Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lots-O-65mm-Features

This is topic Lots-O-65mm-Features 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=007452

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-12-2016, 12:15 PM:

The large format revival is really taking off... Now you know why the 65mm processor was brought back on line in London.

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-episode-9-will-be-shot-on-65mm/

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 11-14-2016, 09:22 AM:

Yes many theatres will be bringing back their old 70mm projectors again to show large screen images. Same with 35mm film that you may see again for special event films. Time to bring the old IA projection guys out of retirement that can do reel to reel and 70mm roadshow. The candy and lame managers today can't run the film booth as most no nothing about film projectors.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 11-14-2016, 10:14 AM:

It's more than Star Wars. Kenneth Branagh's remake of Murder on the Orient Express among others will be processed at the new Kodak lab.

Press release from Kodak.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-14-2016, 11:20 AM:

Yawn... Not another Orient Express. What number is this one like 7 or 8?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2016, 11:45 AM:

I am, unfortunately, pretty skeptical about this 70mm revival.

It's one thing to shoot a movie's principal photography in 5/65mm format. I'm not saying that doing so is easy, but that's really the easiest and even cheapest part of making a 70mm movie these days. Showing a movie in 70mm to paying customers and doing so CORRECTLY is now the hardest part.

Commercial movie theaters are no longer made for showing 70mm, not with the cookie cutter designs featuring stadium seating and common width screens shaped just like the TV screen at home. The 'scope format is a sad joke in d-cinema due in part because of these screens (not to mention the dump down to lowest resolution quality). Movies in 70mm are, at best, going to be shown letter-boxed on these screens.

Compound this problem with the state of 70mm projection gear. Technicians have to repair and maintain existing 70mm systems just like people in Cuba with 60 year old cars since they're not getting anything new. Are any changes taking place to improve this situation? New 70mm projectors? New replacement parts?

In the end, a movie getting shot on 5/65mm film might turn out to be just as much a non-event as Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk being shot in 4K 3D at 120fps, where only 2 theaters actually showed the movie in that format. Most other places are just showing it in the usual 2K, 24fps thing, which isn't much different than watching a Blu-ray at home. Several things need to happen for 70mm to have a real fighting chance at a comeback. The first thing that needs to happen is the damned "filmmakers" need to stop being so damned out of touch with the modern state of the movie-going experience. They don't appear to know what the hell is going on. It's as if they do all their movie watching in private screening rooms and never set foot into a commercial movie theater.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-15-2016, 10:24 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's as if they do all their movie watching in private screening rooms and never set foot into a commercial movie theater.

Not as if, Bobby, rather it's indeed they do. Which, unfortunately is really such a shame when you realize how much work the filmmakers put in to get a perfect finished product, then to have it butchered in the theatre. But like you say, they seem to be oblivious of how us commoners get to experience their work.

And they certainly have the power to demand a certain level of presentation quality if they really understood how presentation is so easily compromise at the end of the camera-lens-to-moviegoer's-eye chain with respect to presentation values. Years ago, Disney had been known to demand some basic values if you were going to be able to book their titles, especially the 1.37 titles. In their last few re-releases, you'd better be able to have the right 1.37 masking or they wouldn't let you book FANTASIA. That pretty much is unheard of today, yet the "perfectionist" filmmaker who is so concerned with how his film will "look" will get a hardon to have a 70mm release -- pull out those film projectors that exhibitors were told to rip out just a few years ago and use as planters, but he don't insist that the exhibitor put in correct masking...how does that make any sense?

Sad that the exhibition end doesn't seem to take their role in the process nearly as seriously as the filmmakers...and even the high-end exhibitors who should freaking know better -- as Brad said, even the Dolby Cinema doesn't understand the importance of proper masking.

It's a shame the DCI people didn't include some of the basic aspects of presentation values as part of the tech specs, which after all, were put in place supposedly to insure the public got a near-perfect experience...well, masking the image properly should fall under that category.

