The RIGHT way to scan a large-format film... (1 Viewer)

[Alex Antin]

OK...so I read all the posts and as a lover of 70mm films, there is still a question that no one has nrought up...

What film elements are being used to make the transfer? This would affect the transfer in a huge way.

Now all these films are approaching 50 years old...many the original negative is long gone. Some are transfered from Interpositives...some from Internegatives...and a few were transfered from a low contrast print.

Each time you step away from the Original Camera Negative (OCN) you affect the resolution of the next generation. The OCN has the rating of 2500/2000/24FPS...but the print that we see in a theater is nowhere near that quality. It is around 1200/1200/24FPS due to the high speed printing process. This would improve if a "Show Print" was created which is a print made one frame at a time.

In the 1960's when these fantastic films were made that were onlyt creating 100 prints...AT THE MOST...and each was a Show Print dubbed directly from the OCN. Thats why they looked so good...but in the process the OCN many times was ruined...beyond repair.

There are less than 100 films ever made using a 65mm OCN with a 70mm Print....out of about 50,000 total films made to date so it really is hard to spend the money to properly transfer these films.

I Agree..its a shame..but its just a fact of life. Anyway the best way to see these films is on the biggest screen possible and they do from time to time show up at the local cinema in all of their glory...where they should be...not on some 50" or 65" home theater.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

When possible sure. But are you saying you never plan to add 2001 or Lawrence of Arabia to your HD collection because you *only* will watch them at a large-format cinema?

BTW...I don't advocate for "home theater" being limited to 65" displays. IMO, 100" MINIMUM from 1.6 screen widths is the starting place. Still not in the league of a 50' screen...but the viewing angle and image purity at 1080P could be a "livable" substitute when real theater viewing isn't possible...

 

[Alex Antin]

This discussion could begin to border on edge of .."what is a purist" when it comes to these films.

Your point of the "best availabe" film elements may not be what truly are "the best available film elements."

It is costly to strike a new Interpositive for a 70mm film. (The Interpositive is the most common element used to transfer a film to video). It is 2 steps away from the OCN (first OCN...then Internegative, then Interpositive.) Many times only an Interpositive exists for these films.

Look at the transfer of Lawerence of Arabia..the extended cut. According to good sources there were something like 5 or 6 different elements used to create that transfer because pieces were missing. That is why some scenes look great while others seem a bit blurry and lifeless.

My previous Home theater was a 144" 16x9 Stewart Screen and I sat only 14 feet away from it and it in no way came close to recreating the viewing experience I had when i saw Lawrence at the Ziegfield Theater in NYC on its 30' x70' screen.

Its like trying to watch an IMAX movie at home instead of going to an IMAX Theater. Yes you can follow the storyline and yes you can enjoy the sound...but is it IMAX?

I am always jealous of those who live in LA as they have 70mm showings of movies all the time. Here in Ft. Lauderdale...non-existant. Even NYC has fallen by the wayside.

My biggest hope is that HDTV will put a dent in the number of people going to the movies like TV did back in the 1950's. That's what created the environment for the creation of Cinemascope, 6 Track Stereo and 70mm movies. Maybe Hollywood will someday soon start shooting on 65mm so that a whole new generation can see what the end product is when you use the very best techmology to create a movie (even if it is 50 years old.)

 

[Mark Lucas]

I think we'll see movies shot in 4k digital than 65mm anytime soon.

As for 70mm not translating well to video. Well, 35mm doesn't even translate that well. Full HD is so much better than standard def though and I think 2001 or LOA or any of the other 70mm will look very nice if they're transferred right.

 

[Vincent_P]

Actually, the IP is only one-generation removed from the Negative. The sequence is Negative- Interpositive-Internegative- Release print.

Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

Parts of THE NEW WORLD were reportedly shot in 65mm.

Vincent

 

[Mark Lucas]

Yes, and there were no 70mm prints made. How depressing is that?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Lots of movies now-days use digital IP. If those negatives were scanned at 4K and the IP preserved the 4K resolution (I'm assuming that's the general rule of thumb) then the 1080P downconverted master could look really stunning if properly handled.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

The ever improving quality and cost of HT equipment has already motivated many consumers to cut down on their trips to the local multiplex, and when HD video becomes mainstream it will only add to their motivation. Commercial theaters are already struggling to keep up their customer base, but unfortunately, now that the general public is getting used to watching films at home, even with substantial improvements, I do not see them being able to woo them back into the theaters.

For many, the cost alone is keeping them from going. When a family can rent a DVD for $1 and have quality concessions for very little, compared to $10 admission ticket and $5 popcorn... it isn't hard to understand why so many are no longer going to the theaters. That isn't even taking in account the convenience of watching at home, and as stated earlier, the opportunity to see the film with better sound and better image quality. The only real edge most commercial theaters have is the "group experience", which for some consumers can often be an undesirable element.

Personally, I love the "theater experience", but I reserve those times for either screenings at quality theaters or for big event films where the energy level of the crowd adds greatly to the experience of watching the film. Otherwise, my modest HT system easily outperforms most of the multiplex theaters I've ever attended.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

And what source were you watching...a DVD? And was your projector 1080P in resolution and pixel free from that viewing distance? And it didn't come close to a 70mm film-projection experience?



