Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kodak to get out of the FILM business?

This is topic Kodak to get out of the FILM business? 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=004963

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-09-2007, 08:18 AM:

Well it was bound to happen sooner or later. I've felt that Kodak's more recent ways of handling the film business makes them look like they are in the plywood and nails business. This article below does not sway my feelings any. Rather that clutivating a niche market for their film products and sizing the film divisions appropriately. They instead choose to slam the door on their 100-years of invoation and leadership in FILM.

Here is the article.

quote:
Kodak may pull down the shutters on film business
James Doran in New York

Kodak is considering hiving off its traditional photographic film arm and selling or spinning off the business it created more than a century ago.

The business, which has long been in decline, could raise as much as $1.5 billion (£664 million), according to Wall Street analysts.

Antonio Perez, the chief executive of Kodak, who came in three years ago to turn around the ailing company, believes that the traditional film business has just a decade of growth ahead of it.

To get out of traditional film would be a watershed for Kodak, the company that invented the consumer camera and pioneered the modern film industry. The business has been in decline for years as the photographic industries have been overtaken by the digital revolution.

Mr Perez told The Timesthat the Hollywood movie industry is the last big film customer in the world, but that digitisation is gathering pace.

“Digital film is in its infancy in Hollywood, but in maybe three years we will see much more of it,” Mr Perez said, adding that he expected Hollywood to have almost completed the switch to digital within ten years.

He declined to comment about a possible sale or spin-off of the film business, but a source close to the company said that the idea had been discussed by Kodak board members and senior executives and was well within the realms of possibility.

“We will do whatever is good for this company and whatever is good for shareholders,” Mr Perez said.

Analysts welcomed the talk of a potential sale of Kodak’s film business, as it would enable the company to devote much-needed resources to its burgeoning print and digital arms, which lag behind the industry leaders.

Most analysts believe, however, that Kodak’s film business will not command a high price because its fortunes are clearly declining in America and Europe. Sales of traditional camera film have many more years of growth remaining in Asia and parts of the Third World, however, where digital technology has not yet gained a strong foothold.

Asian movie centres, such as Bollywood, are also expected to use film longer than the Hollywood industry.

Even so, most analysts believe that the business would command a price only equal to about 0.5 times annual sales.

Sam Doctor, a JPMorgan analyst who covers Kodak, estimates that the company’s traditional film business will make sales of about $3.4 billion in 2007, declining to about $2.7 billion in 2008.

He said that the Kodak arm also owns a large amount of valuable real estate that could inflate its value.

Call me a Luddite, but it's just magic
Graham Wood: Analysis

For all of my 35 years as a photographer, I have always used film. Partly it’s because I am a Luddite, partly because film is just magic.

It is a much richer medium in which to work, even though digital has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of quality. Now, with a photograph reproduced in a newspaper, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two media.

My problem with digital is the way it encourages photographers to work. Because you can see the end result instantly on the back of your camera, it takes your mind off the creative process of taking a photograph.

Another issue is that film is honest; digital photos are easily manipulated.

Of course, the huge advantage of digital is speed, but, if you have time, as I do on a weekly magazine, then there is all the time in the world to make adjustments.

Film has a lasting endurance. It is the true medium for photographers. Do you think Ansell Adams would have used digital?

— Graham Wood is the director of photography for The Times Magazine

Posted by Mark DeLettera (Member # 125) on 02-09-2007, 09:06 AM:

Ahhhhh....
Anothe reason for my early retirement. [Big Grin]

How does that saying go?..... "I read the handwriting on the wall!"
[Cool]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-09-2007, 10:18 AM:

FWIW, there are still new motion picture film development programs underway at Kodak. In other words, Kodak is still investing millions of dollars in the motion picture FILM business. [thumbsup]

The vast majority of feature films, high-end commercials, and television dramas are still shot on film. The vast majority of theatre screens still show print FILM. The motion picture film business is still a significant source of revenue, cash flow, and profits. [Smile]

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-09-2007, 10:30 AM:

Mr. Perez was formerly with Hewlett - Packard so you know where his mind set is. [Frown]

I am maintaining a museum exhibit in Miami displaying films of "obsolete" manufacturing practices and abandoned sites. One display is a 40 minute tour of Kodak - France film manufacturing and coating factory showing the detailed process of producing X-Ray film...another division I think that has recently sold [uhoh]

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-09-2007, 01:18 PM:

What's Kodak supposed to do though? By years end Carmike will be completely converted to digital, that's 2,400 screens in 1 and 1/2 years. When Technicolor and NEC ramp their installs to the same level as Christie/Access IT there will be even more film screen 'going dark' each year.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-09-2007, 03:03 PM:

Interesting that Perez 'believes that the traditional film business has just a decade of growth ahead of it.' Given that film has 80% disappeared from the consumer still photography market in the west already and that bulk movie release printing is about the only mass production market left, I guess he actually means that the number of 35mm movie prints being made will grow for the next decade. Given that the mass conversion to digital projection is already underway in the US, he must think that developing countries are going to stick with film for quite a long time.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-09-2007, 03:19 PM:

International will probably stick to film longer in some markets due to the potential flood of used projection equipment, large screens, small print runs of higher quality than we are seeing in the USA.......
Interest in digital projection in these same markets are cinemas not able to get a print in good condition. Their existing projection is of poor enough quality that a cheap video projector is better....the studios may want DCI specs but not all international exhibitors ( who in some cases also are the distributor ) will go for the ride........

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-09-2007, 03:47 PM:

Film is the heart and soul of Kodak, so selling its soul as it were, may not actually deliver shareholder value.

So what if Kodak becomes another inkjet printing and digital imaging specialist? There are multitudes of companies doing that already. What will differentiate Kodak in those markets, except perhaps price? But even that may not be sufficient.

Other companies have done this kind of thing in the past, only to see their fortunes plummet. If they go down this route, there will be nothing stopping a takeover by another printing / imaging concern and then the company could disappear forever.

I agree with Steve Guttag above when he talks about cultivating a niche product. What has to happen is the re-positioning of film as a high-quality, valuable product, rather like expensive artists' materials (there's a sense of that in the piece by The Times Magazine's director of photography).

One of the successful tactics used by some from outside the cinema industry in promoting digital acquisition and exhibition, is to falsely position film as "old school" and "obsolete". But that is just wrong. For example, oil painting has its roots in the Middle Ages, if not before. But Oils are still used today. Film looks positively youthful in that context, and its chemistry and make-up are up-to-the-minute.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-09-2007, 06:02 PM:

Carmike's 2400 screens (or so) while significant is not a major switch to digital yet. It represents about 6.5%. Once they are done, they are done and there are no major influxes on the horizon yet for DCinema...Regal Cinemedia is going to experiment with it and if THEY make the switch...that is 14,000 screens for their group with Regal, AMC and others...that is the one to watch.

Furthermore, I still don't see the business sense from other than the distributor for digital...the equipment costs more to buy and obsoletes many times faster.

