my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 70mm Alive And Well In San Francisco (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: 70mm Alive And Well In San Francisco Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 07-19-2005 09:47 AM                     Looks like the Castro in San Francisco has scheduled a 70mm fest for August. Diverse lineup includes the usual suspects ("Lawrence," "2001"...), new "Hello, Dolly!" print, original version of "Apocalypse Now," plus blowups of some well-liked movies. http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm http://www.castrotheatre.com quote: Aug. 1 ... Vertigo Aug. 2 ... 2001: A Space Odyssey Aug. 3 ... Lawrence Of Arabia Aug. 4 ... The Bridge On The River Kwai Aug. 5 ... Apocalypse Now Aug. 6 ... The Road Warrior Aug. 7 ... Ghostbusters Aug. 8 ... Dragonslayer Aug. 9 ... Tommy Aug. 10 ... Edward Scissorhands Aug. 11 ... Hello, Dolly!  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 07-19-2005 06:19 PM                     Unless it is on a really VAST screen, 70 is just another Yeah, So What. Even then, after the first impression wears off, it's just a movie. Just my opinion guys. I ain't impressed. If a film is originated on 35, other that the potential for brightness, what is the benefit of a 35 to 70 blowup? The resolution can never be any better than the original 35mm neg.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-19-2005 07:01 PM                        70mm may be alive in San Francisco, but it certainly isn't "well". If it were well, it'd be more than special venue and many theaters would be playing prints, and new movies would be uprezed from the pathetic HDTV resolution (which Kodak and Dolby feel is plenty good enough for the general public due to their low standards) that they are currently shot/scanned in to 5-perf 70mm prints.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-19-2005 07:11 PM                     What I find incredibly stupid is all of the IMAX DMR stuff. These are not 4:3 shows but some form of wide screen...as such the picture though still bigger than a 5/70 frame is not that much bigger. If WB wants to really recover their costs...go back to 5/70 and increase the number of venues that can possibly show it and not have to cut IMAX in on the deal. From what I can tell...these new IMAX (MPX?) theatres are not the super big screens normally assoicated with traditional IMAX 15/70 process. If you are going to show films on that size screen...then 5/70 is the logical choice. What does IMAX have to offer? I guess their DMR process...but I counter with shooting in 65mm...then all prints are improved...even those weird digital ones.  |  IP: Logged Andy Summers Master Film Handler Posts: 397 From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom Registered: Jun 2005 posted 07-19-2005 08:21 PM                 There is a huge difference with 70mm the ability to present films in six-track mag Dolby stereo with split-surrounds, and Lucasfilm THX sound system, yeah 70mm is still very much alive 35mm regular in the days before the dawn of the digital domain, was just a routine film showing leaving 70mm for the eventful road show presentations totally indispensable… Also I believe a few of those films where shot in 65mm originally like “Lawrence of Arabia” “2001: A Space Odyssey” and the visual effects in “Ghostbusters” where 65mm by “Richard Edlund” Boss group. http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/richard_edlund.htm I love the smell of 70mm six-track Dolby A type, in the morning…  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-19-2005 09:15 PM                     I agree with Steve, the IMAX DMR stuff is pretty silly. You're going through a very expensive method to deliver something honestly no better than a 5/70 blow-up of a 35mm originated film. On top of that, some the digital methods used to "up-rez" the 35mm film actually introduce other problems into the image. The IMAX DMR version of "The Matrix: Reloaded" often had this subtle but noticeable flattened newsprint quality imagery happening. It seemed as if the image had been put through something similar to Photoshop's high pass filter to sharpen up things. But it resulted in this dirty look that reminds me of photocopies of photos. Here's another thing I find extremely stupid: Giant screen stadium seated theaters with only 35mm projection equipment. Now and then some exhibitor has to open a theater with what they claim is the biggest screen in town or the entire state. The Dallas area has a few of these (two at the Galaxy 9, a couple at the Cinemark 17 - Webb Chapel/LBJ and a couple at the Cinemark in Grapevine). These houses boast screens over 70 feet across. I have never seen 35mm projection equipment properly light any screen that big ever. Only 70mm can do it. Given the Dallas area has at least seven or more screens like this, it would be a conservative estimate that there are at least more than 100 or 200 of these types of giant screened stadium seated theaters in the United States alone. And they all need 70mm entirely all the time to show a properly bright image. But nooooooooooooo. 35mm on giant screens is good enough. Oh, but wait, let's go one better --VIDEO of roughly HDTV quality on giant screens. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 07-19-2005 10:30 PM                     Does anyone know how much filming in 70MM would add to a movie not directed by a multitake maniac like Kubrick? And filmmakers could always mix in 35 and 70MM based on the scene and the maximum value of a shot if they can get away with it. Also how much would printing 100 70MM blowups add to the overall distribution cost ?