Mark is correct. It was a Dolby Stereo print but it was played on an Eprad Stereo processor. The MacArthur’s house sound system was a Simplex XL…capable of up to 6-channel sound. However, for Star Trek, the Eprad was installed (Eprad was a competitor to Dolby in those days). The Eprad processor stayed their permanently until 1982, when a Dolby CP200 was installed for Star Trek II. The MacA closed later that year however.
Rodents are in every theatre…particularly old ones with as many cavities for them to hide, as the Uptown. Traps and exterminators were a regular thing when I worked there (for 18 years)…then again, I don’t know any theatre…particularly one with some age on it, that doesn’t fight this battle.
A point of fact, the World Premiere of Star Trek: The Motion Picture played in 35mm on an EPRAD Starscope, not in “Dolby Stereo.” Anyone that tells you otherwise is mistaken. In fact, the MacArthur didn’t receive a Dolby processor until 1982 for Star Trek II. Star Trek II did play in 70mm.
I believe I said “nearing 90”. As my father has reach 90 and I always felt that Marvin and Dad were of similar age…I figured Marvin was nearing 90. It appears that he is 86…I’m not too far off. I clearly meant no disrespect to either Marvin or Ronnie.
The “chain” upon which you refer to is just a single location in Calvert County.
As to the reasons they sold off most of their theatres…that is a matter for Ronnie to clarify, if he is so inclined.
I happened by the AFI/Silver today…the print of Ben Hur is in 35mm CinemaScope. The print looked to be in rather good condition (clearly not an old print…the colors were very good) though not blemish free. It is entirely watchable from the few minutes I stuck my head up to the ports.
I think I caught a note on the leader that stated it was in Dolby-A…if so the optical track would have been a later downmix.
I want to say the little theatres used Kintek surrounds though they may have been Altec 312s. The main auditorium used Altec 312s and yes they were suspended via cables. The little theatres had the surrounds affixed to the side walls.
As for the booth…it was cut up. There were two booths after the split. That is the only way you could have the middle balcony. So theatres 2 and 3 shared one booth and theatre #1 had its own booth.
While it was true there were “Dolby” sound systems in all three theatres. The little two were about as minimalist as you could go…three whole surrounds…two on one wall and one on the other!
The main theatre did have a decent enough system for its day though it was a bit of a hodge-podge (A4s without wings and such).
The stage in the main theatre remained unchnaged and thus the screen size remained the same too.
For me, the MacA lost much though certainly not all of its charm when it was cut up.
I think you are correct on the titles but I know you are incorrect on your dates. The AFI/Silver didn’t open until April 2003. 70mm capability didn’t go on line until about August of 2003.
Giles…For the Uptown specifically, it needs 70mm, blow up or origination in 65mm to properly fill the screen. The 70mm print, even if a blow up, will allow more light through the aperture and also improve the image steadiness (less magnification) and overall focus (the Uptown uses deep curve corrected lenses for 70mm and effectively also has curved field lenses for 35mm 1.85. Scope is its weakest format)
65mm origination is absolutely where Hollywood should be by now…it has only been over 50-years since the current format came into being! It is significantly better than 35mm (or digital) and will allow a higher resoultion image to start from for any future generations that may surpass what we currently have. I’m quite disappointed that Steven Spielberg has not ventured into 65mm origination. Remember, 65 or 70mm won’t make a bad film good but will make a good film better. I give a lot of credit to Ronny Howard and Kenneth Branagh for shooting in 65mm. Some say that Far and Away killed 65mm photography because it wasn’t one of Ron Howard’s best films…but what does a origination format have to do with the story or people’s acceptance of that story? If it was shot in 35mm would people have liked it better? One thing is for sure…Far and Away has a better source image for any future releases than any move shot in 35mm or present day digital. In fact, George Lucas has done himself a HUGE disservice by shooting the last two Star Wars digitally because he has locked the image in turn of the Century technology that was inferior to what was available. Then again, some people may think it is better to have lesser quality versions of those movies.
As to Sony 4K…it has less light available than the current 2K DLPs. They also lack any ability to deal with the deep-curve screen without throwing away pixels. I’m sure Sony is evolving their product but the last time I did any critical evaluation of it…the color wasn’t right and while static images looked pretty darn impressive…motion images seemed to smear up quite a bit. Most that look at the same source file projected on a DLP 2K and the Sony 4K seem to favor the DLP image. Resolution wise, Sony clearly has an edge. I know in a non-cinema application the Sony image outshown a DLP image but with art images rather than a movie.