I think Kodak throws in the towel on their technology completely when instead they can cultivate niche markets and merely downsize the division appropriately. It is one thing to respond to changing market conditiions and it is another to throw any market you may have away.

In my opinion...if Kodak ceases film manufacture, Kodak as a company will not be around 2-decades after it stops. It isn't that Kodak is not inovative in other fronts but it is only a player at that point. Kodak should do some really long range studies as to where film can survive in the future and then continue down that path(s) for what is left of the film division(s) in addition to its other areas of excellence. I don't think it is an all or nothing situation...however I do think it is a necessary but not sufficient situation.

What Kodak should still do is promote its best format for cinemas...70mm IMAX is way too small a market. It should invest some of its million dollar investments in getting 65mm photography back into production and also into release prints. It is film at its best. If the powers that be think that film is going to go bust in 10-years....I doubt any R&D into new film processes/stocks...etc will change that enough to be worth the investment. Then again, changing the playing field by extending film's usefullness in cinemas will make future R&D worthwhile.

From what I can tell, exhibitors only seem to be getting DCinema equipment when it is practically given to them. It is hard to compete with free (or near free)...but when one has to foot the bill, it is another story. Film is still financially viable...DCinema really isn't...it doesn't generate the extra revenue to offset its significant extra expense (to somebody).

I'm a little curious...if AIX goes bust...what happens to the Carmike theatres that converted?

[ 02-09-2007, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Steve Guttag ]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-09-2007, 06:37 PM:

Any word on fuji's plans for the future?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-10-2007, 12:57 AM:

That is a good question Steve (about AIX going bust) and one I've wondered about for a bit myself-not that there is any sign of them going bust of course, just an idle thought.

At my level on the 'totem pole' I'm not privy to such information, but if I had to guess I would be very surprised if in the short term (5 to 10 years) if AccessIT is in any danger of going under. Besides virtual print fee's AccessIT is also a distributor of digital content right along with Technicolor/Deluxe, so that is another revenue stream they have going for them.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-10-2007, 03:58 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
From what I can tell, exhibitors only seem to be getting DCinema equipment when it is practically given to them.

That was precisely the business model which drove the conversion to sound in the late '20s (about the nearest comparison we've got to this cycle of technological change, IMHO). The mass conversion started by the vertically integrated studios (Warners, then Fox, then the others) cross-subsidising the kitting up of their theatres with proprietary technology (Vitaphone, Movietone and Photophone) from other revenue streams. A market in cheaper, generic solutions for the independent houses (e.g. the De Forest pirate system, Powers Cinephone etc.) then followed in the wake of this process.

OK, we don't have the same structure of vertical integration in the industry now, but from what I can see the money is starting to move around it to enable the mass rollout of digital projection in similar ways. The entire conversion process took around 6-7 years (in the US and Europe) from the tipping point in the autumn of 1926: interesting to compare that with Perez's prediction that film will remain a viable growth market for about 10 from now.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-10-2007, 04:02 PM:

Agreed with pretty much everything that Steve said.

I think that this would be a dumb move on Kodak's part, but I can see their reasoning behind at least considering it.

In any case, I'm not sure that it would make much of a difference to the end user. As long as there is a market for the product, someone, somewhere will produce it.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 02-10-2007, 10:44 PM:

I thought that John Pytlak already answered the question. Also, Cameron asked about Fuji’s plans. And Agfa doesn’t seem to have disppeared either. Steve’s take on the topic is pertinent. Premium film presentation is the future.

The proposition that digital will handle standard programming is true, but the delivery will be via home and portable media, not theatrical.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-11-2007, 07:41 AM:

I just don't see 70mm providing any kind of value justifying retaining film for theaters. Reasons are: I see no real demand by the public for higher-quality on screen image. (I feel the recent IMAX/35mm conversions too small a market to conclude people want that kind of quality.) They accepted the 1.3K digital projector, which was too "pixel-ly" for me. With digital, every show at least looks *ok*, while one moron can ruin a 35mm print in one showing.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-11-2007, 10:49 AM:

While seemingly a good idea I see several problems with this 'premium film presentation' idea. First of all let us not forget that it is the studios who are pushign DCinema. Right now they are producing both 35mm and digital prints, but how long do you think that will continue? Steve is right of course, in the scheme of things Carmike's conversion isn't that many screens. REG is the one to watch for, but I have a hard time believing their conversion will be that far off. When REG and others take the plunge there will be a drastic reduction in the number of 35mm prints that need to be made every week. Like any business I imagine the film business benefits from an 'economy of scale'. Once you take away the volume the costs are going to go up, making it even more in the studios interests to finance conversion.

I just don't see the studios spending say $10,000 per print (a number I pulled out of thin air I'll admit) for a few hundred screens (at most) across the US.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-11-2007, 11:12 AM:

I think it would be a bad idea for Kodak to get out of the film business for a number of reasons.

Movies look better when they are originated on film. Digital video camera technology still does not duplicate the aesthetic look or level of sharpness capable of standard 4-perf 35mm cinematography. It isn't even remotely close to the image quality capabilities of 5-perf 70mm. The "all digital" process is just faster and more convenient.

Often it is very easy to tell when a movie or TV show has been shot on video. Lots of computer post processing has to be done to the imagery to make it look reasonably close to the look of film. But even in the most finely tuned of "all digital" productions (Sin City, the last two Star Wars prequels) you see that video-ish look reveal itself from time to time. In other big budget movies, such as Collateral the difference is very obvious.

I agree Kodak and others like Agfa should be working aggressively to get large format film production re-introduced into film production. They need to work directly with some movie studios and high end movie theaters on making limited 5/70 release practical. But more important, the movies themselves need to be originated on a large format, organic process like 5/65mm so the movies can have a much longer practical shelf life. I guarantee a movie properly shot in 5/65mm today will still look great decades from now and be able to stand up to whatever home video formats are popular then. Movies shot in today's level of video technology won't look as good. They're only good for today.

I think Hollywood studios would hurt themselves severely if they just started shooting all their movies on video instead of film. A certain kind of aesthetic magic would be gone.

The conversion to digital projection will happen for most garden variety multiplex locations. So many of them have small-ish screens, low seat counts in the auditoriums and just don't have the customer traffic levels to support something like 70mm. Theaters with large seat counts and giant-sized screens really need 70mm.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-11-2007, 05:46 PM:

quote: John Walsh
I see no real demand by the public for higher-quality on screen image.

When you see how much money so many are willing to spend on HD plasma screens, I see a huge demand and an audience that is going to get more and more discerning. Changing marketplaces are taken seriously by many industries.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Digital video camera technology still does not duplicate the aesthetic look or level of sharpness capable of standard 4-perf 35mm cinematography.

Yes but for how much longer, I thought the print of "Prairie Home Companion" looked superb, very sharp and filmic, dispite being originated on HD cam, I have also seen other digital productions that have been very interesting visually.

