changed since, or I am remembering incorrectly, but it certainly appeared to me at the time that the width of the screen was the same between both screenings, and only top masking was employed to reach the 2.20:1 ratio for "2001".

I found the screen size when set up for 2.20:1 to be frustratingly small. I ended up sitting on the very front row for "2001", and still felt the viewing angle was a bit small. As I said, unless things have changed since or I am remembering incorrectly, I expect to find the same circumstances when I go back for this festival. Not to say I won't enjoy it, but I do wish the screen were bigger than when I saw "2001".