Does AMC have the clout to force a 70mm print for a theatre like the Uptown? Probably…they control a sizable number of theatres and probably have more than the Uptown that could benefit from 70mm. Striking one print is a HUGE overhead…once the IN is created…subseqent prints become progressively cheaper as the cost of making the IN is absorbed over the various positives. However, would AMC make that sort of pressure or even the simple request? That is the question and it is likely a “no.” They are a big chain…they tend to do things that are detrimental to projection, not improve it. Think about it…if they required high quality projection from their theatres…why would many people prefer digital cinemas over film when film has a very clear advantage over digital in just about every respect (resolution, color space, contrast)?
DLP on the Uptown screen is going to be a bit challenging. Not that one can’t fill it or even possibly get the brightness. The resolution really isn’t there and there are no lenses available to compensate for the screen’s depth. They would just throw away pixels.
While it is true that the Uptown has rarely hit SMPTE specs for light output (the 70mm run of Vertigo being a notable exception), it normally can put out a passable picture if the equipment is kept in alignment. A DP will have the same problems.
Unlike in many large screen applications, at the Uptown, the screen is not only large but rather close…any imperfections…like the lack of pixel density in a 2K system is going to show itself much more unless you are in the balconey.
The problem you saw was a matter of getting more light on the screen, which need not come from a digital projector but an alignment of the existing equipment. What makes you think that a company that will put out a haphazard film presentation will give a digital presentation any more care?
I don’t recall anyone other than the studios…which normally relented, complaining too much about the light levels when I was at the Uptown. The Uptown’s image starts to look pretty good when you hit 12fL but starts to degrade a bit once you go above 14fL as things will wash out. Remember too, Cineplex chose to remove the strip screen which absolutely killed the contrast in that theatre.
No, what the Uptown needs is 70mm film…it is the best technology available in 2008 for lighting up that screen. Shame on AMC and others for not insisting on 70mm for these sorts of venues.
You’ll get no argument from me about the lack of different titles in 70mm as compared to other current 70mm theatres. I think the Silver has run Lawrence, 2001, Playtime, Mad World (UP70 at that), Baraka, and Hello Dolly.
I would most certainly agree….the Uptown can make any film seem that much better. I love its deep-curved screen though it made showing films there more challenging. Don’t believe what you hear about “digitally restored and remastered” for 2001 at the Uptown…it was the original mix there every time (though with noise reduction as new prints were made).
In my opinion, the last of the really good prints of 2001 were made in the 1980s (I want to say in 1980 or 81) before Metrocolor was shut down. They were the BEST 70mm print house by far…followed by Technicolor-London. Unfortunately, any print made prior to about the fall of 1982 would have faded quite a bit by now…most any print (in general) made in 1983 or beyond should still have decent color.
HAL is most interesting in 2001…he is modulated on ALL 6-tracks about equally as he is omni-present.
I also ran 2001 at the K-B Cinema in Washington, DC…but the Uptown was the most enjoyable for me…both showing (historical reasons, if for no other) and for view the movie.
2001 in 70mm does not have any subwoofer track. There was a version in the ‘90s (quite rare) that they did a 5.1 mix on with…The track layout was similar to that of a 6-track mix on a dubber (Left, LS, Center, Rs, Right, Subwoofer). This is a potentially dangerous track configuration since it could end up in a conventional house and feed the subwoofer signal to the surrounds.
All other versions of 2001, including the AFI/Silver’s recent playing featured the original “Todd-Ao” mix with five front channels and a mono-surround.
The print they received though definately watchable, was most certainly “previously enjoyed” and rather heavily so. The previous caretaker also didn’t break the film down from their platter very well…cutting whenever they felt like it rather than finding the actual ends of the reels. Seriously, for limited circulation prints, build ups in any fashion should be banned (large reel or platter).
First off, it isn’t supposed…they are well documented facts (film’s resolution, contrast, color space).
As to WHY you see better DP shows…there are several factors at work…first…look at your local multiplex’s booth…who is operating it? By and large, nobody or poorly trained somebodys that often are not alloted the time or care for showing the movie. It is well documented that the exhibitor does not make much money on the movie itself, but the concession stand items they sell. As a business, it therefore tends to have them spend LESS on showing the movie itself since it is merely the vehicle to sell their profit items.
