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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Improve 35mm (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Improve 35mm Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 02-24-2006 07:09 PM                        We’re all rooting for the return of 65mm but for we mere mortals who hope for the future of small independents there is a case for improving 35mm. Let’s keep the 70vsDC string for 70vsDC and look at ways to keep 35mm alive. Did I imagine it or did those 35mm reduction VistaVision prints sparkle on the screens of our local picture palaces? Frankly, I don’t recall anamorphic prints of 65mm or 55mm features having any quality issues before they went pink. So, if 65mm photography gets up, we can look forward to some beautiful 35mm reduction prints as well. Bonus! With today’s superb film stocks (and more to come) they will look even better than Mike Todd would have imagined. If some of you are right, that the studios are reluctant to spend the extra pocket money on film stock then we could do worse than optimising 35mm photography as well. There are wizards on this forum who could re-build a Simplex from its oil droppings so it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with ideas that would work, not new inventions that require radical departures. I have been too long away from the blunt end of a movie camera to be dogmatic about certain technical aspects so I am certain of being corrected. Flat 1.85 4/35 was a compromise in the fifties and is a wasteful anachronism now. Here are some idea starters: 3/35 camera stocks using full width between CS perfs to expose 40 square mm more than Super 35 for Scope. 5/35 anamorphic using full width between standard perfs could expose a frame 18% bigger than 4/35. If CS perfs could handle it we would gain 24%. Reduction prints from these for regular projection should look impressive on screens up to 40 foot wide. Larger screens do need 70mm prints, not just for light but also for focal length. Even the best lenses have trouble resolving 35mm images on huge screens. If 65mm photography can’t get up, 5/35CS would enlarge to 70 much better than today’s Super 35. Some systems promote higher frame rates (at higher cost) for smoother images but a variable shutter like my Nikon Super 8 camera could do the trick. Where did 55mm camera film come from? Would it work as an alternative to 65mm?  |  IP: Logged Floyd Justin Newton Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 559 From: Phoenix, Arizona, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 02-24-2006 07:25 PM                     The guy above (Ron) is making GOOD sense.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-24-2006 10:29 PM                     I would be all in favor of bringing back VistaVision style 35mm photography. 8/35 production would be great for standard 1.85:1 shows and "Technirama" style anamorphic photography would deliver better looking 'scope movies. But there's not much in the way of new cameras and lens systems to do 8/35 motion picture photography. The magazine loads sideways. Has anyone ever built a VistaVision camera that could mount atop a Steadicam and not require a professional body builder's strength to wield it? 55mm production is an even longer shot. First, CinemaScope55 never really got its legs under it. I mean, how many movies were shot in the format? Carosel and The King and I were about it, right? Actual CinemaScope55 camera gear, lenses, reduction printers, etc. have got to be very rare. On top of that, is it really necessary to revive that 55mm format when the 8-perf 65mm/70mm format is far more established? The other incremental ways to improve 35mm production are all valid to use in making movies. But the 35mm method for showing movies is going to quickly turn into an endangered species. I figured 35mm projection would be around for a long time, but that was until Carmike Cinemas issued their recent announcement they would install 2K Christie digital projection systems circuit-wide by the end of 2007. That's over 2400 screens. I was fairly stunned back in 1994 when AMC Theatres said they would eventually install SDDS on all their screens (did they actually reach that goal?). This annoucement is quite a bit larger in scale. And I doubt Carmike will be alone in making such annoucements. I expect AMC/Loews, Regal, Cinemark and others to make similar annoucements soon. Some of those guys may finish their D-Cinema conversions before Carmike (although I think Carmike has already started their plan). So right now there may not be much of an issue in improving 35mm prints. New 35mm release prints may become a scarce item by 2010 and all but gone a couple or so years after that. Perhaps some might be produced for a few theaters that want to play them and be regarded like those audiophiles who prefer vinyl records for music listening. In the long run 70mm film prints may be the only kind of film prints left being shown. There's a strong chance you'll only find film reels and platters in IMAX and 8/70 special venue theaters in just a few years. But I'm hoping new 5/70 systems can be installed in some of these new, luxury theaters with giant screens, balcony areas with cash bars and all sorts of other high end features. What's wrong with putting a 70mm print in there, whether it's a blow up from 35mm or originated in 65mm? Many of the customers are already paying a premium to watch a movie in such an auditorium, just like they do when watching a IMAX DMR show. The movie company is still making more money off that big auditorium. If they invest in putting a better quality film print into such auditoriums they'll probably get more and more people back into such theaters for repeat visits and make more money off of it. Really, if a few people within the film distribution end of things worked with some folks on the exhibition end of things they could easily develop a marketing and business plan to bring back big movie palaces. Sure, it's a huge auditorium (or a number of them) tacked onto a "megaplex" but the inside of that auditorium would still seem pretty similar to a palace auditorium of long ago. Or to put it more simply: they could take IMAX' idea, do it a little more efficiently and compete with them on it. The distributors could have the best of both worlds. Beam movies via satellite to the video projectors of 99% of theaters around the country, and then strike 100 70mm prints to play in big palacial theaters to get across that positive "halo effect" in advertising to show the movie in its best, and most nostalgic, classic, form.