If you compare the lenses to modern lenses using a roll of the SMPTE Projector Alignment Film 35-PA (RP-40), you will see the resolution and focus uniformity are not as good. If you compare the quality using images having a wide range of contrast, the old lenses will look much softer (more flare) and lack the crispness of modern lenses.

Using a roll of SMPTE 35-PA, you should ideally be able to resolve 80 line pairs/mm in the center, and at least 56 line pairs/mm at the corners of the image. Some of these older lenses will be lucky to achieve half of that resolution.

If what you say is true. These older lenses are half the resolution of todays lenses, then it would stand to reason with todays improved print and negative stocks, 35mm presentations are at least twice as good as 35mm presentations 20 to 40 years ago.

Although, I haven't seen this improvement in the last several features I have attended. Any idea of how many of these older lenses are still in use?

Larry

Today, many features with digital effects are not done at the highest resolution available because of the expense, and it sometimes shows on the screen. Super-35 cinematography, "done right", can produce excellent scope release prints. Done wrong, the images are grainy and unsharp.

I was especially impressed with the on-screen image quality of "The Thin Red Line" which was shot and presented in 35mm "scope". Images were very sharp and grain-free. I have also looked at 35mm prints from decades ago that my memory said were wonderful, only to see how grainy and unsharp they really were. For example, Hitchcock's "Rear Window" is a wonderful film, but the recent prints (as good as they are) show the limitations of the color negative film and camera lenses of 45 years ago.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

It seems to me that the difference between a 35mm scope image and a 70mm flat image is about 2.77 sq inches or about 1.4 average magnification.

An older lens with half the resolution of a modern lens could actually have more image loss then what a 70mm print could make up by size.

The 35mm print in that case might even look better then the 70mm print.

Am I missing something or is it these older lenses really can't be all that bad.

Larry

Check out the excellent paper by Kodak, published in the September 1983 SMPTE Journal: "Projection Performance of Theatrical Motion-Picture Films Using Xenon Short-Arc Lamps" by Paul Preo. The thing that causes problems is the "watts per square millimetre", not the total watts. Spreading the energy of a 6000 watt lamp over a 70mm frame has five times less energy concentration than the same lamp illuminating a 35mm 1.85:1 frame, and three time less than a 35mm scope frame:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december98/pppp.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml

On a large 1000 square foot screen, the 70mm blow-up will look better than 35mm, mostly because of the reduced heat concentration. Taking your argument further, I'm sure you will agree you'd never try to fill a 1000 square foot screen with a 16mm or Super-8 print, even though the small format prints can look very good on a small screen. Size DOES matter when it comes to filling really big screens.

I never thought of it this way. I always thought of the photographc system as a set of links. That the weakest link controls the system.

Has anybody ever made a math model of the motion picture system. In other words, calculating the MTF of the camera, the MTF of the printing system, and the radiant energy issue plus the MTF of the projection system along with the MTF of the viewer.

It just seems to me that this all can be mixed and matched to come up with a final product.

I guess I am trying to figure out if the projection lens is really a weak link in the system or that the whole system is more or less controlled by the radiant energy issue.

Over the years, Kodak has presented quite a few technical papers on the subject of photographic systems modeling. For example, check out the paper "Today's Photographic Imaging Technology for Tomorrow's HDTV System" by Michael A. Kriss and Jeanine Liang, SMPTE Journal, August 1983. Film was ready for HDTV decades ago! Roger Morton of Kodak just presented papers with systems modeling results at last October's SMPTE Technical Conference in Pasadena, and this February's SMPTE Winter Television Conference. Other Kodak researchers included C.N. Nelson, E.C.Doerner, and John C. Norris.

The physics of projection was studied and recommendations for improvement were made by Kodak reseachers like Frederick Kolb, Paul Preo, A.C. Robertson, R.H.Talbot, Ray Estes, E.K.Carver, J.G. Stott, Eric Yavitz, J.R. Turner, etc. Others outside of Kodak like Glenn Berggren and William Borberg also made significant contributions. At the SMPTE Technical Conference last October, I presented a paper and showed a demo clearly showing the advantages of a 1.5X anamorphic system to replace the inefficient 1.85:1 "flat" format --- an idea ("IscoVision") first proposed by Glenn Berggren almost twenty years ago!

The technology to project superb images on huge screens has existed for almost 50 years, and continues to improve. Why don't we use it? Why do we have to ask if a 40 year old lens is "good enough"? Why are labs forced to use a continuous contact printer to print all the intermediate stages? Why do some theatres try to light a 20x48 foot screen with only a 3000 watt lamp? Why do some theatres crop both "flat" and "scope" images to fit a 2:1 screen with fixed masking? Why do EXIT signs still shine on screens?

Hint: Don't blame a lack of good technology.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

I am just trying to understand the presentation issues with regard to motion picture photography. In other words, why are things the way they are? The older to newer lens resolution values for projection lenses are of interest to me. Just wondering if they indeed make a big improvement in the system

I can see were radiant energy might be the a fixed value or at least a control value where everything is balanced to it.

I am sure all this has been worked out at sometime by someone. What I didn't realize is, many theaters tend not to conform to any type of standard even though a standard is available. I noticed that the test film your talking about is about $500 although a shorter version is available for about $175.
Actually a test film should be attached to the start of all presentations. How much would this cost at 15 cents a foot. Maybe 5 bucks?

It looks to me that you can have two very different presentations from the very same print.

I blame no one for this. I am just trying to understand it.