Grave Warning Issued to Other Digital Cinema Camera Companies

[Michael Hastings]

I can't wait for Epic / Scarlet FF35...

But it's EPIC 645 FTW!!!

I'm with Jeff - 645 9K - an Imax type screen in almost every multiplex.

And you're lucky to have movie screens that big. The vast majority are very small these days, sadly; I don't know if you live in LA but the screens there are very unrepresentative of those most everywhere else. Certainly vistavision-sized digital is an exciting technology, but it's battling against a more commercially viable one (3D). Hopefully both can coexist as distinct attractions--they offer unique and compelling benefits, and each befits a certain type of film and director, I think. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in this basket yet just...

As far as the longevity of theaters and getting people back to the theaters I think 3D is a gimmick for a few years because in a lot of ways it is done as well or better in the home. Not to mention the third dimensions creates a lot of issues that can draw you out of the film killing the "suspension of disbelief". It doesn't make a lot of sense for a lot of material. How much interest is there in a 3D romantic comedy?

On the other hand the IMAX experience can't be replicated in any normal home. But the actual imax projectors and film stock keeps it a specialty venue - usually only one Imax theater for each major city - (downtown at the science museum). Something like 320 in the world.

Yet 8K digital projection to an IMAX-sized screen is well within the financial capabilities of a normal multiplex.

Disney Nature did something like 100 million and I think it was just blown up 1080P f900 footage. I think there may be a market for true IMAX size (70' x 50' screen) Nature and Adventure movies that could be shot at 9k 645 and released in 4K and eventually 8K digital projection.

 

[Matt W.]

I'm with Jeff - 645 9K - an Imax type screen in almost every multiplex.




As far as the longevity of theaters and getting people back to the theaters I think 3D is a gimmick for a few years because in a lot of ways it is done as well or better in the home. Not to mention the third dimensions creates a lot of issues that can draw you out of the film killing the "suspension of disbelief". It doesn't make a lot of sense for a lot of material. How much interest is there in a 3D romantic comedy?

On the other hand the IMAX experience can't be replicated in any normal home. But the actual imax projectors and film stock keeps it a specialty venue - usually only one Imax theater for each major city - (downtown at the science museum). Something like 320 in the world.

Yet 8K digital projection to an IMAX-sized screen is well within the financial capabilities of a normal multiplex.

Disney Nature did something like 100 million and I think it was just blown up 1080P f900 footage. I think there may be a market for true IMAX size (70' x 50' screen) Nature and Adventure movies that could be shot at 9k 645 and released in 4K and eventually 8K digital projection.

I have to disagree. Exhibitors could not afford to upgrade a majority of theaters to IMAX-size. The cost would be too high (due to real estate costs) in expensive urban areas and rural ones don't have the crowds to support such changes, either. And large, powerful digital projectors don't yet exist for those screens anyway. Of course there's a long history of profitable travelogues going back to cinema's infancy, but travelogues are somewhat distinct from narrative film and a pure-travelogue industry would collapse almost immediately, particularly if it were built on exhibition so expensive as IMAX. It's a secondary market that caters to a few, makes its own distinct profit, and as a bonus allows for premium-priced tickets for major blockbusters to drive up those profits, too (while bringing saturation booking to the level of super-saturation).

I disagree entirely about suspension of disbelief. 3D has been particularly successful in horror movies because it makes gore and entrails seem more "real," hence a visceral audience response--and James Cameron's Avatar footage is so much better in 3D because it gives the 3D world depth. The 2D trailer for that film is such a poor representation of the 3D experience. Yes, as with any technology that more accurately portrays reality, 3D skirts the risk of distanciation with badly-filmed material. Film aesthetics changed for sound and color and early sound and color movies look cheesy (so do early widescreen films with half-empty frames on CUs), so naturally 3D filmmakers must pay heed to a truer representation of depth in order not to distance the viewer. But in all other cases and assuming quality exhibition, the representation of reality is far improved by 3D, as Avatar proves.

I know what you mean about romantic comedies, but that's only because the technology and how it's used is in its infancy. Early sound films are terrible; The Jazz Singer is a bad movie and awkward to watch. It's just rife with intertitles, making the whole thing feel gimmicky and incohesive, and the camerawork is so stagey during synch sound shots. The first two years of sound films are generally very bad. (Earlier two-strip color is questionable, too.) But we get some incredible early sound films, too, like Lang's M. It takes great and innovative directors to turn a "gimmick" technology into an art. I think the reason CGI's transition (CGI truly is a groundbreaking technology akin to color or widescreen but with broader, more variegated implications) into prominence felt so painless is because it was introduced by a brilliant director, James Cameron. CGI was passed off as worthless, a gimmick, after Tron, but Cameron used it really artfully and against a strong story in Terminator 2. So I have so much faith in Cameron to do great things with 3D and performance capture in Avatar. The character design is questionable, but the footage I've seen is an incredible experience and 3D is absolutely key to that. And yes, I would like to see a romantic comedy in 3D, if the 3D were used as well as it is in Avatar. Genre films (particularly comedies) didn't go color, widescreen, or sync-sound overnight; give 3D some time and a romantic comedy in 3D will seem normal.