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-25-2006 02:30 AM                     quote: Bobby Henderson The magazine loads sideways .. or like the Mitchell VV "Elephant Ears" camera . the 2000ft magazines were behind the camera with the magazines vertical, but the film still travelled sideways. .. and the unit still being on a tripod. -Monte [ 02-25-2006, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]  |  IP: Logged John Koutsoumis Master Film Handler Posts: 261 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Registered: Aug 2003 posted 02-25-2006 04:44 AM                     It would be nice to able to see inside the "Mitchell VV" camera and see how it's actually laced up. Might be a bit tricky. I've seen a few Technicolor prints of films made in VistaVision in recent times and you just think "how did go from this back to 4/35?". Last Thursday night I screened a Technicolor print of Douglas Sirk's 1956 film "Written on the Wind". Even though it's only 4/35 widescreen it looked great but it's no VistaVision. BTW, all the Technicolor prints I experience were illuminated by Carbon-Arc Later this year i'll be screening a new print of "The Leopard" shot in Technirama and so far i've heard nothing but good things about how great it looks on screen. I think it would be easier to convince someone to make a film in 8/35 as opposed to 65 and it will look just as good. I for one would but I'm not up to that phase yet and that's of I even get there...  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-25-2006 12:22 PM                     John, It's all here in this site. You'll get stuck here for a few days.. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-25-2006 02:05 PM                     quote: John Koutsoumis I think it would be easier to convince someone to make a film in 8/35 as opposed to 65 and it will look just as good. I for one would but I'm not up to that phase yet and that's of I even get there... Again, this has to do with what is available in terms of camera design and lens packages. There are 65mm camera models that can be hooked up to a Steadicam. Are there any for VistaVision? I doubt that. The last "new" VistaVision camera system I've heard about was the VistaGlide motion control camera system (introduced, I think, on the Back to the Future sequels. That's a huge computer controlled camera that rolls back and forth on a dolly. Now, it's fully within the realm of physical possibility for companies like Panavision, Arri or others to make a compact, lightweight VistaVision movie camera and outfit it with a complete line of sperhical "VistaVision" and anamorphic "Technirama" lenses. But that R&D effort would cost a pretty serious amount of money. And right now all the rage seems to be over doing HD quality video, not film. Maybe when the whole infatuation phase with video dies down a bit perhaps some key people might be able to take a more objective look at film formats like 8/35 -or at least consider what's already available in 65mm.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 02-26-2006 03:15 AM                        The industry’s creative accountants have told me that satellites, servers and card-swipe ticketing will mean that theatres will run with just a manager and a security guard. This brave new world should be in place by next Tuesday. However, I was given that message six years ago. Kodak keeps introducing improved film stocks and audiences still march out of mediocre multis and into theatres that offer service and quality. I don’t think it is yet time to end it all and jump out of the projection port. The other element, oft mentioned, is that audiences will not leave their plasma screens to see ‘Flesh Eaters 3’ in whatever format. This whole “film is dead” debate came up when studios were releasing product that nobody wanted to buy. It has been one of those rare periods when a single screen wasn’t such a bad thing. Our video projector is happy occasionally showing video-originated movies and our 35mm system shows the regular stream of film. Digital, 35 and 70 may all be part of the future theatrical mix. Improving 35 is only futile in the same way as improving that other endangered species - the internal combustion engine - has been. Quoting Bobby Henderson: “The other incremental ways to improve 35mm production are all valid to use in making movies. But the 35mm method for showing movies is going to quickly turn into an endangered species.” AND “Put any 35mm print made today up against that and it will get its ass mercilessly kicked. Newly photographed 65mm material on new 70mm print film will beat ANYTHING on 35mm.” If a 2006 35mm Vision stock can better 65mm of 3 decades ago, then an incremental improvement of 18-24% would surely be worthwhile, for 35mm reduction prints and for blow up to 70, rather than the existing 4/35 or cropped 35. And quoting Larry Myers: “All one needs to do for a 70mm lookalike show print from 35mm true scope is order a slow speed print directly from the negative. If not from the original neg then from a direct 2nd generation dup negative.” Even closer if it doesn’t have to be blown up quite as much. Nothing is impossible. We wouldn’t be in this business if we avoided what was difficult.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-26-2006 12:14 PM                     I just don't agree with Larry's arguments that 35mm can be a replacement for 70mm. It just doesn't wash. And any step you take to improve the level of sharpness and color on 35mm can be applied to 70mm as well. When treating both gauges equally, 70mm will always hold a giant difference of superior quality. And 35mm is limited to throwing images effectively onto only so large a screen. When screens get to a certain size, a larger film format and lamphouse is mandatory. I really believe the future of film projection -really its last stand- is in large format processes. It's the one area video cannot effectively touch. The technology won't allow video images as sharp and bright as IMAX for a long time. Home viewers can't stick a screen the size of a giant billboard inside their house either.  |  IP: Logged John Koutsoumis Master Film Handler Posts: 261 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Registered: Aug 2003 posted 02-26-2006 06:02 PM                     quote: Ron Curran If a 2006 35mm Vision stock can better 65mm of 3 decades ago, then an incremental improvement of 18-24% would surely be worthwhile, for 35mm reduction prints and for blow up to 70, rather than the existing 4/35 or cropped 35 I don't buy that at all. Many large format films of 1950/60's still hold today. Modern stocks may have the detail but they don't all look better. I don't know maybe it was the way films were lit and photographed back then. Ok I hate to use DVD as an example but I will for this case. I checked out the DVD of Nicholas Ray's "King of Kings" shot in Technirama (although it's region 4 copy it was strangely in the NTSC format) and I was shocked at sheer detail and clarity of images. Put that up against similar films as "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "The Passion of the Christ" (one damn fine transferred DVD) and King of Kings still comes in front or equal to (btw, the latter 2 films were in PAL format). Not only story wise but also in terms of photography a lot of films today look the same, there just pretty pictures but they don't have that brilliance of films shot in large format. There might be one here and there but I overall I think not.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-26-2006 07:07 PM                     In all fairness, one can't really compare the image detail from one film to another based on DVD releases of each. The DVD format has only 720 X 480 native pixels in the frame. That's far below the resolution levels of 35mm film. Other factors that skew any judgments based on DVDs. Elements used to create the video transfer are one factor (few DVDs are transferred from original negative or from the interpositives/internegatives derived from the o-neg). The methods and bitrates used in the video transfer are another. The kind of encoding methods used to make the DVD and final bitrates going into DVD are further factors. The best comparisons will happen between two different film strips with the best quality prints available representing the two.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-26-2006 09:37 PM                        70mm has a big advantage for huge screens since it allows spreading the radiant energy of the lamphouse over a much larger image area. Filling a 70 or 80 foot wide screen with a 35mm image is problematic for focus flutter or even heat damage, and 70mm is much more suited to the task: Splendor of 70mm Part 1 Splendor of 70mm Part 2 Heat Damage Part 1 Heat Damage Part 2 That's why 70mm prints look so much better than 35mm on a huge screen, even if they are made from the same 35mm negative.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-27-2006 03:16 AM                     Interesting topics that John presented here. With reading the topics especially about the "Titanic" movie, I could easily see myself as that projectionist, for I did play "Titanic" on a 33x65 ft screen with just under a 100 ft throw in a house that seated 410 people with illumination from a 4500w bulb. ..and I fully agree what was posted in that article: dim lighting to make a dull picture, washed out contrasts, hard to read end credits, et.al. - all evident of a 35mm presentation that should have been a 70mm presentation on such a huge screen. Later on, we were playing "Titanic" on smaller screens in this megaplex, and all of a sudden, the film was more enjoyable to watch due to the increased sharpness, brighter screen illumination and the end titles definitely readable. -Monte  |  IP: Logged John Joseph Fink Film Handler Posts: 60 From: West Hartford, CT Registered: Feb 2006 posted 02-27-2006 07:44 AM                        What about MaxiVision 48, which Roger Ebert championed a few years back I remember. Invented by Dean Goodhill, film moves at 48 FPS (with a 24FPS mode for low budget filmmakers) and it aparently only requires a $10,000 retrofit per projector.  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 02-27-2006 07:54 AM                 What John Pytlak is saying is correct. The bigger the image, the more light you get. Image area and light go by a somewhat different physics then resolution. Example: a full 35mm scope frame blown up 2 times is the exact same size as a Cinemascope 55 frame. The 55 frame would be twice wide and twice or 8 perf high. If both negative stocks were the same, the 55 image would have twice the resolution but 4 times the light transmission. So if you had two projectors side by side. One being a 35mm scope and the other being a 55mm scope if it existed, you would need 4 times the light with the 35mm projector to get the same brightness as the 55mm projector. Yes 4 times the brightness but only twice the resolution. Some people think resolution goes by area. It does not. A 70mm frame is around 3 times the area of a 35mm frame letting 3 times the radiant energy through. Film that is 70mm 5 perf is only 1.5 times the resolution of 35mm true scope. This is not far from the jump in resolution of cropped 35mm 1.85 flat to 35mm true scope which is around 1.3 times resolution. Actually a 35mm 1.85 flat image would fit very nicely in a 70mm frame at two times the blowup. It would be 1.650 inches long by .880 inches high. Twice .825 and twice .440. Yet the 70mm frame has 4 times the area as a 1.85 35mm flat frame but only twice the resolution. Area is for light and magnification is for resolution. Again it's all in the numbers. So 70mm is really for getting all that radiant energy up on a 80 ft wide screen so 500 people can see it. If your running a show for only 50 people, then 35mm on a 40 foot wide screen might do. My home theater which uses a 8 foot wide screen is really only designed for about 6 people. Showing 35mm in that setting does very well indeed.  |  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.