How much longer will it take to produce higher megapixal motion picture cameras, Say the Arri with say a 10 megapixal pick up instead of a 3 ect. The rapid advances in the domestic still camera market will eventually get to a stage that will leave film results behind, with digital motion picture technology following.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-11-2007, 11:57 PM:

The problem is Arri and Panavision have no digital video cameras that equal the image quality capabilities of any of their 35mm counterparts, much less anything of larger format like 65mm. And the situation will remain that way for a long while.

There is a tyranny of the 2K standard. The 1920 X 1080 format (and various off-shoots around it) will persist for a long long time. While very short windows of release exist between theatrical and home video release that 2K standard will continue to hold back progress in certain areas of digital technology. Already the gaming industry is leaving behind certain parts of the film industry when it comes to product development that drives computer technology forward. A lot of visual effects companies are losing their best talent to gaming studios for the lethargy attached to the very outdated 2K standard.

Formats like 5/70mm can show off the benefits of higher CGI standards like 4K, 6K and 8K. The computer hardware is already in existence to be able to create such imagery in a practical manner. Computer processing power is expanding by a great deal, but Hollywood is doing absolutely NOTHING to take advantage of it. They're only pursuing the cheap-ass way to take advantage of it. And that's just doing 2K in an ever faster, cheaper manner. They're doing nothing at all in raising the bar of quality. Nothing. Honestly, we should be at 4K as the de-facto standard with a hard push moving to 6K and 8K. Large format, analog processes like 5/70mm can do justice to those processes.

But you have the problem that Hollywood studios just don't have any respect for the theatrical release platform anymore. They just can't wait for the DVD release. You only have to render just so many pixels for that.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-12-2007, 05:08 PM:

quote: John Walsh
I just don't see 70mm providing any kind of value justifying retaining film for theaters. Reasons are: I see no real demand by the public for higher-quality on screen image. (I feel the recent IMAX/35mm conversions too small a market to conclude people want that kind of quality.) They accepted the 1.3K digital projector, which was too "pixel-ly" for me.

Oh my god. John we've know each other for some time now and I'm agast that you used the above statement as any arguement against 70mm.

Look at the "logic" used. Since there is no push by the public for greater quality, then there isn't a need.

Using that sort of reasoning...there are MANY theatres that satisfied customers are listening to their films in MONO. Why are all these idiots spending money on stereo or even dumber, on digital sound? After all, this generation of kids will watch movies on their cell phones with tiny screens and horrible audio.

The facts are, 70mm HAS ALWAYS BROUGHT IN MORE THAN ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE REVENUE to theatres that play it. In particular, show places florish with 70mm. The AFI/Silver does wonderful business on any title it advertises in 70mm (2001:A Space Odyssey is coming up!).

Shooting in 65mm is a natural since it provides the studios with the best quality image for today and for future endevors, even if they are to be digital in nature.

Personally, I do not see the typical theatre of today that runs 35mm will survive in the future, even with digital projection. The theatre experience will be and often is too close to the home experience with the home often being the superior experience, technically.

The showplaces have the best chance in the future of surviving, if they can survive a bit longer. They will be able to draw the public out to them as a place to experience a movie. Expecting typical mall type theatres to survive in the future is like expecting the "Swanson TV Dinner Restaurant" to survive if such a thing opened. That is, a restaurant that served up EXACTLY what you can get at home but more money and less convienence than the home.

In another thread someone brought up some high dollar home theatre projector for over $100K. Well, Panasonic now has a 2K home theatre projector that has a street price of $4K. Panasonic has also issued a 10K lumen 2K DLP (3-chip) projector that is selling for under $60K.

3-chip DLP for the home is still too pricey but it gets more affordable each year and the LCD projectors with 2K resolution are already affordable by a great many people and they will continue to become less expensive. I don't see what theatres have to offer except an earlier viewing with their 2K or even 4K projectors. The home doesn't blow their images up as a much...they don't need it to be as good as cinema for it to look every bit as good.

Just like a good restaurant, theaters will have to serve up something more spectacular than just staying at home or going to another type of entertainment.

70mm isn't coming to the home any time soon, even in a digital equivalent. All the nay sayers on 70mm seem to refuse to look at its history. It is always a solid winner and nothing yet has touched its magic.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-12-2007, 06:23 PM:

quote: Ron Curran
Premium film presentation is the future.

I disagree except for in the the very near future. Don't forget the decades of development that color film processes went though before even one of them became acceptable. There will be other developments in Digital projection we don't even know about yet or that have just barely emerged.... better light engines and higher resolution. More likely the "light chips" will someday be replaced by yet other means that don't have any resolution limitations at all... possibly in some of our lifetimes.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-12-2007, 08:06 PM:

While I certainly hope that there will be no end to improving digital imaging, I don't think it is at all like film in any or color developments in terms of the type of improvements that will be seen.

When film makers improved their products, all users of the product benefited. This was true with respect to grain, color, fading, durability, longevity. You name it...the rising tide truely raised ALL ships.

Larger guage films were not an invention but a different utilization of the existing product. If the photographer wanted more detail in their photos, they could use a larger guage film of any era and have more detail than the same film of that era. The same holds true for movies. The closest you can see to the struggle of that improvement would be 70mm. Just because a studio makes a film in a superior format does not mean that all exhibitors will purchase the necessary equipment to take advantage of it. If they did, digital would be still very much of the future since it isn't anywhere near 70mm of today.

As one moves up in digital quality (more pixels, less compression...etc), the market for such improvement becomes progressively smaller...making the push for such designs less desireable from an R&D standpoint since the market is not going to be big enough to recover suitable profit on the investment.

Whereas Kodak could realize the profit on an investment in film stock from ALL users (consumers and pros alike), the consumer side is far less likely to be clamoring for 4K and beyond pictures anywhere in the near future (for TV/Home Theatre). It will take them decades to realize the 2K pictures they can have now and the improved 2K pictures that are coming their way. TI, for instance has no interest in going beyond 2K at the moment...that is where the money is.

Your best bet for making a higher resolution technology for digital images for cinema is to probably follow the same model as film...and that is to use more of the same technology. Use say for 2K imagers to create a 4K imager rather than create a single 4K imager. Likewise for 8K, 16K...etc. No doubt, there would be a point where it would cost more to combine many imagers vs making one larger/denser one.

Making two tiers of technology (pro and consumer) makes the pro side VERY expensive and due to the relatively puny world market for cinema projectors (or cameras) will keep them very expensive.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 02-12-2007, 08:35 PM:

I don't believe the public in general gives enough of a damn about 70 mm outside of special venues like Imax etc to make an effort to go out of their part of town to see an ordinary movie in 70. Many of the younger audience are not even aware that ordinary films were ever done that way. I base this on the experience of an acquaintance who is 30ish. While in L.A.on business a while back saw a couple films at a 70mm fest. These were films he had previously seen and while he said the screen was a little bigger didn't see much to it, pretty much didn't understand what the ballyhoo was all about. Todays viewers, when they see 70mm on the sign expect a really GIANT screen. One where you have to turn your head full lock to see the ends.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-12-2007, 09:44 PM:

Well the marketers would need to play down the "70mm = Huge Screen" issue and come up with a catchy name and logo that emphasizes picture quality, like was talked about in another thread. Call it something like "70mm Ultra High-Definition".

