---- "Sean Delgado" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >if you haven't seen a particular film in 35mm
> >projection, then you haven't "really" seen the film

> How would you account for 70mm film projection? Or Imax?

   Hi, Sean! Good question. I'm not that familiar with 70mm,
but I do have access to back issues of the SMPTE Journal
going way back, so hopefully I'll be able to research it
some time this summer.

   I would imagine that both 70mm and Imax have the same
mechanism as 35mm. The only film format that I'm aware of
that is actually "transparent" is the Showscan process
( http://www.showscan.com/ ), which is 70mm film running
vertically through the projector aperature at 60fps.

   I just found their web site yesterday while doing research
for another article, and I was blown away by how the number
of theaters has increased since the mid 80s, so I'm going
to do a piece on Showscan only, since that is the most advanced
film format that I know of in terms of both the spatial
and temporal resolution of the process.
 
> Plus, I find it hard to believe that a 16mm projector
> (a pageant?) would be 
> more sophisticated than a 35mm projector, re the 2 and
> 3 blade shutters.

   It's true. I've checked the technical reference books,
although I don't have physical access to a 16mm projector
right now
to check it out first-hand. I'll post a quote from the technical
refernce book Monday, if I get the chance.

> I 
> know for a fact 16mm projectors are more rugged than 35
> projectors, making 
> me think it would be a more simple design.

   Well, that may be true, but the major difference is that
16mm projectors have to have the ability to show 16fps silent
films, so that's why they must be more sophisticated in
the secondary shutter department.

> 24fps is 24fps.  16mm moves at 36 feet per minute and
> 35mm moves at 90 feet 
> per minute.  Both project at 24fps.  Just edit in film,
> 16 or 35 and you 
> will discover that a projector does not project any given
> frame 2 or 3 
> times, but only once. 

   True, any given frame is only projected once, but the
time that that individual frame is being illuminated is
divided into two separate and discrete periods by the secondary
shutter,
so that you see two flashes of light with the same frame's
visual content.

> There are editing `rulers' where
> you lay the film 
> print against to see how long the shot is and they have
> both 16 and 35 
> markings, and the difference has to do with the size of
> the frame and 
> nothing to do with the projection rate.

   Very true at that stage, but the projection process is
completely distinct perceptually from the editing process.
That's why it's so difficult to "stay on top of" a film
during the post-production process. Most people can't afford
to project the film often enough during post production
to stay on top of it.

> And I don't really get or buy into the difference.  As
> a filmmaker I have 
> shot on 35mm, edited on 16mm, and released on video.

   OK, you're beyond me there, since I haven't been involved
hands-on with a 35mm production as a cinematographer, director
or editor, but I know damn well the
"montage effect" is reduced in the projection of a 16mm
film. If you've ever edited 16mm film, you know how "lively"
the footage can look in a Moviola viewer, but how dead it
becomes when projected, because the discontinuity is smoothed
over perceptually.
 
> I don't get it.  My favorite film, `Day for Night' I have
> seen projected (I 
> assume 35mm), I have studied in school (definitely 16mm)
> and I own on video. 
>   And it's always the same movie.

   Well, just in terms of aspect ratio, the 35mm print is
probably 1:85/1 and the 16mm print is 1:33/1, so the visual
rhythms of the film are affected drastically. 

   My own best personal example of this would be The Discreet
Charm of the Bourgeoisie (Luis Bunuel, 1972), which I know
I saw at least 7 times in 35mm before seeing it once in
16mm, and the visual rhythms were completely destroyed,
and Bunuel's are some of the most subtle visual rhythms
this side of Hitchcock or Bertolucci.

> How would you process a movie like `Timecode'? Shot on
> DV and projected on 
> 35mm?

   Hey, I'd love to be able to see it! :) I'm not familiar
with the DV-to-35mm film transfer process, but I'm pretty
sure that the montage effect is certainly reduced, and there
may be other things that are more interesting, but, generally
speaking, the montage effect is at the very heart of the
cinema as we know it so far.

   I have heard of various video processes that are supposed
to try and mimic the 24fps "look" of film, but I've never
personally seen any of these firsthand.

   I also forgot to mention in my intro that I have a mechanical
engineering background, so I hope that helps explain why
I'm so obsessed with some of this stuff. :)

   Thanks very much for the response!

   Bill Flavell




___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%