Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida
|
The first link is worthy, the second is a dust bunny. John Sittig is well known and respected in the industry, and Reading has been around for a long time, mostly being very quiet and well run (and VERY solvent) unlike some of the flashy circuits.
Having been a projectionist, I've run 70mm. It is gorgeous, and it can be a treat when everything is up to standards. Some of the cost figures in the article are grabbed out of thin air, but the general relative costs is close enough to let pass.
I mentioned in another thread that I consider the intent of "Dunkirk" to be a type of VR giving a visceral experience of the events of the evacuation. The article validates my suspicions.
Yes, the experience of viewing films on a phone or tablet is horribly poor, but the intent of those using them is often different than one taking the time, effort, and spending the money to have a full experience. Similarly, the experience of reading a Sherlock Holmes story on a Kindle is a lot different than reading one in a hard-cover book during an evening in a Victorian house with a fire in the fireplace and dim incandescents illuminating your pages as you sit in a club chair with a pipe of tobacco and glass of scotch at your side.
The ability of the mind to transport you into a story is a developed skill, whether with movies or books. When what distractions there are are supportive, more people can enjoy the "willing suspension of disbelief" and become involved in story as a near-participant.
A proper movie theatre experience is supportive of what is going on on the screen. The two main routes to that have been the opulent movie palaces or the minimalist shadow box auditoriums with nothing to distract you from the action on the screen once the lights are dimmed. Even the fights over exit lights and fire laws have been intense with those. That green or red exit sign blaring at the lower corner of the screen is an affront to the intent.
Moving back to the OP and public perception of 70mm, very few people have ever fully understood the language of 70mm. IME, the key players have been David Lean, Freddy Young, Mike Todd, Stanley Kubrik, and Douglas Trumbull, with Kubrik being less important for his work than for providing a base for Trumbull to develop.
It will be at least three more tech generations before the public will get to see the digital equivalent of what Trumbull created in the 1980s. (This is not uncommon with technology, I've seen things in photography that would astound almost anyone.)
This gives an idea of relative image sizes.
- Full article:
Q&A: How Do I Know If My IMAX Theatre is Real 70mm IMAX or lieMAX (Digital IMAX)? – /Film
As an aside, I was not impressed with Dunkirk for various other reasons that go beyond the technologies involved. While Matt Prigge makes valid points in his article, the phrase "you ain't seen nuttin' yet!" comes to mind.
Bluntly, much of the 70mm hoopla is overblown and promoted by people with little understanding of the technologies. As an example, I had to hold my tongue in response to a comment I recently saw on facebook which referenced a 70mm showing of "Lawrence of Arabia" at a General Cinema theatre in Coral Gables back in the 1980s. The glowing report by the person who had seen it was a clear case of his mind enhancing the memory. I also saw the showing at that location on the second day of the release. I noted that there was already dust and dirt damage showing up on the screen, the lamphouse was improperly aimed, the print or illumination levels were giving a washed out image, and a number of other flaws. I had seen "Lawrence" in original release, I had projected it in 35mm, and I had projected 70mm. In my professional opinion, the show at the Coral Gables theatre was marginal at best. However, hype sells tickets, whether it is the tingler or 70mm.
I have a 1080p projector at home, and my projection of "Lawrence" from a DVD is better than what I saw at that GCC theatre. Blu-ray is better yet and I'm not saying my home system is the best by any means, I just compare. I am also sure things will continue to improve with technology.
The unfortunate reality is that super-high quality imagery costs lots of money. Even when the experience is utterly spectacular, 90% of the public doesn't care enough to vote with their box office dollars and support more of it, with even IMAX recognizing that fact and coming out with lower cost, lower resolution versions. What CAN be done with film is outstanding, but it is horribly expensive. Digital will catch up, as it has already surpassed 35mm - if for nothing else, for the absence of physical dirt and film damage.
To titilate you:
I have never seen anything like this since, or before for that matter, which even remotely compares to the quality of Showscan. Todd-AO at 30 frames comes close, but yet, NOTHING like Showscan. The sharpness and crispness was simply astonishing. This is what movies should be like! It was so sharp that it was almost unreal, maybe even surreal for a cinema. This looked like real life, and not a film in a cinema. I remember some Hollywood executive being quoted saying "It looks too good, it's a distraction". Full article:
Showscan: The Best 70mm I have ever seen
I invested in Showscan, but at the time I did not understand the economics that would prevent it from acceptance in theatres. It was a noble cause though.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