Really though 70mm is not going to happen on a wide scale, and probably won't happen again at all outside of IMAX. Learn to love 2K digital, and appreciate 35mm film while it lasts. For that matter, appreciate IMAX while it lasts (including DMR). [uhoh]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-13-2007, 02:26 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
3-chip DLP for the home is still too pricey but it gets more affordable each year and the LCD projectors with 2K resolution are already affordable by a great many people and they will continue to become less expensive. I don't see what theatres have to offer except an earlier viewing with their 2K or even 4K projectors. The home doesn't blow their images up as a much...they don't need it to be as good as cinema for it to look every bit as good.

Theatrical exhibition has a long track record of following the domestic market, not leading it. The conversion to sound happened largely on the back of the growing infiltration of radios and phonographs into private homes. Widescreen and colour becoming the default was largely a response to television. And the mass-rollout of stereo sound in theatres was economically justified by the perceived quality of audio reproduction falling below that of the hifi systems which started to penetrate the domestic market in the '60s and '70s.

It looks to me like history is repeating itself. HD digital imaging looks like becoming a mainstay technology in homes first, then theatres second. However, the industry is going to have to add value in some way to what is available in the home. The use of premium imaging technologies like 70mm (5-perf and Imax) is one aspect of this. Another could be the social element of visiting the cinema which you don't get at home. A third could be the pricing structure (e.g. giving away tickets and operating theatres as a loss leader for other forms of content sales and licensing). I don't think the next major phase of the industry's development is going to be wholly, or even mainly, about imaging technology.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-13-2007, 05:57 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
When you see how much money so many are willing to spend on HD plasma screens, I see a huge demand and an audience that is going to get more and more discerning.

And then they hook it up at home to a 480i signal and show all of their friends how great it looks with all kinds of up-conversion and stretching artifacts. People are buying the HYPE of HDTV and not the quality. Sure there are the exeptions but they are certainly the minority.

With regards to home theater vs. movie theater, while it is true that you can create a home theater that measures up to a movie theater, most people don't. Usually when you walk into somebody's house you see a big screen TV stuck where it fits best in the room and a home theater in a box set up with the speakers wherever they happen to fit (especially the surrounds).

Very few people have the kind of semi-ideal home theater setups that us geeks and our circle of friends have.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-13-2007, 06:54 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
And then they hook it up at home to a 480i signal and show all of their friends how great it looks with all kinds of up-conversion and stretching artifacts.

Interesting point, I can see what your getting at, but its a start to a more discerning audience.

Here in australia we have pal, which looks much better and has 576, lines. H.D set top boxes are selling very well. Most Prime time free to air t.v is now being duel broadcast in 1080i.

As for sound, as much money as spent in developing 5.1 in the first place, has now been spent developing a 2 speaker version of it for home, (complete with stereo surrounds). Lets face it only cinemas can hide those ugly speakers behind the screen!

quote: Lyle Romer
buying the HYPE of HDTV

The quality of 1080 is very very good, be afraid, I am!

The audience is now complaining more as well, we were running a print that had been run at fox studios prieview theatre, they do large x (the entire frame) for c/o cues, (dont ask me why, im assuming the guy is blind) So many complaints about it the manager got a new print! 48 frames worth of x over a 100 minutes movie, I then had to explain that we could have cleaned it off if we had known! yes we now cheak for it! 10 years ago would anyone have complained?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-13-2007, 08:40 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
And then they hook it up at home to a 480i signal and show all of their friends how great it looks with all kinds of up-conversion and stretching artifacts. People are buying the HYPE of HDTV and not the quality. Sure there are the exeptions but they are certainly the minority.

Lyle,

When NTSC transmitters are all shut off in a year or so I think you'll see alot of 480i disappear for ever. In SLC I see a growing amount of HD all the time, even on local newscasts.

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-13-2007, 09:56 AM:

Agreed 100% with Steve. We need fewer theatres in general (and certainly fewer mini-mall-plex theatres) and more "showplace" type venues that offer something more than seats and a screen. This is what will get people out of their houses and away from their big-screen TV sets and Blu-ray players. This means big screens, 70mm, and an end to loud and obnoxious TV-style commercials before the movie.

We also need better movies, although we've had a few pretty good ones over the last few years that would certainly have benefitted from the 70mm treatment (e.g. Lord of the Rings, etc.).

If distribution costs are a concern, 1000 really high-quality screens running 70mm would cost less to support than 35,000 mostly mediocre screens running 35mm or DLP, and might just take in more money, too.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-13-2007, 10:11 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
And the mass-rollout of stereo sound in theatres was economically justified by the perceived quality of audio reproduction falling below that of the hifi systems which started to penetrate the domestic market in the '60s and '70s.

The only exception to this rule, would be that cinema sound of the 50's and 60's with magnetic multi track soundtracks, is what created the demand in the domestic market in the first place.

I guess the one time that cinema was a leader.

To me no modern digital sound format actually comes close to the quality that was available in 6 track mag 70 mm. Gunuine hi fidelity equipment! Not smoke and mirrors and compression algorithms. Digital recordings do have fundamental problems with large dynamic range and low bit rates.

No wonder no one releases 70 mm anymore, since it lost its magnetic charm.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 02-13-2007, 10:14 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
When NTSC transmitters are all shut off in a year or so

The cut-off date for this is supposed to be 2/17/2009, but I would wager that the date will be extended yet again (original was May 2006). There are still a lot of small and medium market broadcasters who have digital channel assignments but who have not yet started service, pleading lack of funds. The tiny station in upstste New York that I first started in still hasn't invested in DTV, as it would mean a new transmitter and an extention on the building that holds the old analog one (a 40 year old RCA TTU-30A), along with a new antenna and someone to hang it on the mast. This is a station that gets maybe $50.00 top for a 30 sec. commercial. There are quite a few broadcasters in the same boat that are just barely hanging on in an increasingly low margin business. This is liable to be dragged out for quite a while longer, as no-one will do anything to sweep these guys off the air.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Any word on fuji's plans for the future?

Fuji seems to be in it for the long haul, God bless 'em. To the delight of many, they just recently reintroduced Velvia 50, arguably the best outdoor/landscape film ever made. If you follow great outdoor photographers like Galen Rowell, Tom Mackie, Brenda Tharpe, John Shaw et. al., all their stuff is all Fuji all the time. Not to kick Kodak when they are down, they make a fine portrait film, but I've always been suprised how they let this huge market slip away from them to the extent that they did. I appreciate that they THOUGHT they had a competive product in Kodachrome, but, geez, talk about dropping the ball. Pick up any book of nature or outdoor photography where the photographer lists specifications, and 99.9999% of the time . . . Velvia.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-13-2007, 10:25 AM:

Assuming the economics of small print runs would work out I'm not going to say your idea is bad-it does hinge on that though.