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-20-2005 06:16 AM                     Bob Harris has given figures for the shooting aspect of 65mm. I seem to recall that the increase to a typical feature would be on the order of just under 1-million...a rather reasonable amount given the many-millions put into the making of one film. For distribution...70mm normally represents a 7-10 fold increase in cost. However, those 70mm prints have normally heavily out sold their 35mm counterparts. I would think that the cost of printing in 70mm would vary with the number of prints ordered. The cost of the print stock alone will set you back 2.5 times since 70mm is 25% longer and twice as wide. I believe Mr. Pytlak has stated that 70mm print stock is roughly twice as expensive to purchase. However...and IMAX release is 3 times more than a standard 5/70. The difference mainly being, the amount of black letter boxing on the IMAX film...one is spending an awful alot of money to project black bars (and print them). Choose 5/70, "its the environmental thing to do!" (now I think I may go puke)  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-20-2005 07:10 AM                     'Hamlet' managed to shoot on 65mm, and that wasn't a particularly high-budget production; I wouldn't imagine that 'Baraka' was either, but I don't have the figures for it. Of course, there are many productions where this difference would be totally unaffordable, but I would have thought that there would be several each year where it could be justified. The vast majority of cinemas do not have screens so large that they cannot be reasonably lit with 35mm, though there are some that do. I think there would be a greater benefit in shooting on 65mm, or Vista or other large format than there would be from making 70mm blow-ups from 35mm productions. Large format origination benefits all cinemas which show the film, not just the few that are equipped to run 70mm (and manage to get hold of a 70mm print). Once you've made the interneg a 35mm print of a 65mm production costs no more than one from a 35mm production, yet gives better quality, with no extra expenditure in distribution or exhibition. I've seen some very good-looking 35mm reduction prints, and these days 70mm no longer has the sound advantage that it used to, given that any new release would be likely to be DTS, which is the same with both gauges. 'West Side Story' had a limited re-release here a few years ago, and the prints of that were as good as any I've seen. Of course, you would still have the option to make a few 70mm prints if you wanted to for those few venues that do have very large screens. Where you need a small, lightweight camera the Arri 765 is not much bigger or heavier than a 35mm one. You would still have the reduced depth of field, but with todays faster stocks you could probably shoot at a smaller stop to partially compensate.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-20-2005 07:47 AM                     The other thing that must be stated regarding 5/70mm or VistaVision 8/35mm for feature film production: it is better for home video release too. Larger film formats deliver superior color quality and image sharpness for transfers to HD and NSTC formats. The higher resolution of a 5/70 or 8/35 image makes the movie more forward compatible with future video formats than 4/35 or current HD video standards. Given the fact movies can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and market, it would only seem to make sense to protect that very expensive investment by producing the movie in a better quality format.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-20-2005 08:00 AM                        Vistavision also has extra image area above and below the 2.21:1 area, which gives extra head- and foot-room, allowing for more options to improve the composition of a 1.33 full-frame TV version of the film. Super 35 also has this advantage, but VV will give better quality, due to the larger frame area.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 07-20-2005 09:16 AM                     quote: Bill Enos If a film is originated on 35, other that the potential for brightness, what is the benefit of a 35 to 70 blowup? The resolution can never be any better than the original 35mm neg. So what. The audience never sees what's on the negative.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harris Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 07-20-2005 09:52 AM                     While archaic at this point in time, if one wished to print to both 35 and 70, an interesting alternative, which gave superior results from a stability standpoint, was Technirama. RAH  |  IP: Logged Thomas Hauerslev Master Film Handler Posts: 451 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Registered: Aug 2000 posted 07-21-2005 01:15 AM                        Just added 8 more 70mm screenings at the Paramount in Austin. see www.in70mm.com for details  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-21-2005 01:24 AM                        speaking of the castro, i heard the other day that their upcoming calendar will include some 3-d. i didn't note exactly when. within the last few years they had gotten rid of their silver screen, so i guess this means they got, or will get, another one. (at least one would hope so.) carl  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.