Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » The Glory of 70mm (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: The Glory of 70mm
Ed Johnson
Film Handler

Posts: 24
From: Lancaster, MA/Appleton, WI
Registered: Jul 99


 - posted 11-07-1999 01:02 AM      Profile for Ed Johnson   Email Ed Johnson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ok, I've been thinking about this one for a while.

Every once and a while the topic of 70mm comes up on this forum and it is treated as a great, if lost, format. Unfortunately, all of the talk of 70mm is in the past-tense. It sounds like Hollywood has completely lost interest in the format. Is this a financial thing or is it rationalized by saying that modern emulsions have improved 35mm to a point that the difference between formats would not be appreciable? Growing up in the late '80s and early '90s, I've never seen a film presented in 70mm. The 15-plex where I worked for the last year was equipped for 70mm projection (supposedly) but in the three years since the theater opened, I don't believe anything has been released in the format.

What was the last new movie filmed and released in 70mm (I don't count something like the 3 or 4 70mm prints of Titanic)? Is there any indication that future movies may utilize the format? I suppose many new releases have so much computer "enhancement" that the increased resolution would be appreciated...

I'm interested in your opinions.
------------------
Ed Johnson
Lawrence University
Appleton, WI


 |  IP: Logged

Ken Layton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1452
From: Olympia, Wash. USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 11-07-1999 01:08 AM      Profile for Ken Layton   Email Ken Layton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's the cost of the film stock. Just to shoot in 70mm is expensive enough. Most print today are blowups from 35.

To strike a 70 print costs ALOT more than a 35.

 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 11-07-1999 02:16 AM      Profile for Aaron Sisemore   Email Aaron Sisemore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The last 70mm originated on 65mm negative film was Kenneth Branagh's 'Hamlet'... mag sound and all all *twenty* reels of it...

Aaron

 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 11-07-1999 02:20 AM      Profile for Aaron Sisemore   Email Aaron Sisemore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Additionally, in my opinion it was DIGITAL SOUND that pulled the plug on all of the mainstream 5/70 films, "Ooh, with digital, 35mm can now have more than 4 channels and all"...
70mm DTS SHOULD be the format of the future, unfortunately all the sell-outs out there have sold their souls to DLP video projection(and production as well in some cases)

Aaron

 |  IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 11-07-1999 02:37 AM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
All of the above is true. But also, I think that there's a 'chicken and egg' kind of thing where: There are fewer theaters that are equipped with it, fewer people who know how to run 70mm, studios are worried about theaters damaging expensive 70mm prints so make less which leads to: fewer theaters that are equipped with it, fewer people who know how to run 70mm, studios are worried about theaters damaging expensive 70mm prints so make less which leads to.......

Also I think that most producers and directors feel that 35mm quality is good enough. They are not going to make any more money with a 35mm/70mm release, so why bother.

 |  IP: Logged

Stefan Scholz
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 223
From: Schoenberg, Germany
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 11-07-1999 07:50 AM      Profile for Stefan Scholz   Author's Homepage   Email Stefan Scholz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
As I have heard from a film producer and from a film class teacher, it not the cost of laboratory and film stock, which is competitive. Basicly the equipment needed to do a good job in 70 mm is bulkier, heavier and takes a lot more time to set-up. And you have to "educate" crew members in how to use it. This makes a 70 mm production more time consuming (factor of 3?) than ordinary 35 mm filmmaking. And time is money.
Look at films by Jabn de Bont. Horrible filmmaking, with every mistake possible in camerawork within half a reel. But that guy is fast and effective, and after all the films work on box offices worldwide. That' s what counts today.

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-07-1999 08:32 AM      Profile for Ian Price   Email Ian Price   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In 1990 the cinema I was managing (Landmark's Esquire Theatre, Denver) converted to 70mm in order to show the remastered Lawrence of Arabia. I had seen 70mm in Denver before and I liked it. We had a few very good 70mm houses. (The Cooper, The Century 21 and the Continental) When the first image of Lawrence hit the same screen that I had been showing films on for 5 years, it blew me away. The crispness and detail were amazing. The sound was the best I had ever heard. That experience has not been repeated since. New film stock hasn't looked as good. Digital sound isn't as good. Now alot of the credit goes to David Lean. There have been 3 70mm films made since then and they aren't as good as Lawrence. Can you believe it? Only three 70mm films shot between 1963 and the year 2000. David Lean did one more 70mm film in 1971, Ryan’s Daughter. There was Far and Away in 1992 and Hamlet.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-07-1999 10:30 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
70mm prints with mag sound cost anywhere up to 40 times the cost of a thirty five mm optical print depending on the time allowed sounding costs and number prints
Every 70mm print had to be sounded in reel time on a dubber and then played back in reel time to check. Heads on the recording dubbers prescratched many reels that were junked before even getting to the theatre
Many theatres didn't want to have the mag a chain re eq'd for each print (this was necassary because each sounding studio had there own refference level and eq standard) and many sounded worse than 35. Also many had track errasures due to magnatism in platters and rollers and the larger film stocks wieght made it more prone to scratching due to carelessness.
Luckely 70mm DTS prints only cost a little over double the cost of a 35mm print except for the timecode interneg costs.
Regretably most exhibitors won't insist on 70mm prints even though the larger screens cryout for the greater resolution and light handeling of this format and the public who usually doesn't complain about scratching, out focus , out of frame etc doesn't use the box office dollar to force the issue

 |  IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-07-1999 10:58 AM      Profile for William Hooper   Author's Homepage   Email William Hooper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Also many had track errasures due to magnatism in platters and rollers ...

After hearing about mag problems due to ferrous spindles, etc., I wondered why any "package" of upgraded equipment to go to a mag booth (projectors, penthouses, aperture plates, lenses etc.) wasn't also presumed to have stuff like stainless spindles, aluminum reels only, etc.