I do suppose we are in agreement that such an arrangement would not work everywhere. A 'showplace' theatre would almost certainly fail in my market for example. The original manager of my theatre had been here since opening. One day I asked him why our auditoriums had two different color seats (these seats have since been replaced as part of a stadium upgrade). It turns out when the theatre first opened they were trying to incorporate some of the elements of a 'showplace' theatre. The mid part of the theatre had maroon colored seats while the rest of the seats were light blue (color is not important except to distinguish between the two sections). For new openers and other movies expected to do big business the premium seats in the center section were sold for an extra $0.50 per tickets. These premium ticket holders also had a special register at concessions so they wouldn't have to wait in nearly as long of a line. To maintain this service and each of the six auditoriums had an assigned usher, complete with tuxedo and white gloves. Sounds real ritzy eh?

The service was dropped almost immediately. Why? Because people were too damn cheap to pay an extra $0.50 for a little extra service. The manager told me that they would almost always have a 'sell out' were every single seat-excpet the premium seats-would be full. The premium seats wouldn't even be half filled, there would be almost no one sitting there. Eventually they were forced to sell the premium seats at regular admission price after the trailers started, which of course made it worse because people knew they could just wait.

If mainstream cinema is to be saved the answer is not 70mm I am sorry to say. I am sure 70mm is spectacular, and I hope to see it someday, but if theatre A offered a show in 70mm but was a traditional sloped auditorium without cupholders and theatre B offered the same show in a new stadium theatre with cupholders but from a 2k projector I can gaurantee you that theatre B would outsell theatre A in most markets. If theatre A was charging more per ticket it would be even more of a sure thing for theatre B. Sad but true.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-13-2007, 05:18 PM:

Dustin...what you claim has NEVER been true in actual practice. That is, 70mm can and does outgross its 35mm neighbor every time.

However, you are right about some markets that quality just isn't a sell or no improvement in sales will be had by 70mm. However, those markets have the greatest potential to fail, period. If the customer doesn't perceive quality and is very price savy, the theatre is a horrible place to view a movie in most cases. They are expensive, inconvienent and often put on a performance that is inferior to the home, or the perceived home (if the patron likes the surrounds and subwoofers high, they will have that in their home). I do see the home market erroding the theatre in this situation. All the theatre has to offer is "a place to go." There are many places to go in this world. Perhaps in some small and particularly economically depressed towns there are fewer choices so a sub-par cinema may survive.

However as one moves towards major cities and towns, the choices of where to go are about limitless...these towns should have nothing but 70mm to choose from for movies by now and they should be showplaces that entice one to go to the movies over other forms of entertainment.

Having grown up in a town that has always had 70mm available (Washington DC area), I still see the affect that 70mm has over people...even kids that don't understand what it is...there is an instant perception of its greatness when watching the movie in 70mm. The AFI/Silver is about to run 2001:A Space Odyssey in 70mm 6-track (mag print they tell me...ooo how I love the smell of oxide in the morning) and they have already presold 100s of tickets. This on a old film that has been on TV, video and played in theatres almost since it was first printed...if the AFI plays a film in 70mm it always gets better attendence than if played in 35mm. Perhaps the AFI crowd is more sophisticated...after all it plays retro films a lot.

However, even in mainstream 1st run situations...70mm ALWAYS holds more than its own.

All of you that say it is dead and it wouldn't do anything to spark business don't have any evidence (other than the deadness) on it. History says it will do well.

Contrast, there is nothing that says that digital cinema will do anything for business except be more expensive to keep up. It isn't an advertisable quality improvement, it doesn't make the movie any better (70mm at least provides more detail).

Theatres can boast what 1080p 2K projection at the moment...when home theatres/TVs can claim the same thing...though the "p" may be on a limited basis for the moment. JPEG2000 isnt advertisable as an improvement...JPEG makes it sound like the pictures downloaded on the WEB and 2000 makes it sound nearly a decade out of date!

So I agree with those that say that 70mm will not be (or should be) a mainstream format. It should be the premium format for showplaces that can compliment its superiority. If you are going to have nobody without training thread up you projectors to scratch up 70mm like 35mm and present it on a crappy 25-foot wide screen...then what is the point?

What I feel is that the typical theatre (mall/multiplex) is what is headed for disaster and riding the digital boat all of the way down the drain. Not because of digital but because of changes in the society (what matters to them), overscreening to the point of non-profitability and also because of mediocrity that has become the typical movie theatre experience that has made it so unspecial.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-13-2007, 05:53 PM:

quote: Dustin Mitchell
if theatre A offered a show in 70mm but was a traditional sloped auditorium without cupholders and theatre B offered the same show in a new stadium theatre with cupholders but from a 2k projector I can gaurantee you that theatre B would outsell theatre A in most markets.

Cupholders, are they really a selling point? [Confused]

Most of the cinemas that I go to either don't allow any drinks in the auditorium, or restrict them. The Clocktower for example allows no hot drinks and no alcohol to be taken from the bar into the auditorium, and several cinemas I know allow only still bottled water.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-13-2007, 06:13 PM:

Stephen, sadly many US cinema chains view the conession stand as a more important operational aspect of their theatres than what's in the projection booth. Anything that is sold at the concession stand is typically allowed into the auditorium, though there are of course exceptions they are not the rule.

Steve, my point was not that 70mm can't outgross 35mm or digital, my point was that I do not believe that the format a movie is being projected in is the main selling point anymore. Among the list of things that a customer uses to decide where they will see a movie things like general cleanliness (bathrooms in particular), staff friendliness, auditorium comfort (as a side note, seats are particularly important. One theatre in this area has the high back style of seating and I know many people who refuse to go there because they feel the head cushion part of the seat forces their neck into an unatural position. True or not, they will not go there merely because of the seats, despite the fact that this theatre probably has the best operations in the area), and pricing how the image is generated is towards the bottum of that list.

In major markets I am sure there are enough people who recognize the quality of 70mm to make a theatre showing it exclusively viable-given that the economics of film printing will allow it to be viable and given that the studios remain willing to strike 70mm prints of features, two conditions I personally question.

As a side note, and perhaps a question for a researcher like Micheal Coate, I wonder if there were any instances of 70mm release where the number of 70mm and 35mm screens in a given market where similar so that an overall comparison could be made? Part of me wonders if the cinemas that outgrossed their competitors did show because they were showing 70mm or because they were showplaces even when they were showing 'only' 35mm. I have read many comments on here lamenting the demise of the Northpark theatre in Dallas, often talking about how they would drive many miles, even from other states, just to see a movie at the Northpark. I know that the Northpark showed many movies in 70mm, but not all of their shows were in that format. Yet the theatre still performed as a showplace and brought in those people even when it wasn't showing 70mm.

