Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Super Dimension-70 (70mm process) web site has opened

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Super Dimension-70 (70mm process) web site has opened (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Super Dimension-70 (70mm process) web site has opened

Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 05-10-2001 09:42 AM

In order to wave the 70mm flag, a new web site about the latest 70mm format has opened at http://www.superdimension70.com/

Has anyone seen the process demonstrated and if positive, what is your opinion?

------------------
All my best
Thomas
..in70mm - The 70mm Newsletter
www.in70mm.com www.dp70.com www.70mm.dk www.hauerslev.com http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm

| IP: Logged

Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 05-10-2001 10:07 AM

Two things that caught my attention on the WWW site:

quote:
"Absolutely breathtaking and orgasm-inducing" - Robert Primes, ASC

I can't believe they actually posted that one.

quote:
"What I have just seen is brighter, sharper and clearer than Imax and best of all SDS-70 fits into my theaters”

Mary Oiler, District Manager
AMC Theaters, Century City, CA

Sharper and clearer than IMAX? With 5-perf 70mm with only one-third the area used?

quote:
Screens as big as 80 feet can be employed and have a reflective light level of more than 16ft Lambert's. SDS-70™ can fit into any Megaplex without costly construction

Ummmm, yeah, if there is already an auditorium with space for an 80-foot screen. Most megaplexes (except in larger cities) max out with 40 foot screens in auditoriums that are seldom more than 56 feet wide.

The increased temporal resolution of 48 fps, projected at 96fps, along with the pin registration transport mechanism seem to be the improvements over regular 5-perf 70mm, which would reduce the flicker and make the image more lifelike, and so would reducing the jump and weave, but would it make the quality better than IMAX? If the jump and weave were reduced by a factor of 3 and the film stock had 3 times the resolution of stock used for IMAX, then it could be possible. Is the increased frame rate alone enough to give the illusion of increased spatial resolution?

Do you think that so few people have seen a 70mm presentation of a movie in so long that they would be amazed by standard 24 fps 5-perf 70mm? Many people that watch movies in theatres nowadays have never seen anything other than standard 35mm flat and scope formats, and even the older people that remember 70mm have not seen it in close to 20 years (or longer).

I'd like to hear the opinions of anyone who has seen SDS-70 and IMAX that could make a comparison between the two. I'd also be interested in hearing from anyone who has seen SDS-70 and normal 5-perf 70mm that could make a comparison between those as well.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 05-10-2001 10:20 AM

I haven't seen the demo yet, but have heard that it is stunning. Shooting 65mm negative at 48 frames per second should approach 60 fps SHOWSCAN quality for sharpness and lack of grain, with excellent motion rendition and lack of strobing. Showing 70mm prints at 48 fps with a two blade shutter would completely eliminate shutter flicker, even at very high screen luminance levels. AFAIK, the 48 fps frame rate was chosen to facilitate easier print-down to 24 fps for general release, making this a more viable format for feature film production than 30 fps or 60 fps formats.

"Film Done Right" taken to the next level --- Go for it!!!

Evans: 15-perf 70mm formats like IMAX are great, and certainly have the advantage of image area. But the 1.43:1 aspect ratio doesn't lend itself to today's feature production.

IMHO, SDS-70 would also look stunning on a 20 x 44 foot screen.

------------------
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

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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

posted 05-10-2001 06:38 PM

There is a market for "big-format" films like IMAX. Odyssey is an example. But of course, people want it cheaper than real IMAX. I think it is this market Super Dimension-70 is going for.

It can't be marketed for the average multiplex theater, because the average multiplex theater can't even get (or have patrons interested in) regular old 5/70 @ 24fps. And many already have the equipment to run it (some even at 30fps.)

So, while anything in 70mm is cool, this kind of thing fragments the market and causes people not to invest. It does not say if the projector can also run regular 35mm; (probably not) if so, even fewer exhibitors will want to pay for two machines.