Had you a source and projector that could deliver that same level of fidelity, moving close enough to create the same viewing angle you had in the theater would help create a very similar viewing experience.

 

[DeeF]

The Ziegfeld's screen is only 52 feet. That AFI Theater in Maryland is a better place to see movies.

But I think we all better face up to the fact that movies in the theater are going to go away, permanently. We should focus on wonderful transfers to home theater sources like DVDs and HD-BDs.

However the Ryan's Daughter DVD was made, the results are astounding. Everyone should look at this disk.

 

[TravisR]

Considering that in the US alone, movie theaters generate more than a billion dollars a year for Hollywood, I doubt that.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

David,

I was able to log a few hours with Sony's new 1920x1080 SXRD 60" RPTV, R60XBR1 and let me just say that those who bought the QUALIA 006 for $15,000 last year are probably very upset!

While I was unable to do any direct side-by-side comparisons, from my experience with both models, I feel confident that the new SXRD has significantly better black levels and shadow detail over the QUALIA while maintaining the excellent color acuity. The pixel fill rate also appears improved, although unnecessarily, as this has never been an issue with LCoS displays. In this case, I had to get within a foot to notice any pixel gap!

BTW: The Corpse Bride makes for excellent test material for black levels and shadow detail.

If the R60XBR1 has any weakness, it may be in the processor, but before I jump to any conclusions, I need to try some different players. I’ve also heard that some units were reported to have some color balance issues and needed to be replaced, but this was not the case with the unit I demoed.

Regardless, I've seen this set listed for under $3,500 and even the big B&M stores either have it or plan on having it on display. This could really help push the 1920x1080 market, and force TI and their DLP manufacturing partners to release more 1920x1080 product at lower prices.

With Sharp’s continually advancement with their 1920x1080 DV-LCD models, Sony’s support for 1920x1080 LCoS, TI’s slow, but steady support for 1920x1080 DLP chips, Cannon’s and Toshiba’s development of 1920x1080 SED displays, and finally, the release of 1920x1080 video, these are very exciting times to be in for those who appreciate high quality home video presentations. Even for non-early adopters, these advancements only mean more product choices and lower costs in the near future.

 

[DeeF]

Of course, the Qualia 06 is 70".

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Sit 15% closer, and you'll get the same size image. In addition, you'll have a better quality image, and save about $10,000 in the process.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That seems to be the impression of everyone else at AVS...even those who own the original Qualia!

 

[Alex Antin]

On my 144" HT I souced the image from HDTV and DVD using a scaler to 800x600 for the DVD.
The projector was a Zenith PRO900. Sound was the very best in a room with no windows with black carpeting on the floor and walls. Ceiling was flat black. Seating for 6.

My thoughts on HT vs. Commerical Cinema...

There is a way that the CC can bring back the crowds. Do what they did in the early 1950's...provide an experience that you CAN'T get at home. Multi-track stereo, Cinemascope, etc.

There exists today a system that could be used but it would require the cooperation of the studios to "get on board" and finally help the theaters.

The movie going experience is based on 2 items...sound and image. The sound has been dem'd by the man who created THX..Tom H. He showed a few years ago a 10 track CC system that put 5 speakers behind the screen and 5 in the theater itself. Coupled up with using 65mm stock at 30FPS for creating the negative it would be a fantastic experience.

Unfortunately the studios are moving in another direction...to get the theater owners to spring for Digital Cinema so Hollywood can get rid of the cost of producing prints which runs over $150,000,000 per year. They could put this money back into their pockets.

I am very selective as to which movies i will see. I am lucky in the fact that there in broward County, FL we have MUVICO which puts on a great presentation. No its not like the Ziegfield or the Astor Plaza in NYC, but I don't live in NYC anymore. BUT...we do have a local IMAX theater which has started to show first run Hollywood films so lately..that is where I go to see a movie. Funny that I have seen a few pictires that held my interest SOLELY on the presentatino of the film itself. My opinion is that I would not have enjoyed them as much if i saw them at the local cinema.

Everyone talks about resolution. Well here is a number for you. According to Eastman Kodak, the resolution of 65mm film if 8000x6000. Nothing existing that comes close to those numbers.

The other problem is the size of some of the theaters. There are many 20+ Plex's that have theaters with just over 100 seats. Not sure how much they would improve.

I guess the question that pops up in my mind is how do you want to watch the movie in question? At home on your 60 : screen or at a theater on a 30 foot screen. To me some movies really dont need the big screen while SF or Westerns greatly improve due to the size of the screen.

I remeber playing Star Wars on my first HT..a 50". In the scene where they first jump to light speed..it was just a scene. When I converted my HT to the 144" (bought a house) and played the movie..when they jumped,, I leaned back in my seat because psycholagically, I felt I was in the ship and did the approporate thing.

These are my thoughts an on the subject and continue to enjoy this thread.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

I am not going to predict the end of all theatrical releases, but I can definitely see a time where the vast majority of films make their debut on video.

As video equipment improves, and even modest HT systems out perform commercial theaters, this may in fact not be such a bad thing after all, for both studios and consumers... assuming video piracy doesn't spoil it for everyone!