I am not saying that 70mm added nothing to the experience, certainly not, just that there was something else there besides the format of the film.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-13-2007, 06:48 PM:

Don't underestimate those cupholders. They actually make probably the biggest contribution (from a typical patron's point of view) of all of the changes in the movie going experience since probably the talkies and I'm not kidding!

Stadium seating was truely born out of morons that shouldn't design theatres or build theatres with crap sightlines. Had sight lines been designed correctly, stadium seating would not have come about in the degree it has, if at all.

As to 70mm I've personally witnessed where it has pulled in patrons over theatres with more comfy seats, cleaner bathrooms..and so forth. It can even overcome cup holders, for the most part.

It is amazing how 70mm will increase a theatre's range of viewing audience...it can even extend it to 100s of miles.

There have been studies (none recent that I know of...no 70mm releases to find...though I'd be curious as to Titanic's 70mm grosses vs 35mm). It goes back a ways but on Trek II I think the ratio was 25% of revenue came out of the 4% of the theatres running 70mm...and that was on a freaking blow-up.

As to the costs...it is double that of 35mm (according to John P on other posts). With DTS, there isn't the added costs of striping, degaussing and recording which significantly added to the cost (labor) and yield. The sound equipment for DTS 70 is identical to 35mm except for a low-cost reader. Most every platter (yick) in use today has a 70mm conversion kit available too. For the American machines, 70mm is a matter of changing just the projector head out. Plus there are many 70mm machines out there either installed or waiting for future use. I'm sure Mark G would be happy to slide on some 35/70 sprockets on his DP70s if 70mm prints were available to run.

The Kinoton FP75E is a pretty impressive machine and is available new right now (possibly the best I've ever seen 70mm though I'd want to see it next to the DP70.

The cost of reintroducing 70mm as a showplace venue format would just not be that significant...more profitable than digital cinema that doesn't bring in any more money for its effort.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-13-2007, 06:58 PM:

Here's what I dont see being discussed (if it has, sorry). Since most if not all prints are made through 2k DIs these days, what real benefit would 70mm have anyways? I mean, filming in 70mm, scanning at 2k, editing digitally, then outputting back to 70mm doesn't really sound like it'll knock the socks off the audience. Plus the fact that most "event" movies are chock full of sometimes good but mostly bad CGI effects rendered at 2K, do we really need 70mm anymore? I mean, Im not going to want to see the latest shitacious Ben stiller/owen wilson comedy just cause it was filmed in 70mm.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-13-2007, 07:57 PM:

Even if a feature film were shot on 35mm negative film, scanning and recording at greater than 2K resolution would greatly improve image quality, and that improvement would be even more apparent in a 70mm print. 4K has already been done for several features (e.g., Stuart Little 2).

Shooting on 65mm negative would be great, but 35mm color negative "done right" can certainly fill huge screens too.

FWIW, I recently purchased a 52-inch Sharp Aquous HD (1080P) television. I get HD cable. The quality film origination over digital really comes through --- "King Kong" looked MUCH better than videos like "Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith" (both have been playing on HBO-HD this week). But what really "shine" are some of the 65mm originated films like "Pulse: A Stomp Odyssey". [thumbsup]

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-13-2007, 08:49 PM:

Steve, I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this subject. Heck, I've never watched a 70mm show so I can't really speak on quality or drawing power outside of speculation.

I still maintain, however, that the success or failure of this whole idea depends on two factors out of the exhibitors hands:

The cost of a 70mm PRINT (not the equipment to run it), and
The willingness of the very same studios pushing digital projection to strike said prints even when costs go up

70mm might be twice as expenisve as 35mm now (makes sense, twice the image and all) but how expensive will it be when film projection drops significantly with the wider introduction of DCinema? The question of REG converting is not if, its when IMHO. When that conversion is complete you will have almost half-if not more than half by that point with other conversions-of the screens in the US converted to digital cinema. It follows reasoning then that the demand for filmstock will be half of what it was pre-conversion. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but film is made in large sheets and then slit and perforated for the desired format. Thus, if Kodak makes 1,000 sheets of film it can slit 900 of them for 35mm and 100 for 70mm (oversimplifing I know but you get my point). Thus, as demand for 35mm prints goes down and the price for 35mm presumably goes up due to loss of economy of scale/attempts to protect profit margins/etc the price of 70mm will also go up.

In the end I hope you're right Steve. I'd rather like to be able to drive to Minneapolis and see 70mm at a showplace theatre sometime in the future. I wonder if it will happen though.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-14-2007, 07:05 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Stadium seating was truely born out of morons that shouldn't design theatres or build theatres with crap sightlines. Had sight lines been designed correctly, stadium seating would not have come about in the degree it has, if at all.

I was told (not that it is gospel) that ADA guidelines prevented sloped floors from being designed with proper sight lines because they would be sloped to steeply for wheelchairs and this is what led to stadium seating.

quote:
The quality of 1080 is very very good, be afraid, I am!

I wasn't saying that the quality isn't very good, I was saying that people aren't buying it BECAUSE the quality is good. They are buying it because of flat screens and the HDTV buzz word. The same reason why people by home theater in a box to have 5.1 digital surround sound even if it doesn't really sound that great.

I don't think that most people go out to the theater for a superior presentation. They go to get out of the house and for the total experience. DVD based high end home theaters usually have a better presentation than your run of the mill megaplex (scratched and/or out of focus prints). Look at sports for example. I know it's not completely apples to apples but the presentation of a sporting event is usually better on TV but people shell out big dollars to be there for the experience. Sure more people watch on TV but there is a market for both.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-14-2007, 10:56 AM:

The general guideline for sloped floor is for a mximum 1 foot drop in 10 feet. A seated person eyepoint being 3'09" to 4' it is harder to give good site lines toward the back of many floor plans. The advantage of slope is more people per square foot. I have one client who still mixes slope and stadium rooms for increased seating, older patrons preference and to lower building cost.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-14-2007, 12:20 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
As to the costs...it is double that of 35mm

Just for clarification. I think the price of 70mm film is double that of 35mm on a per foot basis. But it takes more feet (20 or 25 percent more?) for a 70mm print than its 35mm counterpart (5 sprocket pairs vs 4, assuming the sprockets have the same spacing).

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-14-2007, 03:53 PM:

Yes Paul, it's 25%, the perforation shape, size and pitch are the same on 70mm prints as on 35mm, though the distance from the edge of the stock is 2.5mm greater. That's assuming that you're shooting at 24 fps of course. For 30 fps Todd-AO you'd need to increase the, already increased, length by another 25%, giving a total of 1.5625 times the length of 24fps 35mm. Then you have to double that to get the area of film used, of course.

The perforation pitch on 65mm negative stock is the same as on 35mm, but they are a different shape, Kodak Standard perforations, as on prints, are used on 65mm negatives, rather than the Bell & Howell ones used on 35mm negatives. I don't know why, possibly due to the greater strain caused by pulling down the greater mass of film at a greater speed in the 65mm camera. In Russia 70mm stock is used for both negatives and prints. They also use KS perforations in 35mm negative stock there.