So (to me) this falls in the same catagory as Maxivision, 8/70, etc.: It's cool, but regular theaters will probably never see it. And to totally defy logic, e-theaters (with their poorer picture quality) _will_ happen.

They also are jumping on the "digital" buzz word, which is OK; fight fire with fire!
Quote:

"In addition, the 48fps. SDS-70™ frame rate is digitally optimized so that each frame is refreshed twice, resulting in a display rate of 96 images per second, a similar refresh rate employed by computer displays. "

I note they are careful not to let you see the mechanism, or give any real description of how it works.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-10-2001 06:46 PM

Showscan failed to impress my sorry ass. True, it was mostly computer graphics, but there was a live action scene which was probably just a 35mm/24fps conversion. Still, it sucked. The moving seats also distrated me.

Maybe we should all get together and invent a new 70mm format... 30 perfs per frame (running horizontally)! That way it would be wide enough for today's movies. Oh, and make it run at least 48 frames per second, maybe 60. The size of a typical 70mm print today would equal the size of a short trailer with this imaginary format!

Ah hell, DLP is plenty good enough. Let's go with that instead!!!

| IP: Logged

Christopher Seo
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 530
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-11-2001 04:56 AM

Which ones did you see, Joe? Are there any "classic" Showscan movies? Are they all less than 10 min? I've seen the Abandoned Mineshaft Ride (in two different places) and some kind of Dragon/Fantasy/Sci-Fi ride whose plot I had no hope of following since I was first and foremost trying to evaluate technical quality while determining if my internal organs were still functioning.

What little live-action there was did not seem enhanced. The only clue I had to the increased frame rate was the faster jump/weave. Whether it was shot on 35 or 65 I don't know since the focus seemed soft anyway. The CGI which made up probably 95%-100% of both movies was quite primitive. Modern video games are better. All in all I was quite disappointed.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-11-2001 05:33 AM

Yeah I saw that Mine Shaft one. God it was bad. It is no wonder that a format like Showscan failed. I never had any sense of motion at all. And even if I did, a real roller coaster is much more fun. Hell, even waiting in the line is more fun than Showscan!

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 05-11-2001 05:49 AM

The original concept of SHOWSCAN developed by Doug Trumbull was to use a large curved floor-to-ceiling screen and very bright screen luminance allowed by the 60 fps frame rate. Almost everyone who saw this version was very impressed with the realism and quality. The system evolved into the "ridefilm" version, much of which involved CGI that did not take full advantage of the resolution of the system. The best of these later SHOWSCAN films was "Street Luge", which was live action. IMHO, if you didn't see the original version developed by Trumbull, you really didn't see SHOWSCAN's true capability.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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

posted 05-11-2001 08:25 AM

I saw a demo of Showscan many years ago (1983?). I forget the title, but in the film the projector "breaks" and a guy goes behind the screen to "fix" it. He turns on a light behind the screen and does things like lean against the screen while working (so you see a reverse pin-cushion distortion.)

Anyway, you would swear on your life there was really a guy back there; it was quite impressive both visually and audibly. So while today's Showscan plots and/or content may suck, that's not the format's fault.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 05-11-2001 01:40 PM

AFAIK, the first SHOWSCAN film was "New Magic", and I believe this is the one with the projectionist behind the screen bit that looked like real life. Here is the list of SHOWSCAN titles on the Internet Movie Data Base:
IMDB List of SHOWSCAN Films

"Devils Mine" was one of the first SHOWSCAN ridefilm titles.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 05-11-2001 01:53 PM

Joe, you forgot about the fans on the ceiling to force air on the viewers during the mine ride. Did that distract you too?

Overall the idea was great, but I was unimpressed with the machines. They would work great in "forward" motion, but as soon as they would disengage to rewind through the projector, the film would be destroyed after about a day's worth of that. No tech was ever able to make those damn things work. Not even the Showscan tech. Rewinding through the projector is just a stupid idea in the first place. They should've gone with a loop cabinet or a platter. Rethreading a platter would've saved tons more time than dealing with that machine tearing up film during a rewind. A loop cabinet would've been ideal.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 05-11-2001 02:05 PM

AFAIK, the original SHOWSCAN machines were "beefed up" Century JJ, and the film was rewound separately.