 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 11-08-1999 12:47 AM      Profile for Aaron Sisemore   Email Aaron Sisemore   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ian said:
Only three 70mm films shot between 1963 and the year 2000. David Lean did one more 70mm film in 1971, Ryan’s Daughter. There was Far and Away in 1992 and Hamlet.

You forgot 'Tron' (1982) FX were done in vistavision but the live action was all 65mm

Aaron

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Jones 1
Film Handler

Posts: 62
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Registered: Aug 1999


 - posted 11-08-1999 05:54 AM      Profile for Stephen Jones 1   Author's Homepage   Email Stephen Jones 1   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm very curious to hear which movies have been shot in 70mm. I hear some of you say "shot in 65mm neg"; does that mean it was blown up to 70mm? Also, is there any type of reference that show all the movies shot in 70mm. I remember seeing an old loop of 70mm film from Top Gun.

Since I haven't been around all that long, can someone shed some light on exactly what 70mm mag is? Is it like the SR track on 35mm except 5-6 tracks on just film? I know someone out there can explain it to me.

 |  IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 11-08-1999 09:45 AM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There are generally two types of 70mm. One is where the original negitive in the camera is 35mm wide. It is then blown up to fit onto 70mm film. In this case usually, (but not always) the original camera negitive is shot with anamorphic lenses ('scope), because 'scope's 2.39 ratio is close to 70mm's 2.21 ratio. This still looks pretty good, because the lens and projector don't have to work as hard enlarging the image.

The other type is where the original camera negitive is 65mm wide. To save a little space (in the camera) and film costs, the negitive is 65mm wide. The extra 5mm is used for the magnetic sound stripes, which are not needed at the camera. The image is copied directly (not blown up) onto 70mm film. This is the best, but is somewhat more expensive.

At the newsgroup "rec.arts.movies.tech" there was a list of 70mm films showing which were shot in 35mm then blown up to 70mm, and which were 65mm/transfered to 70mm. There are other places on the net to find this.

There have been 35mm and 70mm magnetic sound film. This is basically recording tape glued onto film (really, it's more than that, but I'm keeping it simple.) Traditionally, 35mm mag has 4 channels, 70mm has 6. However, the cost of manufacturing a print with mag striping is quite high. (A price of a 70mm release print was quoted awhile ago at $27,000 as compaired to $3,000 for a 35mm print.) It is a labor intensive process, and there are enviromental concerns regarding the chemicals used. So DTS developed a reader for 70mm. This seemed to be the best of both worlds, where a theater could have a high quality 70mm image, with DTS providing the sound rather than the mag problems. Since no studio has taken advantage of this, this leads many people to conclude that the studios simply don't want to spent the money.

You might want to go to Mr. Marty's excellent web page which explains this much better than I:
http://www.simplecom.net/widefilm/widescreen/lobby.htm

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 11-08-1999 12:01 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
On a per-foot basis, the cost of Kodak 70mm print film is about twice the cost of 35mm print film (about 18 cents and 9 cents per foot respectively). So the cost of the raw print stock for a 70mm feature film is about 2.5 times more than 35mm (since the stock is twice the cost per foot, and runs 5/4 faster through the projector).

Since 70mm prints are usually made on much slower printers than 35mm, and require special printers and processing machines available at only a few labs worldwide, the lab costs are considerably greater. Plus, the lab must usually make a 65mm printing negative, and a special DTS sound negative, pro-rated over a relatively small number of prints. The picture negative and the sound negative are printed in two separate operations, further driving up cost.

The actual cost per print is negotiated between the distributor and laboratory, and depends on a variety of factors, including the number of prints ordered.

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243


 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 11-08-1999 06:29 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, actually there have been a number of films that originated on 65mm since Lawrence of Arabia. Ultra-Panavision titles included: Mutiny on the Bounty, Fall of the Roman Empire, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Khartoum, The Halleluah Trail, and The Greatest Story Ever Told. Super Panavision titles include 2001: A Space Odyssey, Krakatoa East of Java, Song of Norway, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Ice Station Zebra, My Fair Lady, Lord Jim, Grand Prix, and others whose names escape me. Todd-Ao movies: Cleopatra, Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines, Sound of Music, The Agony and the Ecstacy, Doctor Dolittle, Star, Hello Dolly, Airport and Baraka. D-150 (a form of Todd-AO) had The Bible and Patton. Also the historical sequences of Little Buddha. Many special effects sequences are still shot in 65mm, even if the movies are only released in 35mm. Contact had significant 65mm footage shot. Overseas, 70mm prints are still struck for many blockbusters, two of which will be shown in L.A. over the next couple of weeks (Tomorrow Never Dies and Godzilla, both with DTS prints).

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999


 - posted 11-15-1999 09:54 AM      Profile for Bruce McGee   Email Bruce McGee   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Way way back in the prehistoric 1980's, I saw "The Sound of Music" twice in one summer. Once with a new 35/scope print, and once in 70mm using a DeLuxe "Roadshow" print with one reel that had been replaced with a new LPP reel.

I thought the 35 print had beautiful color. However, I have more fond memories of the 70mm print having to do with the sharpness, and the fantastic sound. Both films were presented in the same theater. The projectors were Century JJ's

The final reel of the 70 print was the new one. Everybody in the theater gasped when the image hit the screen.

I must tell you that we were told before the screening that this was an original 1965 print with some replacement footage. The color was very faded, but had no missing footage.

I saw 2001 in 70 at the same theater. The print was made up of odd reels. The color varied from reel to reel, as did the wear and tear. All in all, the 70 experience is the main thing that I remember out of all of the films I saw back then...At least 2 every weekend.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.