Fox Grandeur 70mm was four perforations per frame, but they were a quite different shape, and at a greater pitch than on modern 70mm film, so the frame height was very similar, just a few 'thou' less. The width was less as the aspect ratio was 2:1, rather than 2.2:1

70mm film is also available with the perforations closer to the edge of the strip, as on 35mm, but this is for use in medium format still cameras.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-14-2007, 09:08 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
I don't believe the public in general gives enough of a damn about 70 mm outside of special venues like Imax etc to make an effort to go out of their part of town to see an ordinary movie in 70.

Why should the public give a damn? Hollywood studios haven't truly made a fully credible effort of making a real 70mm movie since the late 1960s. When you look at every 65mm-photographed title since 1970, there's been one compromise after another made and very often the movies themselves only had limited appeal (art house flicks) or were just box-office bombs.

It's been a very long time since an actual hit movie was shot in 65mm. I strongly guarantee if the Lord of the Rings movies or The Matrix had been shot on 65mm we would be seeing a lot of new 70mm projectors getting installed. True 70mm just hasn't had the support of any real hit films since the 1960's.

IMAX, as a format, is currently being led to ruin by all these fake, DMR'ed blow-ups. It would be far more positive if Hollywood actually shot a feature film in 15/70 or at least 5/70 to use on those screens.

quote: Lyle Romer
Very few people have the kind of semi-ideal home theater setups that us geeks and our circle of friends have.

That doesn't stop lots of people with new home theater systems, no matter how badly compromised, from thinking their setup is just as good as the movie theater, even when they're playing regular 480p DVDs.

quote: Scott Norwood
If distribution costs are a concern, 1000 really high-quality screens running 70mm would cost less to support than 35,000 mostly mediocre screens running 35mm or DLP, and might just take in more money, too.

While I'm 100% in favor of this sort of thing, sadly the business aspect of Hollywood most certainly is not. They want the movie in and out of theatrical release and onto home video as quickly as possible. The studios think that will generate the most profit. With just a limited number of high quality theaters in operation a good theatrical release could play for many months. Studios are scared that could mean a lot more in the way of interest payments on all the money they borrowed to get the movie made. A lot of the lesser quality movies would be forced directly to video and not have the appeal of being seen as a legitimate movie release and instead be seen as something made for TV.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
To me no modern digital sound format actually comes close to the quality that was available in 6 track mag 70 mm.

While magnetic 6-track Dolby SR on 70mm was great, it doesn't have the upward capability of 24-bit uncompressed Linear PCM digital audio formats now going into D-Cinema theaters. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both have a lot of audio potential via the new Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master audio formats.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-14-2007, 10:08 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
I mean, filming in 70mm, scanning at 2k, editing digitally, then outputting back to 70mm doesn't really sound like it'll knock the socks off the audience.

Very good point! although I do suspect that you would spot the difference. The higher the quality of the shooting material the more it does hold up through the degradation that follows in post production. ie a 70mm print transfered to vhs, always looked better than a 35mm print to vhs. Im sure that to some degree this would apply to 2 K standards but it would be wasteful.

quote: Bobby Henderson
it doesn't have the upward capability of 24-bit uncompressed Linear PCM digital audio formats now going into D-Cinema theaters.

Excellent point Bobby, Its the one aspect of digital sound and jpeg 2000 that does excite me, and that I was ignoring . Although I do think that there is still life in the old analoge verses digital arguements.

Taking Steves ideal or dream of a 70 mm comeback one step beyond. How about a DTS upgrade to either Blueray or HD Dvd drives with a modern non compressed HD audio codec, (one that might actually be 6 track and could really record say a different music track on each channel if wanted and not just steering logic!) that links off the existing DTS timecode track and is downwardly compatible with the existing CD based system. If we are going to dream! the existing 70mm houses will also be forced to install cup holders to totally complete the ultimate cinema experience!

Personally the only real economic reason to reintroduce 70mm to cinemas, would be so that Kodak could brand the experience as the ultimate imaging company! The prestege would revitalise Kodaks Brand and share price,perhaps they would finally sell some of there crappy digital cameras on the back of it!

When I worked at an IMAX theatre, It was very obvious how much 70mm has improved over the last 30 years. I wonder what Laurence of Arabia would look like if it was filmed with todays stocks (with film post production).

quote: Lyle Romer
They are buying it because of flat screens and the HDTV buzz word.

Just like how the punters once lapped up the hype of 70mm and ultra panavision perhaps? especially the optical blow ups? (granted the sound was a vastly superior experience in the pre digital days).

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-15-2007, 08:45 AM:

Steve wrote: "Oh my god. John we've know each other for some time now and I'm agast that you used the above statement as any argument against 70mm."

I know, I know .. I feel a little bad even saying that ... but (my own feeling) except for too few people like us here, no one seems to even want 70mm. The studios don't want it because they simply don't want the hassle on the production side. I don't think all the tools that make 35mm production easier are avaiable for 70mm. On the post-production side, how could a studio do a print run of the 3000 plus prints required nowadays? Then there's the cost of the unenviable print damage and replacement that happens in the first week of release. Mostly, studios want the 'control' digital will give them over the theaters. 'Forget' to send in the rental, you're shut off. Or, the common practice of canceling the showing of a lesser film so you can interlock two auditoriums for the 'big' feature will not be allowed; the manager will have to call and pay a fee for being able to to it. Studios might actually be a little afraid of people finding out how good 70mm is and wanting it. Then they would loose the control they are hoping to gain with digital, so they might trying to keep it 'dead.'.

Theater owners think with digital they will eliminate their costs for projectionists (they mostly pay dirt now, so I don't see a savings.) We know 70mm would blow away digital, but it has to be taken care of; digital does not require cleaning after every showing. Also, I think digital projection is being sold to owners as a way to reap all kinds of money from advertising, advertising, rebroadcasting concerts, private business meetings, etc. Renting out the auditorium to project an X-Box game is one way of additional income that's been noted.

I agree there are too many theaters, but I don't see any owners saying, "Well, I know my theater is so crappy it drags down the quality of this industry, so I'll close for the good of others." If anyone tries to improve, cheap owners will cry that they are being forced out. (I've noticed that the dumpy-er the theater, the louder the owners are.) When there's an actual interest in watching newly released, full-length features on a cell phone (!) you know that person doesn't care about 70mm. Besides, studios like having too many theaters; gives them major leverage to sell product; "If you don't want it, the guy across the street will." As Bobby H noted; studios sort of want theaters to be the advertising for the home video release.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 02-15-2007, 10:08 AM:

I am going to chime in from my point of view:

I have seen two films in 70mm: "Top Gun" and "Hoffa". I got to run a 70mm print of "Hoffa" when I worked for National Amusements.

Anyways - I remember specifically watching those films. The reason is - the picture quality was awesome. At that time - it was the best movie going experience I had.