The machines that rewound through the gate were driven by the desire to automate the ridefilm sites, and have the flexibility of several titles on one roll.

Recall the ill-fated Eprad "SWORD" system that also attempted automation by running the film backwards through the gate.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-11-2001 04:14 PM

I don't remember the air blowing on me, it was many years ago. I honestly do not remember much at all except that it was unimpressive.

I saw the projectors a few times (in action) and they definitely did not resemble a JJ in any way. I do remember the film having a light black scratch on it, and it was fairly new, so Brad's statement that it destroys on rewind seems to be correct.

Why use such a high standard of presentation just to deliver "ride films"? You could have used 35mm 30fps and no one would have been the wiser. The screens were so small that it wouldn't have made much of a difference with CG anyway.

| IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 05-11-2001 05:02 PM

John is correct (as usual) about the original Showscan concept. I was so impressed at the time that I bought stock in the company (it might have been under the Todd-A-O banner at the time) and got to watch the stock price drop to nothing. I might have an old annual report still kicking around in back storage.

I'm encouraged that someone is trying something similar, but I seriously question whether it will have any better chance of success. IIRC, Trumbull was touting 60fps as more effective in any translation to tv, but that didn't open any supporting pocketbooks.

When showscan was resurrected as a kishka shaker, I endured one ride and wrote it off as a recycling of the name. Upon leaving, I felt like a James Bond martini (shaken, not stirred.)

Trumbull impresses me as a man with great technical skills, and a passion for excellence, but for whatever reason his ideas were rarely appreciated or implimented properly. Regrettably, his lead in the tech effects team of "2001" was probably his 15 minutes of fame.

I do think that the new system could make a wonderful 3-D format with the addition of a polarized shutter setup. A rock steady image and single lens would solve the registration problems that plague two projector and two lens 3-D movies.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-11-2001 05:24 PM

Frankly it looks like another looser system that some mega rich investors got suckered into. Oh well.........
Years ago, Showscan and Douglas Trumbull did allot of psychological research into frame rates. They did not just come up and say hey, lets run the thing at 60fps and that should look good. What they did was to perform psychological comparisons on many people of 70mm film projected at many different frame rates starting at 30fps and going up from there. What they discovered was that 60 fps was the optimum rate that created the best overall illusion of something being real. And as John Walsh mentioned when the guy went behind the screen and put his face to it it was VERY real looking and stunned the audience.
This new system at 48fps is a serious compromise on all the work that Showscan did. Somewhat like when Todd-AO went from 30 fps to 24, like taking the Todd out of the A-O. Again, just another compromise system. Also looks like another version of the Mega, or linear loop projector that they are using. Oh well again....It should be a rolling loop for highest quality!! Common guys...2000 runs...thats not anything to brag about.
They also say that they are using standard cameras off the shelf. I've seen allot of double exposure tests of different 35mm cameras running at different high speeds(anything above 24) and believe me, they do not perform near as well at high speeds as they do at normal 24 or 30, pin registered or not. Thats one of the reasons that Panavision has a camera called the Panastar. Its designed to churn out dead steady images at high speeds. Again in this area Showscan had Cinema Products build custom 65mm cameras for them to be able to run at this high speed day in and day out and perform as well as a normal camera at 24 or 30.
I have seen Showscan many times and the best was at the Aladdin on the ride simulators and at the demo that was setup at Showest in the MGM Grand theatre years ago. The Demos at the MGM made many people, including Gene Siskel, quite sick and I'd say this is a testament to the fact that it worked! I doubt that many people could watch "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" in Showscan with out being taken out on a stretcher at the end of the show. Imax 3-D will also do the same thing. Can't remember going to an Imax 3-D that didn't have some seats bagged off, or a section roped off cause of puke on the seats.
Trust me, It'll be short lived like the rest of em and It'll all go nowhere.
Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.