What killed the 70mm blow up of new releases? (1 Viewer)

[Reagan]

Chad,

Thanks for info. That clears up some lingering issues for me.

-Reagan

 

[DeeF]

I only saw Attack of the Clones in DLP. I was told (by many sources at the time) that the DLP version was superior to the 35mm, that the 35mm had been fashioned from the digital original, so it contained analog artifacts, etc.

Anyway, I only saw the DLP. It was fine, though hardly ecstatically beautiful, and not exactly the quality of a good 70mm print/movie.

 

[Chad R]

Not surprising, but there's still a lot of negative cut -- although I beleive it will be more common to digitally scan an IP to make inter-negatives for relase prints like you say. There's also less room for mistakes if you're not cutting the negative (you screw that up, you've really screwed up).

But, it's also important to note that scanning is a new trend that's picked up several (close to ten) years after the death of 70mm show prints. Cost killed it, as well as digital sound.

 

[Reagan]

So Chad, am I correct in saying that one of these digital scanned prints would look like garbage if blown up to 70mm?

Not that this was the cause of things, just curious.

-Reagan

 

[Chad R]

I don't know for sure, but 35mm blown up to 70mm is still 35mm quality. I'm not aware of any special processing that improved upon the image for the blow-up. So if they can scan out at 35mm quality, there's no reason that they couldn't scan out to 70mm with the 35mm quality. That's why digital sound killed off 70mm (as well as cost), the only advantage it held over 35mm was 6 track sound, and the ability to be projected on a LARGE screen. With the ready availability of digtal screens, and the decided lack of really large venues, 70mm became obsolete.

Edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure it would be no probelm. There were some 70mm prints with DTS sound created for a few special showings of "titanic" which had a humber of digital effects which would have been scanned out to film (and then cut into the negative), and then blown up to 70mm. So these shots survived the process to pass Cameron's very stringent muster.

 

[Rob W]

Without question, the main reason 70mm faded away so quickly was the availability of 6-track digital sound on 35mm prints. Almost every 70mm release during the last 20 years of 70mm was a 35mm blow-up anyway, with rare exceptions such as FAR & AWAY and the MY FAIR LADY / LAWRENCE restorations. But rest assured , a 35mm blow-up to 70mm yielded a significantly better image than any standard 35mm print could achieve. ( A lot more light was able to get to the screen for one thing. ) Because of the smaller print runs of 70mm, a lot more attention was paid to each print than with the 2000-print runs of an average 35mm release.

A 70mm print also cost about 15 times the cost of a standard 35mm print, which for an average title was in the $2,000 range.

I don't think the lack of venues was the reason, since here in Canada the 70mm screens outlived the last 70mm release by a good many years ( although many of them are now closed for various other reasons ) This may prevent a resurgence of 70mm, if such a thing is ever planned, but 70mm definitely disappeared long before the theatres did.

 

[ChrisLazarko]

Here in New Jersey we have a theater in Manville that has Stadium seating. I have only seen Jackass and Matrix:Reloaded in it but it is a very nice theater. I would think it would use 70mm as the screen size is incredibly big. I would say each theater seats about 250 people or so.

 

[Matt Pelham]

I saw AOTC in a DLP theater opening night, it was far and away the best looking movie I've even seen in my entire life on any format.

A week later when I saw it again on a non-DLP screen it looked like crap.

That alone convinced me.

 

[Nick Graham]

I've seen two movies shown in DLP. The first was Mission to Mars at the AMC Studio 30 in Oltahe (back when AMC was doing rotating DLP presentations at their bigger theaters), which was of course a film to digital conversion.

The lack of scratches, knicks, etc was nice, but if you sat in the middle area of the auditorium or anywhere closer to the screen than that, you could easily notice the pixels, especially on small objects, which became globs of pixels as opposed to anything recognizable.

The second film I saw in DLP was AOTC, first in the new Boeing funded and designed DLP auditorium at the Northrock 14 in Wichita, then a week later at the DLP auditorium back at the Studio 30 in Olathe. I was kind of surprised when it had the same kind of issues Mission to Mars had had 3-4 years previous. Olathe had the brigtness of the projector turned down a bit, which helped sharpen the image, but even pretty far back in the auditorium I was bugged by being able to see the individual pixels.

Until DLP theatrical presentations can be projected in much higher resolution, I think HDTVs such as Samsung's DLP set is where DLP reaches it's maximum potential. Projected on an average commercial theater sized screen, if you've got a sharp eye, it just feels like you're watching a very large TV, and lacks the detail of a good 35mm print.

As for 70mm theaters, anybody know if the AMC in Denver still shows new releases? Last time I was in the area it was 97 and they were showing the ROTJ Special Editon. With my in-laws now in Colorado Springs I figure I'll be able to swing through once or twice a year, and to see a 70mm presentation would be a treat.

 

[Chris Dugger]

Rob is correct....

2 Majors factors contributed to the disappearenece of 70mm....


1.) The introduction of Digital SOund in theatres.

2.) The expense of producing 70mm prints.

To this day there are still plenty of 70mm projectors out there to accomidate a 70mm release. The last 2 WIDE release of a 70mm print was INDIANA JONES & THE LAST CRUSADE and FAR & AWAY.

Some locations did get a chance to exhibit TITANTIC in 70mm with DTS digital audio. As much as the studios save on not having to stripe the 70mm prints with mag track, the cost is still too much.

Bottom line.... Digital audio killed 70mm.

Dugger

 

[Reagan]

Good info all around.

I had the good fortune of working in a multiplex that had Total Recall in 35mm on one screen and in 70mm on the next screen. A/B comparisons were a snap. The picture quality difference was amazing. Bear in mind Total Recall was shot in 35mm, so it was just a blow up.

-Reagan

 

[Ted Lee]

i was lucky growing up. my uncle and i used to go to several movies at a time. we always looked for the "70mm, six-track dolby stereo" logo. i still sorta remember what it looked like.

i probably saw most of the big movies of the time on 70mm screens.

a personal fave was called (i think) "the hastings" in pasadena, ca. i remember that place being huge. plus, considering i was a youngin' at the time...it probably just seemed that more enveloping. iirc, they ended up converting that one theater alone into three other theaters.

i can't remember specifics anymore, but i do believe it (and my uncle) had quite an impact on how i view movies today.

 

[SteveP]

250 seats?

The roadshow theatres of old generally had about 12-1500 seats!

And the deeply curved Cinerama, Todd-AO and Dimension 150 screens are something that I sorely miss.