Then look at their equipment…by and large, they buy for low-cost, fast installation…not quality. You, therefore, are not going to get all out of a film that is actually on the film. When less expensive alternatives to the current crop of DLP projectors become available, believe me exhibitors will flock to those…right now, every Digital projector is the BEST that the technology has to offer, not the bottom end, as is often the case with film.
As to film’s degradation…it can be mitigated with just minimal care…that I admit, that the chains just don’t care about. I’ve personally run prints for weeks on end and they look every bit as good at the end of the run as at the beginning…in fact, we cleaned the dust that was on the print when it came out of the can off.
As for DP being brighter…it isn’t…in fact it is limited due to its lack of contrast ratio…if the DP image is brighter in a side-by-side test, one of the systems wasn’t set up properly…it isn’t a trait of the system. In fact, film wins the brightness contest too. “Sharper” is a good one. By and large, it IS easier to focus a DP than film. Film pulsates in the gate as the heat hits the film (it swells towards the heat source) and thus has a tricky situation for the lens to resolve. That said, projected film has a greater resolving power than DLP…BUT since DLP has lower resolution, its limited pixel density IS sharp. What you get with that is a very sharp, lower resolution image (less detail) that has an exaggerated 2-D appearance to it. If you were to see the same image projected film versus DLP and go down to the screen you would see that the film has more detail in the image as compared to the grid like nature of the DLP image.
The next thing taking away from film is the use of digital intermediates. Many films use a 2K digital intermediate which is like a horrible filter that removes detail. In essence, the film is downgraded. But that is something that will not be with us for too much longer as films start to get 4K DIs (and hopefully greater, if they HAVE to do DIs). Note, these DIs also cut in on film’s contrast too.
DP, on the other hand, has the distinct advantage that it does NOT have to suffer the duplication processes that a typical release print must go through. This puts a big variable into what a release print will look like on film.
I don’t object to you all enjoying DCinema but I do object to the notion that DCinema is some sort of “upgrade”…it is actually a downgrade as all of the detractions from film are overcomable and one is comparing the best of DP with the worst of film.
All three auditoriums are DLP equipped. However, don’t sound so dissappointed…remember 35mm film, at its worst resolution (1.85:1 ratio) is roughly TWICE the resolution of 2K DCinema, with a greater color spectrum and greater contrast ratio. For CinemaScope features, films advantage grows exponentially since digital’s resolution DROPs for scope whilst film’s resolving power goes up.
Shortly after the Kimball was renovated, it was determined that the PA sound system was not proper for the film performances, with many complaints. A separate film sound system was added with the subwoofers being the only shared channel between PA and film.
The film speakers are flown and are lowered, in addtion to the screen, for film performances. It was important for the theatre to retain is rather period feel so the surround speakers have been mostly concealed. Four reside in the “slots”, four are hidden in the “Tech balconies” and two can be seen as blisters just below the projection ports.
The cinema projection/sound consultants were from Cardinal Sound & Motion Picture Systems from Elkridge, MD.
Well, the light should have been on the money that night! I just changed the lamps on Friday! They were set to SMPTE spec and balanced (all three auditoriums). FWIW, on Friday, the projectionist in the Historic was using DTS for digital sound though it can run all three digitals.
Yes, it is true that the curtain in the Historic theatre is currently broken but don’t expect it to stay that way for too much longer.
In theatre #2, you might have caught me when I was doing some tests between shows and hence the open curtain…if you saw any target film running, It was definately me. Also, if there is a format change between shows (like from 1.37 for Its A Wonderful Life to 1.85 for A Christmas Story, they will roll both machines to verify good frame/focus for that feature, BEFORE they seat the audience. Since the AFI has studio grade Kinoton projectors, they can rock/roll without film damage and without the need to rethread once set.
I don’t know what that was about but they DID play Fiddler in 35mm 4-track and it was an IB Tech print (good color). The sound was quite impressive for its age. The film played its full week (or slightly longer since it started on a Tuesday).
Blade Runner is the current attraction with the last day on Thursday.
Yes! In fact, both the MacArthur and the Langley had “cry rooms” on the second floor. The Langly had a lounge upstairs too in addition to the rest rooms. The layouts of the Langley and the MacA were VERY similar. A notable difference from upstairs was that the MacA could exit from up there too since it was set into a hill.