Then there's this -- if exhibitors are flush enough to invest in expensive digital projection and Atmos sound systems, they shouldn't have a problem with installing proper masking. I would add curtains too, but I don't want to get flamed.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-15-2016, 12:29 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Yawn... Not another Orient Express. What number is this one like 7 or 8?

a remake NO ONE asked for [Razz]

maybe with this resurgence it will kickstart Iain Softley's proposed 70mm retelling of 'Ivanhoe' that's been in the cards several years.

too bad 'Sunset Song' wasn't released in 70mm as it was shot as such.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-16-2016, 05:17 AM:

Frank. Actually, a properly "tightly masked" image is indeed part of the DCI spec. But see, if you are big enough, the DCI spec never really applied to you. There are no DCI police to enforce anything.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-16-2016, 10:08 AM:

Even if there were police I'm not sure anything could be legally enforced. You don't think the studios are NOT gong to give their movies to Bob's Cinema chain of 3200 screens do you... Be realistic and also be realistic about masking people.You try maintaining masking on 3000+ screens and get back to us about how impossible THAT is.

Mark

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-16-2016, 11:04 AM:

Maintaining masking on 3000+ screens is no different than any other aspect of expanding. You have to expand ALL aspects of a company to expand properly.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-16-2016, 11:18 AM:

I have yet to see one of these infamous unmasked screens, although I am not sure that I have actually been in a theatre built since 2001 or so.

As for shooting in 65mm, it is probably not a bad idea, even if the intended exhibition format is 35mm/DCP. If nothing else, it future-proofs the movie so that it will still look good in the future on improved television sets and cinema projection systems. This is why TV shows from the 1950s that were shot on 35mm still look good in HD today and why shot-on-video material from the 1980s is now often difficult to watch.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-16-2016, 11:37 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
Maintaining masking on 3000+ screens is no different than any other aspect of expanding. You have to expand ALL aspects of a company to expand properly.

That's very easy to say. Unfortunately, not at all possible to do in day to day practice or they'd be doing it. I'll take no masking over broken masking any day. There are so few qualified people willing to work on masking in the USA that I can dam near count them on my ten fingers. And frankly, if you aren't a certified stage rigger then you've got no business doing it, because it's gonna get done wrong, with crappy parts, and you are just setting your self up for possible lawsuits. If front ends of movie theaters aren't treated like the front end of a live theater from a safety viewpoint then you've no business in this business. I am quite sure that some of this is why chains have done away with masking.

quote:
I have yet to see one of these infamous unmasked screens, although I am not sure that I have actually been in a theater built since 2001 or so.

General Enema started doing it in the mid 60's (and I know they were in your area) with the crappy shadow box arrangement. If you want to be really annoyed go watch a movie on one of those setups.

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-16-2016, 03:02 PM:

Yes, I had forgotten about the shadow-boxes. These were gone in this area by the mid-1990s. I was mostly referring to the current generation of built-for-D-cinema houses.

I think that the most recently built cinema that I have been in was built in 2010, and that is a screening room. And it had masking.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-16-2016, 10:12 PM:

I imagine that since the advent of digital, the need to mask the 'fuzzy edge" of the 35mm image perimeter seems less imperative given that the digital image edge is so much sharper -- no shadowy lines. In a theatre with very minimal ambient light, it could almost look like there is a mask there. In other words, Mr. Joe Where-can-I-save-more-money Exhibitor looks at the digital picture's edges and compared to what he's seen film look like when it was projected with the mask open, and he's thinking, "Maskin? I don't need no stinkin maskin." And once more "good enough" wins the day.

As for the argument of how difficult it must be to maintain masking on 3000 screens....they sure seem to be able to maintain their soda machines and popcorn machines and hotdog rolling cookers in 3000 concessions. It's simple -- what makes them $$$, they are very capable of finding the means to keep it working. Things that don't make them $$$....well, does any more really need to be said?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2016, 11:09 PM:

The lack of masking or any kind of decor around the screen just looks CHEAP.

One theater I visited in Houston had the floor to ceiling and wall to wall screen treatment. No masking, no curtains, nothing. And one could see a bit of the frame holding the screen and a little of the straps stretching it tight. Instead of looking like a movie theater screen the thing looked like a big trampoline that was leaned sideways on the wall. This wasn't a huge auditorium either. So I really saw no reason to attempt copying the IMAX look in this modest sized room.

Maybe we can look forward to bare cinder block walls next. They'll just be painted matte black, along with all the exposed conduit and other junk that would be otherwise hidden by drapery or decorative wall panels. Maybe they can get rid of the drop ceiling and have all the frame work and HVAC stuff exposed. We already have the Sam's Club/Costco look at the front of the room. Why not go all the way with it in the rest of the auditorium?