And there is the economic imperative. 3D is much cheaper than installing new screens and it brings "movies back to the theater," which was the intention with sync sound (versus radio), widescreen/color (a reaction to tv), movies with ratings and adult subject matter (a reaction to color tv), CGI (a reaction to HBO, VHS, etc.), etc. 3D could bring movies back to the big theater experience and provide a whole new world of possibilities as regards aesthetics/formal syntax. IMAX is great, sure, but it's expensive and only available to a few. I'd like to see some 3D IMAX roadshow movies, but as regards a stable, economically feasible mainstream technology, that's not where we're headed. You need saturation booking in the era of the blockbuster, since the studios' take declines precipitously after the opening weekend and tentpoles really are the only thing supporting the studio system right now. 4K is in the right direction; IMAX is too far in that direction, but neither are the big shift 3D is.

 

[PatC]

All this FF35 talk has got me extremely anxious.

 

[Matt W.]

I see that you have good tastes and interests, Matt! Tree of Life and Avatar are by far my most anticipated films... maybe of all time. Or at least since I was a kid standing in line for Return of the Jedi.

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks! I'm too young for Jedi; I can imagine that was quite the experience, though. Hopefully Avatar will in some way compare to that.

Vistavision acquisition would be great; though if it were that or 3D (as I suspect it will be at least in the short term), I'd take 3D--just personal opinion. Let's just hope that whatever technologies prevail, they improve the moviegoing experience and push directors out of the standard coverage/fast editing style that makes too many blockbusters feel like expensive television.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I can't speak for sure about this, because I was quite young myself, but I think the anticipation for ROTJ was probably a new phenomenon at the time. Star Wars took everyone by surprise, and Empire was shrouded in mystery. But by the time I was in grade school, everyone was well aware that Jedi was coming out. I remember I had one of those little school folders that had Imperial troops on those forest speeder bikes on the cover like half a year before the movie even came out.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Matt:

Thanks for the long post and you make a lot of good points.

My clarification would be this:

1) I was basically just suggesting that one screen of a multiplex be converted to some much larger screen for 8K digital REDMAX™. While it won't be for every multiplex, it could easily raise the number from 160 or so IMAX to a couple thousand (there are something like 30,000 regular screens in the US now)

Your point (regarding suspension of disbelief) is well taken about being in the infancy of 3D, but I think my bigger point was that 3D works as well or better in the home so won't have much of a long term impact on bringing people to the theaters. And the theaters are going to desperately need something.

We are just now moving into an era where BluRay and 60+ inch HD sets are affordable for the masses. A blu-ray player is now $199 or less and a Mitsubishi 60" DLP with 3D input is $1199. The 3D kit with glasses is about $100. As this happens you are going to see a crossover point where the ever DECREASING quality of the average theater experience vs. the ever INCREASING quality of the home theater experience will reach a tipping point. And 3D does nothing to change this except for the next year or two.

 

[David J. Shuman]

Vista Vision is owned by Lucasfilm Ltd. They bought the technology from Paramount in the 80's to shoot high quality plates for vfx blue screen shots. Almost all non-digital efx films from the 70's & 80's were shot on vistavision plates.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Thanks, David.

 

[Matt W.]

I've got stop posting on the topic of 3D or I'll continue ranting, but that's a fair enough stance. I like what Cameron's doing by taking Avatar simultaneously to 3D IMAX, regular 3D, and 2D, but it would be very cool to see this approach taken further with something akin to first-run theaters with larger screens and greatly improved image quality, as you suggest. It's weird and unfortunate how we've gone from 70mm and anamorphic large-budget pictures to to primarily super35 acquisition and 2k scans, though current super35 is still pretty good.

And, honestly, most audiences aren't as image-obsessed as people here, and that's why we need regular theaters at regular ticket prices, too--and that will always be the core market. While you make a good argument about 3D at home (and one that may prove true), most people don't even have blu-ray players yet, as most audiences consider DVD to be "good enough" and that big difference between DVD and 3D 2k plus the social aspect of theatrical exhibition (which is, weirdly, increased by 3D--you should hear the audience response to 3D horror) is significant.

As for Jedi...I guess the only thing I witnessed that was similar was the anticipation for Episode I, though there was a bit of jadedness that accompanied that. I think after the disappointing Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels we're not going to see many more real "event films," especially now that every blockbuster is a franchise picture and has to perform like an "event film" in its opening weekend to make a profit. (The real-time internet response to movie news and prevalence of leaked scripts and spoilers doesn't help, either.) Hopefully this will change, though. I'd like to see a movie prefaced by a year-and-a-half of genuine hype and a blockbuster that holds up beyond the opening weekend. (Dark Knight doesn't count because it's so overrated!)

 

[Andrew Walker]

Vista Vision is owned by Lucasfilm Ltd. They bought the technology from Paramount in the 80's to shoot high quality plates for vfx blue screen shots. Almost all non-digital efx films from the 70's & 80's were shot on vistavision plates.

I ran a couple dailies for the first "X-Men" that were VFX plates shot on Vista Vision. Next time I'm over at Fox I'm going to try and get some footage of the Vista Vision projector running. I also have some VV target film from "The Perfect Storm" and maybe something else. I do agree that the Epic 645 camera is going to be amazing. Mainly because if you want to shoot 4K, 5K, 6K or 9K it could happen. Versatility is a huge part to making a great camera.