Don’t be fooled by how the theatre sat. There were always businesses next to the Langley. I seem to recall a deli next to it when I worked there. The lobby of the theatre took you BEHIND the businesses before you turned right and entered the rear of the auditorium
“Look as good” is a tough question to answer. The simple facts are that 4K resolution digital is only as good as 1.85 35mm (.446 x .825"). This does not speak to the color aspects of which film has a greater range as well as better contrast ratio. For 70mm, you are dealing with a substantially larger image area (projection size of .870 x 1.912"). 8K digital is not going to capture it all with the color and contrast again still superior with film.
So, in the strictest sense, given an “EK” print from the original release, no today’s digitally remastered version will not have as good a resolution, contrast nor color. However, it sure seems like they are using the best of today’s technology to yield as faithful a reproduction of the original.
But lets look at other factors….you probably didn’t see an EK print back then (Off camera original) but a dupe print that went through the whole IN/IP process. So the edge in contrast and resolution gets very narrowed with the film versus digital.
Now take into account the projection system you saw the film on…how good was it? Any image stability issues in projector (or printing for that matter) come off of resolution. This is why 70mm projection, even from a blow-up is significantly better than a standard release print in 35mm…theatrical projection gets a significant improvement in steadiness as well as having more resolution for the IN/rellease print steps.
Kinoton (projector manufacturer) just this year released their “premiere” line of film projectors (uses an electronic intermittent) that is 4-5 times steadier than their previous version of their “E” series projector…that 4-5 times steadiness improvement will improve sharpness and actually allow one to resolve more of what is on the film.
So, as you can see it is very difficult to play a strict numbers game on will today’s film or digital print look as good or better after digital remastering. As a rule, in 2007, going into the digital domain almost always takes away from film original. 2K DIs are just plain horrible…they lower the bar way too much. At least Blade Runner looks like it went with notably better digital processing.
Mark is correct. It was a Dolby Stereo print but it was played on an Eprad Stereo processor. The MacArthur’s house sound system was a Simplex XL…capable of up to 6-channel sound. However, for Star Trek, the Eprad was installed (Eprad was a competitor to Dolby in those days). The Eprad processor stayed their permanently until 1982, when a Dolby CP200 was installed for Star Trek II. The MacA closed later that year however.
SG
Rodents are in every theatre…particularly old ones with as many cavities for them to hide, as the Uptown. Traps and exterminators were a regular thing when I worked there (for 18 years)…then again, I don’t know any theatre…particularly one with some age on it, that doesn’t fight this battle.
SG
A point of fact, the World Premiere of Star Trek: The Motion Picture played in 35mm on an EPRAD Starscope, not in “Dolby Stereo.” Anyone that tells you otherwise is mistaken. In fact, the MacArthur didn’t receive a Dolby processor until 1982 for Star Trek II. Star Trek II did play in 70mm.
Steve
Thanks for the clarification.
SG
I believe I said “nearing 90”. As my father has reach 90 and I always felt that Marvin and Dad were of similar age…I figured Marvin was nearing 90. It appears that he is 86…I’m not too far off. I clearly meant no disrespect to either Marvin or Ronnie.
The “chain” upon which you refer to is just a single location in Calvert County.
As to the reasons they sold off most of their theatres…that is a matter for Ronnie to clarify, if he is so inclined.
SG
It was definitely in Theatre #1 (Historic today, Saturday).
Steve
I happened by the AFI/Silver today…the print of Ben Hur is in 35mm CinemaScope. The print looked to be in rather good condition (clearly not an old print…the colors were very good) though not blemish free. It is entirely watchable from the few minutes I stuck my head up to the ports.
I think I caught a note on the leader that stated it was in Dolby-A…if so the optical track would have been a later downmix.
Steve
I want to say the little theatres used Kintek surrounds though they may have been Altec 312s. The main auditorium used Altec 312s and yes they were suspended via cables. The little theatres had the surrounds affixed to the side walls.
As for the booth…it was cut up. There were two booths after the split. That is the only way you could have the middle balcony. So theatres 2 and 3 shared one booth and theatre #1 had its own booth.
The screen was not enlarged.
Steve
While it was true there were “Dolby” sound systems in all three theatres. The little two were about as minimalist as you could go…three whole surrounds…two on one wall and one on the other!
The main theatre did have a decent enough system for its day though it was a bit of a hodge-podge (A4s without wings and such).
The stage in the main theatre remained unchnaged and thus the screen size remained the same too.
For me, the MacA lost much though certainly not all of its charm when it was cut up.
Steve
I think you are correct on the titles but I know you are incorrect on your dates. The AFI/Silver didn’t open until April 2003. 70mm capability didn’t go on line until about August of 2003.
SG
Giles…For the Uptown specifically, it needs 70mm, blow up or origination in 65mm to properly fill the screen. The 70mm print, even if a blow up, will allow more light through the aperture and also improve the image steadiness (less magnification) and overall focus (the Uptown uses deep curve corrected lenses for 70mm and effectively also has curved field lenses for 35mm 1.85. Scope is its weakest format)
65mm origination is absolutely where Hollywood should be by now…it has only been over 50-years since the current format came into being! It is significantly better than 35mm (or digital) and will allow a higher resoultion image to start from for any future generations that may surpass what we currently have. I’m quite disappointed that Steven Spielberg has not ventured into 65mm origination. Remember, 65 or 70mm won’t make a bad film good but will make a good film better. I give a lot of credit to Ronny Howard and Kenneth Branagh for shooting in 65mm. Some say that Far and Away killed 65mm photography because it wasn’t one of Ron Howard’s best films…but what does a origination format have to do with the story or people’s acceptance of that story? If it was shot in 35mm would people have liked it better? One thing is for sure…Far and Away has a better source image for any future releases than any move shot in 35mm or present day digital. In fact, George Lucas has done himself a HUGE disservice by shooting the last two Star Wars digitally because he has locked the image in turn of the Century technology that was inferior to what was available. Then again, some people may think it is better to have lesser quality versions of those movies.
As to Sony 4K…it has less light available than the current 2K DLPs. They also lack any ability to deal with the deep-curve screen without throwing away pixels. I’m sure Sony is evolving their product but the last time I did any critical evaluation of it…the color wasn’t right and while static images looked pretty darn impressive…motion images seemed to smear up quite a bit. Most that look at the same source file projected on a DLP 2K and the Sony 4K seem to favor the DLP image. Resolution wise, Sony clearly has an edge. I know in a non-cinema application the Sony image outshown a DLP image but with art images rather than a movie.
Does AMC have the clout to force a 70mm print for a theatre like the Uptown? Probably…they control a sizable number of theatres and probably have more than the Uptown that could benefit from 70mm. Striking one print is a HUGE overhead…once the IN is created…subseqent prints become progressively cheaper as the cost of making the IN is absorbed over the various positives. However, would AMC make that sort of pressure or even the simple request? That is the question and it is likely a “no.” They are a big chain…they tend to do things that are detrimental to projection, not improve it. Think about it…if they required high quality projection from their theatres…why would many people prefer digital cinemas over film when film has a very clear advantage over digital in just about every respect (resolution, color space, contrast)?
SG
DLP on the Uptown screen is going to be a bit challenging. Not that one can’t fill it or even possibly get the brightness. The resolution really isn’t there and there are no lenses available to compensate for the screen’s depth. They would just throw away pixels.
While it is true that the Uptown has rarely hit SMPTE specs for light output (the 70mm run of Vertigo being a notable exception), it normally can put out a passable picture if the equipment is kept in alignment. A DP will have the same problems.
Unlike in many large screen applications, at the Uptown, the screen is not only large but rather close…any imperfections…like the lack of pixel density in a 2K system is going to show itself much more unless you are in the balconey.
The problem you saw was a matter of getting more light on the screen, which need not come from a digital projector but an alignment of the existing equipment. What makes you think that a company that will put out a haphazard film presentation will give a digital presentation any more care?
I don’t recall anyone other than the studios…which normally relented, complaining too much about the light levels when I was at the Uptown. The Uptown’s image starts to look pretty good when you hit 12fL but starts to degrade a bit once you go above 14fL as things will wash out. Remember too, Cineplex chose to remove the strip screen which absolutely killed the contrast in that theatre.
No, what the Uptown needs is 70mm film…it is the best technology available in 2008 for lighting up that screen. Shame on AMC and others for not insisting on 70mm for these sorts of venues.
Steve
You’ll get no argument from me about the lack of different titles in 70mm as compared to other current 70mm theatres. I think the Silver has run Lawrence, 2001, Playtime, Mad World (UP70 at that), Baraka, and Hello Dolly.
SG
I would most certainly agree….the Uptown can make any film seem that much better. I love its deep-curved screen though it made showing films there more challenging. Don’t believe what you hear about “digitally restored and remastered” for 2001 at the Uptown…it was the original mix there every time (though with noise reduction as new prints were made).
In my opinion, the last of the really good prints of 2001 were made in the 1980s (I want to say in 1980 or 81) before Metrocolor was shut down. They were the BEST 70mm print house by far…followed by Technicolor-London. Unfortunately, any print made prior to about the fall of 1982 would have faded quite a bit by now…most any print (in general) made in 1983 or beyond should still have decent color.
HAL is most interesting in 2001…he is modulated on ALL 6-tracks about equally as he is omni-present.
I also ran 2001 at the K-B Cinema in Washington, DC…but the Uptown was the most enjoyable for me…both showing (historical reasons, if for no other) and for view the movie.
SG
2001 in 70mm does not have any subwoofer track. There was a version in the ‘90s (quite rare) that they did a 5.1 mix on with…The track layout was similar to that of a 6-track mix on a dubber (Left, LS, Center, Rs, Right, Subwoofer). This is a potentially dangerous track configuration since it could end up in a conventional house and feed the subwoofer signal to the surrounds.
All other versions of 2001, including the AFI/Silver’s recent playing featured the original “Todd-Ao” mix with five front channels and a mono-surround.
The print they received though definately watchable, was most certainly “previously enjoyed” and rather heavily so. The previous caretaker also didn’t break the film down from their platter very well…cutting whenever they felt like it rather than finding the actual ends of the reels. Seriously, for limited circulation prints, build ups in any fashion should be banned (large reel or platter).
SG
First off, it isn’t supposed…they are well documented facts (film’s resolution, contrast, color space).
As to WHY you see better DP shows…there are several factors at work…first…look at your local multiplex’s booth…who is operating it? By and large, nobody or poorly trained somebodys that often are not alloted the time or care for showing the movie. It is well documented that the exhibitor does not make much money on the movie itself, but the concession stand items they sell. As a business, it therefore tends to have them spend LESS on showing the movie itself since it is merely the vehicle to sell their profit items.
Then look at their equipment…by and large, they buy for low-cost, fast installation…not quality. You, therefore, are not going to get all out of a film that is actually on the film. When less expensive alternatives to the current crop of DLP projectors become available, believe me exhibitors will flock to those…right now, every Digital projector is the BEST that the technology has to offer, not the bottom end, as is often the case with film.
As to film’s degradation…it can be mitigated with just minimal care…that I admit, that the chains just don’t care about. I’ve personally run prints for weeks on end and they look every bit as good at the end of the run as at the beginning…in fact, we cleaned the dust that was on the print when it came out of the can off.
As for DP being brighter…it isn’t…in fact it is limited due to its lack of contrast ratio…if the DP image is brighter in a side-by-side test, one of the systems wasn’t set up properly…it isn’t a trait of the system. In fact, film wins the brightness contest too. “Sharper” is a good one. By and large, it IS easier to focus a DP than film. Film pulsates in the gate as the heat hits the film (it swells towards the heat source) and thus has a tricky situation for the lens to resolve. That said, projected film has a greater resolving power than DLP…BUT since DLP has lower resolution, its limited pixel density IS sharp. What you get with that is a very sharp, lower resolution image (less detail) that has an exaggerated 2-D appearance to it. If you were to see the same image projected film versus DLP and go down to the screen you would see that the film has more detail in the image as compared to the grid like nature of the DLP image.
The next thing taking away from film is the use of digital intermediates. Many films use a 2K digital intermediate which is like a horrible filter that removes detail. In essence, the film is downgraded. But that is something that will not be with us for too much longer as films start to get 4K DIs (and hopefully greater, if they HAVE to do DIs). Note, these DIs also cut in on film’s contrast too.
DP, on the other hand, has the distinct advantage that it does NOT have to suffer the duplication processes that a typical release print must go through. This puts a big variable into what a release print will look like on film.
I don’t object to you all enjoying DCinema but I do object to the notion that DCinema is some sort of “upgrade”…it is actually a downgrade as all of the detractions from film are overcomable and one is comparing the best of DP with the worst of film.
SG
All three auditoriums are DLP equipped. However, don’t sound so dissappointed…remember 35mm film, at its worst resolution (1.85:1 ratio) is roughly TWICE the resolution of 2K DCinema, with a greater color spectrum and greater contrast ratio. For CinemaScope features, films advantage grows exponentially since digital’s resolution DROPs for scope whilst film’s resolving power goes up.
SG
Shortly after the Kimball was renovated, it was determined that the PA sound system was not proper for the film performances, with many complaints. A separate film sound system was added with the subwoofers being the only shared channel between PA and film.
The film speakers are flown and are lowered, in addtion to the screen, for film performances. It was important for the theatre to retain is rather period feel so the surround speakers have been mostly concealed. Four reside in the “slots”, four are hidden in the “Tech balconies” and two can be seen as blisters just below the projection ports.
The cinema projection/sound consultants were from Cardinal Sound & Motion Picture Systems from Elkridge, MD.
SG
Well, the light should have been on the money that night! I just changed the lamps on Friday! They were set to SMPTE spec and balanced (all three auditoriums). FWIW, on Friday, the projectionist in the Historic was using DTS for digital sound though it can run all three digitals.
Yes, it is true that the curtain in the Historic theatre is currently broken but don’t expect it to stay that way for too much longer.
In theatre #2, you might have caught me when I was doing some tests between shows and hence the open curtain…if you saw any target film running, It was definately me. Also, if there is a format change between shows (like from 1.37 for Its A Wonderful Life to 1.85 for A Christmas Story, they will roll both machines to verify good frame/focus for that feature, BEFORE they seat the audience. Since the AFI has studio grade Kinoton projectors, they can rock/roll without film damage and without the need to rethread once set.
Steve
I don’t know what that was about but they DID play Fiddler in 35mm 4-track and it was an IB Tech print (good color). The sound was quite impressive for its age. The film played its full week (or slightly longer since it started on a Tuesday).
Blade Runner is the current attraction with the last day on Thursday.
SG
The Senator is now playing Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm DTS.
SG
Yes! In fact, both the MacArthur and the Langley had “cry rooms” on the second floor. The Langly had a lounge upstairs too in addition to the rest rooms. The layouts of the Langley and the MacA were VERY similar. A notable difference from upstairs was that the MacA could exit from up there too since it was set into a hill.
SG
Don’t be fooled by how the theatre sat. There were always businesses next to the Langley. I seem to recall a deli next to it when I worked there. The lobby of the theatre took you BEHIND the businesses before you turned right and entered the rear of the auditorium
“Look as good” is a tough question to answer. The simple facts are that 4K resolution digital is only as good as 1.85 35mm (.446 x .825"). This does not speak to the color aspects of which film has a greater range as well as better contrast ratio. For 70mm, you are dealing with a substantially larger image area (projection size of .870 x 1.912"). 8K digital is not going to capture it all with the color and contrast again still superior with film.
So, in the strictest sense, given an “EK” print from the original release, no today’s digitally remastered version will not have as good a resolution, contrast nor color. However, it sure seems like they are using the best of today’s technology to yield as faithful a reproduction of the original.
But lets look at other factors….you probably didn’t see an EK print back then (Off camera original) but a dupe print that went through the whole IN/IP process. So the edge in contrast and resolution gets very narrowed with the film versus digital.
Now take into account the projection system you saw the film on…how good was it? Any image stability issues in projector (or printing for that matter) come off of resolution. This is why 70mm projection, even from a blow-up is significantly better than a standard release print in 35mm…theatrical projection gets a significant improvement in steadiness as well as having more resolution for the IN/rellease print steps.
Kinoton (projector manufacturer) just this year released their “premiere” line of film projectors (uses an electronic intermittent) that is 4-5 times steadier than their previous version of their “E” series projector…that 4-5 times steadiness improvement will improve sharpness and actually allow one to resolve more of what is on the film.
So, as you can see it is very difficult to play a strict numbers game on will today’s film or digital print look as good or better after digital remastering. As a rule, in 2007, going into the digital domain almost always takes away from film original. 2K DIs are just plain horrible…they lower the bar way too much. At least Blade Runner looks like it went with notably better digital processing.
SG
Note, the Avalon was never a K-B Theatre…it was a Circle Theatre…which provided rather unappealing color schemes you mentioned
SG