|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 70mm on the up
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 11-05-2003 08:23 PM
In 2002, Columbia re-issued "Lawrence of Arabia", making up a total of 8 new 70mm prints. There were 5 prints that were DTS only, and 3 prints that had the mag tracks applied. (The mag prints may carry the photographic copy of the DTS track, but could not play the DTS because some of the mag track covers the area used by DTS.) However the gentleman heading the "classics" department at Columbia told me that the mag prints were used quite a bit, and the DTS not so much. So, if you want the best-looking, less-used print of "Lawrence", ask for the DTS ones. Obviously, more places still have mag track capability -- although the condition can be marginal.
One of the reasons Columbia cited for making the DTS prints was because they were "tired of receiving back prints with ticking sounds in the soundtrack" because of projectors with magnetized spots. I've encountered a few of them (noisy prints) myself, and it's quite annoying. Anyway, DTS seems (to me) to run hot and cold on their process. The DTS techs are eager to use it, but the suits don't seem to echo that enthusiasm, certainly as far as pushing (publicizing)the availability of the technology for 70mm prints.
FWIW, the new print of "Mad (4) World" that recently ran at the Cinerama Dome in L.A. was a DTS print. We expect to be playing that print at my theatre (The Egyptian, in Hollywood) around the middle of January. MGM may circulate that print to other places later, but I haven't heard their plans for it.
Back a year or so ago, when Ron Howard had a fistful of Oscars and was on track to direct the remake of "The Alamo", there was a rumor that he might photograph it in 65mm. When he left the project, that hope was "dashed to pieces on the rocks of despair". I'd hoped George Lucas would come around, but he's gone completely digital, of course.
The biggest problem (besides some extra cost) is the frantic release schedule of today's movies, in which films are sometimes in editing until the last possible minute, (maybe waiting for that last special effects shot), and then the reels are rushed to the lab with a need to make like, 4000 copies. Overnight. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) It would take another day or two (at the most optimistic) to make the 70mm blowups (and check them, of course), and oftentimes, that time simply isn't there.
Further, even though many good cinema locations have "sleeping" 70mm capability, theatre owners (a thrifty bunch, to be charitable about their behavior) often are not inclined to maintain the equipment, and often don't even bother to advertise the fact of the 70mm print being run. We ran "2001: A Space Odyssey" at my theatre at the end of 2001, doing a 2 week run at that time. Do you think my publicity department remembered to advertise 70mm in the display ad in the newspaper? Nope. There was some finger-pointing, saying WB specified the ad, but the reality was that the engagement was "okay" successful, but it should have been better, and would have, if they'd advertised it right.
And, 3 blocks away from me, Disney ran a 70mm print of "Sleeping Beauty" about a year ago -- and no mention of "70mm" in the newspaper ads. There was a tag, on the marquee, stating 70mm,
but you had to be driving past the theatre to see that!!!
For the life of me I can't figure out why they can't put that magical "in 70mm" logo at the bottom of the ads, to get the word out!
There has been other discussion of 70mm, on other threads, so rather than repeat all that, I'll refer you to the handy "search" function Brad has on Film-Tech. But I, like probably everyone else here, LIVE for the day we hear that someone is going to make a new dramatic film, shooting in large format (65mm).
I used to dream that someone could suggest to some of the "names" in a film (the ones that are paid obscene millions to act) that they take a million $ off their fee, to cover the minor additional costs of 65mm production. In exchange, they would get MUCH BETTER close-ups. What ego could resist such an offer? So far, I haven't heard of it happening.
And finally, for John Pytlak: Here in L.A., Foto-Kem lab has recently (in the last month or so) opened a new wide-gauge film department, hiring someone from Pacific Title to set it up and get it running. That's interestingly-good news. Wish I knew why they thought it was a good idea right now. On the other hand, CFI (lab) is no longer in business, so maybe that motivated them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 11-06-2003 06:15 AM
Spielberg on shooting film or digital:
http://www.theraider.net/newsarchives/indy4/2003_january.php
quote:
Given Lucas' commitment for shooting digitally and Spielberg's passion for
film-rarely among Directors, he even edits on film - Indy 4 suggests an other
battle of the beards; but, apparently not. "I would do anything for my friend George Lucas, including compromising my own belief system. But I think practically speaking, there aren't going to be enough theatres even in 2005 to exhibit digital film to make it worth my while to commit digitally to Indy 4 at this time. If there were 2,000 screens with digital projectors I might seriously consider it for George and his vision of the future. But it looks like there's no chance that the theatres will put it in the next three years, so I'll be happily shooting Indy 4 on film."
Spielberg seems very enthusiastic about Indy 4 and now we also know that the film won't be shot digitally. Thanks to Luke Roberts for letting us know.
http://www.theraider.net/newsarchives/indy4/2002_august.php
quote:
The Edmonton Journal reports that Steven Spielberg is no fan of digital moviemaking. "I don't want to shoot digital movies," Spielberg says. "I like film."
"I love shooting on film and I love editing on film. I know that digital will do the same thing film will do. It will still use lenses. It will still capture the same images. The difference is that digital is like acrylic paint. It's so photo-realistic that you don't see any flaws. With traditional film, where you have it going through shutters in a film gate, it's alive with grain -- compared to digital, it's like an impressionist painting. I would still rather see a still life painted by an impressionist than a still life painted by Norman Rockwell."
But as a favor to George Lucas on Indiana Jones 4, he might use it. "I'd do anything for George and if George asked me to shoot Indiana Jones 4 on digital, I'd do it. But my duties will always be to shoot on film."
http://www.moviebone.com/vault/usenet/spielberg.html
quote:
SPIELBERG WON'T SHOOT FILMS DIGITALLY
Steven Spielberg has vowed to continue to make movies
"the old fashioned way," on celluloid rather than on
hard disks. Speaking Wednesday night at the Smithsonian
Institution's Baird Auditorium in Washington D.C., where
he received the James Smithson Bicentennial Medal,
Spielberg distanced himself from his longtime friend and
sometime colleague George Lucas, who has announced plans
to shoot his next Star Wars movie entirely on digital media.
As reported in today's (Thursday) Washington Post, Spielberg
told the Smithsonian audience: "I'm going to make all my
films on film until they close the last lab down."
The audience cheered.
Source: http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-06-2003 06:17 PM
What was first: The duck or the egg ??
Distributors wants to be sure, exhibitors are ready to run 70dts, and exhibitors want to be sure, there are enough prints to run.
Yeah, 1.300 bucks for a reader is peanuts compared with a mag head, but its not coming all alone - there will be more costs to get ready /maybe two readers on each of two projectors ? / and You still have to split the amount on the bill between the number of shows, they'll make You able to run. In Denmark, we still have O-N-E 70mm/dts print - Titanic - and how many readers do You think, will that one pay today ?
Would still love to run some real stuff again, someday...
Per
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
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.
|
Home
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic