Jump to content

Kodak Announces Revolutionary 3D Digital Movie Projection Tech


Tim Tyler

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

 

I do believe mainstream film projection is dying fast, and will be relegated to art houses, museums and centers dedicated their exhibition. Even these will eventually pass, I believe, as prints become scarcer, and as projection catches up to the quality of the source medium (I dream of 8 or 12K projection!).

The number of digital-equipped cinemas is growing but that has more to do with the desire to screen 3-D movies than anything else.

There is also a vast difference between a cinema or multiplex having the capability of projecting digitally and being "fully Digital". In the majority of cases it means they have one or two digital projectors in an otherwise all-film operation.

Worldwide, the overwhelming majority of cinema footage is still projected on film. As long as that market is there, Kodak will continue to provide print film, and while print film is still available, it will still remain the cheapest option even in wealthy countries, and that's all most cinema operators are interested in. It also means it will continue to be profitable to make and process camera negative stock.

 

The costs of shooting 65mm over 35mm are negligible when faced with a 100 million dollar budget, and I think any studio shooting one of their epics is CRAZY not to go for the added insurance of 65!

It's not just about that. The entire industry is based around the 35mm format. If you want to shoot 65mm you massively reduce the range of lens and other equipment options available. The number of 65mm camera systems actually available for rent at any time is also microscopically small.

You'd also have to convince Panavision to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new cameras and other equipment at a time when they're in the hands of the receivers. That ain't gonna happen. Even companies like Arri who do actually run at a profit would be wary about such a move, as they would no doubt like remain that way.

 

Besides, if studios were really concerned about resolution, they could get a long way down that track with slower film stocks, better lenses and more efficient lighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...

Besides, if studios were really concerned about resolution, they could get a long way down that track with slower film stocks, better lenses and more efficient lighting.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! If I were shooting a movie I would absolutely only want to use 50 & 100 ISO stocks. (This is quadruply true if you're shooting with Super16mm.) I would also only want to use 65mm, but still 50 and 100 ISO even in 65mm. It's not up to Arriflex to produce 65mm cameras at their own expense. They're in business to sell their cameras. It's up to the greedy Studios to order and buy a bunch of 65mm cameras and lenses to keep for their usage. All of the Studios could easily afford to buy 200 65mm cameras and lenses which they could share usage of. They could also provide Arri or Aaton money to design a small 65mm camera for tight shots. They're just too damn greedy.

 

Regarding the benefit of lower ISO Speed Films, here's a basic explanation of the benefits from my Cinematography Article:

"The LOWER the ISO Speed, the HIGHER the Resolution potential of the Film. / It is also very important to note that the colour resolution of Film also corresponds to the ISO Speed of the Film. The intensity of the colours is relative to the amount of Halides in the Film as based upon the ISO Speed. Films with Speeds of 100 ISO and LOWER will have a HIGHER Colour quality than Films with Higher ISO Speeds. Higher ISO Speeds use less Light to expose the Halides which will provide fewer developed Dyes leaving empty space within Dye Clouds. Given how large a Movie Screen is, it is important to use as low an ISO Speed as possible in order to maintain image and colour quality."

http://www.zeuter.com/%7Etlmester/fanddinfo/ARTICLE_CINEMA.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

My solution, my honest advice for Kodak? Push, push, push 65mm as an acquisition format. It is bar none the most future resistant format available, needing a minimum of 8K to fully resolve...surely enough to endure once HD has been surpassed by Ultra HD, and whatever replaces it.

 

To be fair, Kodak has/had been pushing 65mm for over a decade. [Almost] No one listened.

 

 

I have to ask: Who is going to buy these laser projectors now that all three of the United States' multiplex chains have already signed with other manufacturers? Probably over 80% of the U.S. market (I'm assuming trends are similar abroad) are already committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What you fail to note is that Film captures all THREE Primary Colours -- while Digital only captures ONE!

 

So why do they have three chip cameras, like the venerable F-900? Single chip cameras also capture three primaries, just not co-located. Lumiere Autochrome made some of the most beautiful images in early color photography, again, without co-located samples. In multi-layer film, the grains don't line up from layer to layer, they're random. Same with three strip Technicolor -- grains randomly distributed, and randomly overlapping between the colors.

 

The cone cells of the human eye have a random distribution of three different photopigments, a lot like Autochrome. They're not co-located. Our brains actually correct very slight mis-registration between the colors, aligning color to brightness.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The number of 65mm camera systems actually available for rent at any time is also microscopically small.

 

The most recent are the Arri 765's, of which I believe they made about a dozen. That has to be well over 15 years ago.

 

A much smarter way to get that size original frame is what Jim Martin tried in the late 1990's -- Side pull, like VistaVision, only 12 perfs per frame. No special orders for film stock, process and contact print in any lab, fairly easy to trick out a Spirit to do digital dailies.... The only special thing you need is the optical printer to get into the 65/70 system, or of course today, a DI. He built two or three of those cameras, I wonder what became of them.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do they have three chip cameras, like the venerable F-900? Single chip cameras also capture three primaries, just not co-located. ... In multi-layer film, the grains don't line up from layer to layer, they're random. Same with three strip Technicolor -- grains randomly distributed, and randomly overlapping between the colors. ...

The number of microchips is irrelevant. The Camera only has one CCD Array which only records one colour per Pixel -- not all three. Those microchips then use mathematical calculations to "guess" the other two colours per Pixel. The apparent positions of grains in the Film Emulsion Layers have nothing to do with Film's ability to record all three primary colours. Lower ISO Films will more evidently reveal the deficiencies of Digital's colour. You can't expect a 500 ISO Film to provide top quality colour.

 

... A much smarter way to get that size original frame is what Jim Martin tried in the late 1990's -- Side pull, like VistaVision, only 12 perfs per frame. No special orders for film stock, process and contact print in any lab, fairly easy to trick out a Spirit to do digital dailies.... The only special thing you need is the optical printer to get into the 65/70 system, or of course today, a DI. ...

The sideways VistaVision never took off for a reason. It makes no sense and doesn't save money to use sideways 35mm instead of vertical 65mm. 65mm is the only way to go if a cinematographer wants 70mm projection to be available, and 70mm would be worth a higher ticket price -- unlike this Digital 3D ripoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The number of microchips is irrelevant. The Camera only has one CCD Array which only records one colour per Pixel -- not all three.

 

Incorrect. The F-900, F-23, etc. have three 1920 x 1080 CCD's, one for each primary color. They're attached to a prism block, like Technicolor system 5, only a bit more complex because they have to split the light three ways. Technicolor only split it two ways, because they could use a red/blue bi-pack in one gate, and got the green record in the other. Oh, and BTW, the rest of it is nonsense, too..... ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fascinating topic with a number of issues under the spotlight.

 

I would not wish to criticise Kodak too much. They are up against powerful forces.

 

That having been said, however, I do not think they are their own best friend and I justify this view in the following way:

 

Firstly the Company has continued to invest in the development of new filmstocks and I, for one, believe that we have now a range of stocks which is broad and able to meet the needs of the vast majority. Film still produces images which are thought by many to be better than can be achieved digitally, and yet one sees very little in the way of publicity which questions or attacks the message constantly put out by the digital industry that "digital is best".

 

Secondly little, if anything, appears to contradict the claims by the digital lobby that digital is cheap in comparison with film. Where is the evidence to support these claims? Film cameras have been shown to have long lives. It is the filmstocks which have changed rather than the cameras, in the sense that, for example, 16mm film can still be shot in 16mm cameras which were made many years ago. One cannot say the same thing of video or digital imaging. Almost every development in the digital field means buying new equipment and getting rid of the old. The cost of this approach to the user is enormous, and if that was reflected in comparative costings, I doubt very much whether the advantage which the digital lobby claims could be justified.

 

Thirdly the option not to buy the latest digital technology is not there and very little if anything is said of the relative stability of film in comparison with digital imaging. The digital industry wilfully works on the basis that incremental improvement is a concept it does not observe and, moreover this approach is backed up by a refusal to support products for anything but a relatively short period. I use film cameras which were built 30 or 40 years ago, and I am still able to use the most recently introduced filmstocks. I can't, on the other hand, use a video camera I bought 15 years ago because having self destructed it cannot be repaired. Where are the video cameras which are (a) more than a few years old which are still supported by their respective manufacturers, and (B) where are the cameras which can be described as having evolved through technological improvement in the sense that the early ones are able to use the most recent means of recording images?

 

Fourthly, Kodak doesn't seem to take advantage of demand when demand exists. In the UK, for example, one cannot purchase Ektachrome 100D on 100ft daylight rolls. One can in the USA and one can in Germany. The Company does not have to produce a new product to satisfy demand, it already produces it. They just need to stock it and sell it alongside other filmstocks it sells in the UK. And when one asks why this is so, one gets no reasoned explanation. One gets no response whatsoever. It is this sort of lack of customer care which results in potential customers walking away.

 

Much of what I say might not be applicable only to Kodak. But apart from those who rely on its products, Kodak stands to be the biggest loser if it fails to sell itself more effectively than it presently does. It has good products, but even so it just seems to show a willingness to lie down and die. It needs to shake itself up.

Edited by Robert Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, you have a big flaw in your argument: Camera rental houses are about the only ones concerned with having to turn over equipment. Even 35mm cameras have gone through several generations of improvements over the past couple of decades. You'd have a hard time walking into Panavision or Arri CSC and getting them to rent you a 50 year-old Panavised Mitchell or a 50-y.o. Arri. Panavision NY does have one, as a display, though :P

 

I don't think Kodak can do anything at all about the cost of film versus digital. Unless you're doing a traditional film distribution (cut negatives not DI), digital is going to almost always be cheaper in terms of initial stock costs certainly, and then again in terms of workflow. Kodak's marketing is more geared towards features of film and their benefits to account for the higher cost, which is wise.

 

 

As for their not distributing 5285 in the U.K, I am certain that they would if you ordered 10,000 feet from them. That's kind of the number you have to throw out there in terms of film volume before you can deal with Kodak directly, from my experience. You shouldn't fault them for this. . . Kodak would have to hire a lot of extra employees and raise the cost of film if they decided to go into retailing. The present model is the most efficient for a big corporation such as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. The F-900, F-23, etc. have three 1920 x 1080 CCD's, one for each primary color. They're attached to a prism block, like Technicolor system 5, only a bit more complex because they have to split the light three ways. ...

Using a Prism & 3 CCDs will provide better colour quality than just one CCD under the Bayer Pattern, but it's still not equivalent to Film. Also, a Prism diminishes the sharpness of the image, and it will undermine colour accuracy. You don't need a Prism with Film!

 

These Digital Cameras you cite are only 2 Megapixels -- which is equivalent in size to the Super16mm Frame. You aren't suggesting that these 2 MP Cameras are at all comparable to 35mm Film are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I don't think Kodak can do anything at all about the cost of film versus digital. ... The present model is the most efficient for a big corporation such as they are.

 

Karl,

Since when did you become pro-Kodak? :blink: I agree with Robert. They have no respect for their smaller customers. This is what happens to any company controlled by evil Mutual Funds. They steal profits from Film sales to then waste on Digital garbage like this new Laser Projector. Rather than waste money on Digital junk they should have diversified into other areas like healthcare -- which they stupidly sold off! I am now personally washing my hands of Kodak, and I'm only going to support Fuji and Ilford from now on. Unlike Kodak, Fuji is committed to Film, and they re-invest their Film profits back into Film. Kodak is using Film users as fools!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Camera rental houses are about the only ones concerned with having to turn over equipment.

 

Until recently, most Cine rental houses wouldn't have bothered with video cameras, outside Panavision's Genesis or Sony's CineAlta series. It was the indie filmmakers, small production houses and owner operators who bought miniDV cameras in the 90's, then had to upgrade constantly through the range of HDV cams, P&S adapters, REDs and now the DSLR fad. At the consumer level, people have been convinced to replace their home video cameras every few years since the first Betamax camera displaced Super 8 in 1983.

 

Even 35mm cameras have gone through several generations of improvements over the past couple of decades. You'd have a hard time walking into Panavision or Arri CSC and getting them to rent you a 50 year-old Panavised Mitchell or a 50-y.o. Arri. Panavision NY does have one, as a display, though :P

 

Well maybe not too many 50 year old cameras, although the rental house I work for has an Arri 16ST for student rent which would be around 50 and a couple of Bolex Rex5 kits that would be hitting 40, all working just fine.

 

A Panaflex G2 or Arri BL4, both perfectly acceptable and still rentable 35mm synch sound cameras, would be 25 odd years old, as would an SR2. In most cases the upgrades to sound film cameras since the 80's just added a few bells and whistles, maybe made them more modular or a fraction quieter.

 

For MOS work, a 40 to 50 year old Arri 35IIB/C or a Bell and Howell Eyemo, PL mounted and crystal controlled using modern stock and lenses can give you an image indistinguishable from a 435 Advanced, providing they've been well serviced. Prior to the disposable age we now live in, many people looked after the gear that sustained their livelihoods, so a surprising number of these cameras are actually in good condition. Maybe not quite as reliably steady or easy to view through, and you don't get all the modern features, like adjustable shutter angles and speed ramps and such, but otherwise just as good as the latest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Also, a Prism diminishes the sharpness of the image, and it will undermine colour accuracy. You aren't suggesting that these 2 MP Cameras are at all comparable to 35mm Film are you?

 

No, only that they have three primaries. Any system that makes a full color image has to have three primaries, not one. With only one primary, you'd have a B&W picture, perhaps with a single overall tint.

 

Actually it's the optical low pass filter ahead of the prism that limits resolution to make -- or slightly cheat on -- the Nyquist limit. Color accuracy, strangely enough, isn't particularly important except for medical applications. For storytelling, we make things whatever color we want, in post. It's a big part of the cinematographer's art.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, you have a big flaw in your argument: Camera rental houses are about the only ones concerned with having to turn over equipment. Even 35mm cameras have gone through several generations of improvements over the past couple of decades. You'd have a hard time walking into Panavision or Arri CSC and getting them to rent you a 50 year-old Panavised Mitchell or a 50-y.o. Arri. Panavision NY does have one, as a display, though :P

 

I don't think Kodak can do anything at all about the cost of film versus digital. Unless you're doing a traditional film distribution (cut negatives not DI), digital is going to almost always be cheaper in terms of initial stock costs certainly, and then again in terms of workflow. Kodak's marketing is more geared towards features of film and their benefits to account for the higher cost, which is wise.

 

 

As for their not distributing 5285 in the U.K, I am certain that they would if you ordered 10,000 feet from them. That's kind of the number you have to throw out there in terms of film volume before you can deal with Kodak directly, from my experience. You shouldn't fault them for this. . . Kodak would have to hire a lot of extra employees and raise the cost of film if they decided to go into retailing. The present model is the most efficient for a big corporation such as they are.

 

I think, with respect, you have concentrated too much on what I will call the professional corner. I know that is very important, but I wasn't suggesting for one moment that the point I was trying to get over in my posting envisaged rental houses or studios should still be using 40 or 50 year cameras.

 

The point I was trying to get over - and it does apply to us non-professional users - is that 40 or 50 year old cameras are still able to use 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, or whatever, and that kodak have ensured that unless cameras have come to the end of their working life as a result of being worn out or there has been a failure to maintain them, they remain useable because all of the elements which need to come together in order to produce a film are there still. Many such cameras remain serviceable, and filmstocks continue to be produced. Indeed new stocks have continued to come through.

 

Compare that with the digital industry, nothing has been stable. The industry covering the market has continually moved on, changing everything - standards, hardware and format, and the result is that there is little, if anything, which has been around for 20 years which is serviceable or continues to be supported. To put it another way, the first video cameras using VHS cannot use memorary cards - there has been no incremental development. Every development means one has to abandon the last development before it. To put it in terms of your point, try finding a rental house which will rent you a VHS recorder or a broadcaster who will want your "film". Rental houses might well absorb the costs of this approach through the rental charges they make, but there is a cost nonetheless.

 

This is not a consideration only for rental houses. Try telling those individuals in the semi-professional or amateur market that they have not suffered from turning over equipment. As one who started out with VHS, and moved on through Hi8, to memorary cards, I know that I have had to face the fact that old technology has ceased to be supported by manufacturers within a few years of the new technology being introduced, and if those turn-over costs were factored into the cost of digital involvement, the true cost of such involvement would turn out to be rather more than is appreciated. It certainly is not "cost free" or even "low cost".

 

As to the availability of 7285 stock (Ektachrome 100D), you seem to have missed the point that the product is produced in the form in which it is required. I understand that there is only one manufacturing plant and it manufactures film for world-wide use. The same Company stocks and sells the very product in the USA through companies such as Spectra as well as directly and one doesn't need to order 10,000ft as you suggest. Exactly the same applies to sales in Germany. You also seem to be unaware that as an individual, I can purchase even single rolls of filmstock directly from Kodak in the UK because they have a a facility to stock and sell film in small as well as large quantities directly to the public. They would not need to take on the additional employees you suggest they would, because 100D in 100ft rolls would simply be a minor addition to their existing portfolio of filmstocks they stock in 100ft rolls which they have available for sale. I can purchase 100D in 400ft rolls in the UK directly from Kodak or through a number of stockists. Why can I not purchase it in 100ft rolls is the question which I use to illustrate that Kodak could so easily improve its service to customers without much investment on their part, if any. As you will know, many 16mm cameras, for example, are commonly used with only 100ft rolls and it is almost as if Kodak are unaware of this. I know that this is not so, of course. Kodak do know that there is a demand for 100ft rolls of 7285 because they manufacture and pack it in this form. However, for some quite inexplicable reason they simply refuse to sell it in that form in the UK. They could supply it to other outlets in the UK who tell me they have asked for supplies, but Kodak simply will not supply them either.

 

I do not, therefore, accept that my original argument suffered the flaw you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Prior to the disposable age we now live in, many people looked after the gear that sustained their livelihoods, so a surprising number of these cameras are actually in good condition. Maybe not quite as reliably steady or easy to view through, and you don't get all the modern features, like adjustable shutter angles and speed ramps and such, but otherwise just as good as the latest.

Absolutely true! Those old cameras fortunately were "electric" and not "electronic" which is why they can last and last. Computer electronics eventually screw up, and I hate to see computerization in Film Cameras which makes them just as susceptible to failure as Digital Cameras.

I likewise hate computerization in cars such as fuel injection. The computer has long ago failed in my 1986 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, but since it's carbureted it continues to work perfectly well. :D I love such a defeat of computerization. :angry:

 

... Any system that makes a full color image has to have three primaries, not one. With only one primary, you'd have a B&W picture, perhaps with a single overall tint. ...

This is incorrect. As I mentioned in Post #32, with a single CCD Array each Pixel only records ONE Primary Colour. The Digital Camera's computer then uses mathematical calculations using neighbouring Pixels to guess the other two Primary Colours for each Pixel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Digital Camera's computer then uses mathematical calculations using neighbouring Pixels to guess the other two Primary Colours for each Pixel.

 

One color per photosite, but three in all, not one.

 

It's called de-Bayering. It works. Get used to it.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One color per photosite, but three in all, not one.

It's called de-Bayering. It works. Get used to it.

The point I'm making is that the Bayer Pattern artificially produces colour that is most definitely inferior to Film's ability to record all three primary colours everywhere on the Frame. The Digital process of colour cannot equal Film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have to ask: Who is going to buy these laser projectors now that all three of the United States' multiplex chains have already signed with other manufacturers? Probably over 80% of the U.S. market (I'm assuming trends are similar abroad) are already committed.

The Kodak innovation is mostly to replace the Xenon lamp with laser sources; the rest of the technology is pretty much the same as is currently used (eg DLP, LCOS etc), so the other companies could well consider adding the Kodak system to their existing tech. In theory, the same light sources could even be retrofitted to film projectors.

 

That would give an instant quality boost to the picture as well as improving the reliability, but on the other hand, the cost of retrofitting would probably buy an awful lot of Xenon lamps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The point I'm making is that the Bayer Pattern artificially produces colour that is most definitely inferior ....

 

You do your point a disservice by stretching the truth beyond its elastic limit. Non-co-located color sampling isn't the same thing as having only one primary color.

 

You do have a very valid point that the one primary per photosite sampling of the Bayer chips isn't equal to the three per location sampling of prism cameras. Red in its early days was widely and correctly criticised for the "4K" business. The consensus that came out of that was that 4K worth of Bayer masked photosites is equivalent to something between 2K and 3K of co-located samples. But it's an extremely difficult thing to quantify with any precision.

 

The truth is that all image sampling technologies are to some extent undersampled. The single chip Bayer and stripe arrays are significantly more so than prism or film cameras. But all chips have some "dead" space between photosites. Even film, because of the random sizes and locations of the grains, has a very non-uniform distribution of sensitivity. The human eye is, if anything, more like a single chip camera, because there are three different cone sensitivities (called L, M, and S, not RGB), each cone has one of the three, and there are rods and stuff in between. (Worse yet, there are nerves and blood vessels and stuff between the retina and the lens, go figure....)

 

Why belabor this to such an extent? It's because students and beginners read this site, and the vast majority of what they find is both accurate and useful. Unchallenged misinformation here has the potential to do some real harm.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... But all chips have some "dead" space between photosites. Even film, because of the random sizes and locations of the grains, has a very non-uniform distribution of sensitivity. ...

This of course depends upon the ISO Speed of Film being used. The LOWER the Speed, the HIGHER the Colour and Resolution quality of the Film. With Digital however, lowering ISO has no impact whatsoever on improving Resolution, and little impact on improving Colour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Kodak has/had been pushing 65mm for over a decade. [Almost] No one listened. ...

You didn't mention what Kodak did to promote 65mm cinematography, but here's a suggestion that would promote its use. I believe the main problem for 65mm is the lack of 70mm Projectors out there in theaters. It would be extremely smart of Kodak to order 500 70mm Projectors from Kinoton -- reserving 300 for North America, 100 for Britain and Europe, 50 for Australia / New Zealand and 50 for Japan. Kodak would then lease them out on a weekly basis to theaters when they need them to run 70mm movies.

 

The main issue of concern is quality Digital Sound. I've come up with a simple mechanical 'time code' for the Projector to provide to a simple PC Computer containing the Sound Track. The Projector need only produce an 'electric pulse' each time the Frame advances. This electric pulse circuit would simply lead to an external Phono Jack which would connect to the Computer's Serial Port. The Computer software would simply use that electric pulse to maintain synchronization with the Film Strip in the exact same way it uses the DTS Time Code. To synchronize the beginning of each Reel of Film, there would be another electric pulse through a separate circuit sent with the 'first' Frame of the Reel. There need only be a groove cut out of the edge of the first Frame which would cause a switch to ground out and send the pulse to the Computer. This will work with our without a platter system. In the event of a power failure or mishap, the movie would be resumed at the beginning of the Reel. Presto, no need for the DTS on the 70mm Film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, Terry, but that is a total non-sequitur.

 

A *35*mm is not portable, let alone a 70mm (not to mention a severe shortage of platters large enough to play a feature-length movie in 70). With the exception of a few IMAX screens in commercial theatres, and IMAX/OMNIMAX installations, the only other 70mm projectors running are in changeover mode. (The film society I worked at scrapped their dual 35/70 projector's ability to play 70mm by installing a digital sound head, forget which kind now, in the space that the double-wide film would have needed. This isn't a 5-lb./2.25 ki projector that you wheel in on a cart, like in biology class, it's a hundred times that weight, size, complexity, and fragility.

 

 

70mm died over a decade ago, and you can't bring it back Terry. The only hope left is IMAX, and this is already being taken out piece by piece. You will not see new 70mm projectors for sale.

 

In any case, that is not Kodak's job to buy them. You have to commit to putting one in somewhere, which no theatre wants to do. Invent an economical, portable, lightweight 70mm machine, that can be installed by someone working for minimum wage in 20 minutes, and then come back and talk about it.

 

Your suggestions are just off the wall, though for Kodak bailing out theatres.

Edited by K Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The AA-II Norelco's that I was involved with -- Paramount and the Warner Grand in San Pedro -- weigh 1800 pounds each, not counting the offboard water cooling tank and pump. We used a big crowbar to get them lined up with the screen.

 

Here's the best source of info on them:

 

http://www.in70mm.com/dp70/index.htm

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...