We live in a very different society now. When I try to explain to the 'average joe' what the difference between 35 and 70 is - they always end up bringing IMAX into the conversation. Which always leads to other conversations.

I agree 100% that there will always be a place for 70mm. The only problem is: the people that realize it are the only ones who have seen something in 70mm. All the directors and producers of films who would care are dead or are working on 3-D Digital based films.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-15-2007, 10:20 AM:

John, at one time I shared your nightmare vision of studio control over digital projection. I have to say though, that at least as of this moment, its not a reality. The only extra control the studios have over your operation is the inability to play a movie after its finaled (due to expired keys). Even with that if you had a legitimate reason (say a family film finaling on Thursday and a school wanting to do a special show on Friday) I'm sure it would be no problem to get a new/extended key.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-15-2007, 10:40 AM:

In this month's BKTKS British film journal, in their dedicated Digital Cinema supplement, it noted not a noticeable digital penetration until at least 2010. Outside of the USA and the U.K. it appears conversion will average around 50%.

Vision Research, which has been building and renting high speed cameras since 1950, introduced early last year their digital studio production cameras. Phantom HD @ 2048x1556 with frame rate up to 700 fps and their 65 model @4096X2440. Response has been so good they sold out their 1st production run. RED, another 4K resolution camera, has 1500 pre-orders and plan to ship this year....more fuel the fire [Cool]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 02-15-2007, 10:41 AM:

Cost of 70mm print is NOT double. That is for the stock. Most of the cost of a print is labor/shipping/processing. Many charges are by-the-foot, so an increment of 30-45% is more probable. Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-15-2007, 03:09 PM:

Well, a 70mm print costs way more than double, about 2.5K per 20 min reel last I heard. There is but one lab in the states doing much 70mm(Imax) and they can pretty much dictate the price, or tell you to shove off like I know they have done to at least one production. Then add the double the film stock expense(John P. Posted the exact cost per foot of 35mm vs. 70mm stock here on F-T few years ago and it was exactly double) and another printer pass to expose the DTS track or worse yet the expense of mag stripping and sounding all the reels. Just the cost of letting all those reels sit for a week or longer for the mag coating to cure would cost distribution megabucks in this day and age. Expensive it is and thats part of what makes it so glorious!

Mark

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-16-2007, 07:13 AM:

Let me ask a question: Let's say I was Peter Jackson, and I was in preproduction for 'The Lord of the Rings.' How much more would it cost for the entire film to be 'shot' in 65mm? I am particularly thinking of the additional cost required for all of the digital effects that were needed. How about the aditional cost for effects good enough for 35mm production / 70mm release.

The reason I ask is; could the additional cost be one reason studios stay away from 70mm.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-16-2007, 08:23 AM:

The additional cost of 65mm origination has been figured for a typical feature (search this site for I'm sure it was John P that posted it). In the cost of a feature it amounted to less than 1% of a big-budget feature ($100mil or more).

As to the 2X cost...I was only referring to the cost of the stock by the foot, naturally. This is actually relatively cheap since most things in life also factor in how much is used in the world with specialty items costing a premium.

Yes, there is 25% more length to the film too which turns the raw stock charge into 2.5X 35mm. Processing would be more expensive too as would shipping. But then again, only 50-100 70mm prints will due for covering the USA rather than 100s to 1000s for 35mm prints so as a percentage 70mm printing and distribution is not that large and can even save over 2.5X in covering those same markets with 35mm, if the studios chose to limit the number of prints in areas covered by 70mm. I also claim that 70mm will increase attendence of any title.

Though it would be for another topic...the money spent on "talent" in these major motion pictures is where the real waste on money is. If you look at the biggest money making movies of all time...it wasn't the actor's names that brought the people in. A (small) portion of that money would allow for all of the big-budget films to be shot on 65mm, if the DPs and Directors were up to it (which I suspect is part of the problem).

Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2007, 10:01 AM:

quote:
Taking Steves ideal or dream of a 70 mm comeback one step beyond. How about a DTS upgrade to either Blueray or HD Dvd drives with a modern non compressed HD audio codec, (one that might actually be 6 track and could really record say a different music track on each channel if wanted and not just steering logic!) that links off the existing DTS timecode track and is downwardly compatible with the existing CD based system. If we are going to dream! the existing 70mm houses will also be forced to install cup holders to totally complete the ultimate cinema experience!

The DTS XD-10 audio playback units can already play formats like uncompressed LPCM 5.1 in 24-bit/96kHz resolution. They can play back any DTS format as well (both "home" CAC and cinema formats). The unit has two DVD-ROM optical drives and a built in hard disc system. It can be hooked up to a 70mm projector.

The DTS XD-10 is also a "scalable" playback system. Out of the box it is compatible for up to 8-channel discrete playback. The system can be expanded to handle 10, 12 or more channels of sound.

Sadly, Hollywood has done NOTHING to take advantage of the capabilities in the DTS-XD10, much less similar upper end capabilities of handling more channels in new D-Cinema systems. That further underscores the level of importance Hollywood sees in home video and their lack of enthusiasm for the theatrical market.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-16-2007, 11:37 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
In the cost of a feature it amounted to less than 1% of a big-budget feature ($100mil or more).

In reality it is alot more than 1% of a feature's production cost although some might want you to believe its only that much. The LDS Church's last 5/70 film production was shot in 65mm at 30 fps and the cost of the production according to a friend there almost doubled from what the it would have been had it been done in 35mm. Aside from the much higher(at least double) camera and raw stock costs and the slow down in shooting it also creates add to that the amount of extra detail that HAS to be put into sets in order for backgrounds, costumes,makeup, and props not to become obvious to viewers because of the gobs of extra resolution. Cinerama also had this problem when shooting HTWWW and had to re-do a huge amount of costumes because they looked like costumes and not period clothing. Also 65mm cameras are NOT at a point of convenience of operation as are 35mm production cameras even though the newest ones(which are now actually quite old by camera standards) may look similar... and there are just not enough of them available for large productions. A good friend who is a 1st assistant also says 65mm cameras are also more apt to jam and then the shoot can come to a standstill for a day or so while the camera is repaired and film tested.

1% is a nice dream but the extra resolution afforded by a 65mm production will also increase alot of the productions other budgets as well. To calculate exacatly how much a given feature's budget would increase is almost impossible.

Mark

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-17-2007, 12:56 PM:

Of course the level of detail goes up but then if that was the concern shoot it on super 8 and transfer it at least then they can use cardboard sets [Smile]

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 02-17-2007, 09:06 PM:

Exactly, Gordon.
Cheap and Easy is good for customers. On the other side of the ticket window, we are paid to provide a professional, quality experience.

We can moan all we like that it’s Too Hard. How long will it be before clients determine that home theatre is cheaper, easier and better? I believe that we exist to make magic.

BTW, when the drive-ins here changed to 70/35 machines I think that part of the reason was to get light on those big screens. Surely they would like to get 70mm prints now?