WHY SHOOT IN 70mm?

The most obvious reasons is its unparalleled quality. Inherently, 70mm is both more subtle, and more powerful, than any other theatrical process for the cinema. In the purest technical terms, nothing gives a better quality image than 70mm for dramatic story telling. There is the unique challenge to exploit the potential of the medium to its fullest creative limits.

Here is the bottom line, the 65/70mm image is an amazing 5 times bigger than the normal 35mm cropped wide-screen from the United States, namely 1 : 1.85. That's comparable to the jump of quality between Super 8 and standard 35mm cropped wide-screen! You wont appreciate this quality difference on small screens like television, but you most certainly will with very large-screen presentations, were the effect becomes all consuming.

Until very recently, 70mm also had the best possible, sound potential, both technically and creatively, of any theatrical, film format for the cinema. It employs 6 discreet, magnetic tracks, right on the print, that can produce sophisticated, stereo sound assigned to left, right, or centre screen, plus surround-sound effects. In conjunction with a Dolby Sound process, the overall effect is even more impressive. The tape to playback-head speed is 22½ inches a second, or approximately 57cm per second. As a point of comparison, the conventual audio cassette runs at 17/8 inches per second, and the top speed on a Nagra location recorder is 15 inches per second. The 70mm system avoids an optical sound negative, and therefore any form of a technically inferior, optical sound track. But things are constantly on the move. I've been talking analogue, but now the digital age is here.

A digital sound system for the 70mm format was introduced in May, 1990. It is called Cinema Digital Sound, or CDS. CDS is the audio system co-developed by the Motion Picture and Television Products Division of Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester, New York, and Optical Radiation Corporation, in Azusa, California. The CDS system provides six discreet tracks of digital sound, five of which are full-bandwidth channels, and one is a sub-woofer channel. The sub-woofer channel reproduces low-frequency bass tones enabling the audience to "feel" the sound, a now widely-used, dynamic effect. Like all the new digital cinema sound configurations, it is a powerful, multi-speaker system of pristine, CD-quality sound. There is also the excellent SDDS (Sony Dynamic Digital Sound) and the Dolby SRD system. Dolby has the hugh advantage that all the Dolby systems (Dolby A, Dolby SR, and Dolby SRD) have a very high degree of inter-system compatibility. Dolby can supplied both an analogue and a digital track on the same print. All this means that both 70mm and 35mm formats can deliver the best possible cinema sound there is to offer.

Because it is the best, there is a special aurora attached to 70mm production. Audiences associate the format with the great epics like, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and the great musicals like, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, not to mention the classic big-screen comedies like, THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES, and so on. Younger generations may have seen some of the hundreds of blockbuster movies re-released in 70mm versions around the world like, STAR WARS, APOCALYPSE NOW, etc. More than this, audiences know whatever the subject, its going to be special if its presented in 70mm. Those who have experienced it want more, and those who haven't, want to find out what the fuss is all about.

Until HAMLET, there hadn't been a 70mm feature film made in Europe for a quarter of a century. The last was David Lean's, RYAN'S DAUGHTER, shot in Ireland in 1969, and released the following year. Another recent, 70mm, feature film was the American film, FAR AND AWAY, directed by Ron Howard, and starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Vittorio Storaro, ASC, shot half of LITTLE BUDDHA in 65mm with the Arri 765 cameras from Munich, but it all was reduced to 35mm 'Scope to cut with the rest of the film. He was exploiting the quality difference between 65mm and 35mm anamorphic for artistic/dramatic effect. The visionary, Storaro, swears that he will do everything possible to shoot all his future movies for the big screen in 70mm exclusively.

There is no doubt that the medium itself is a big draw card. It is like having a bankable star under contract. This sort of phenomenon is emphasized at certain points in history. It happened in the mid-1950's with CinemaScope and TODD-AO (the grandfather of present day 70mm), it most certainly happened in the early-1950's for Cinerama, the "bombshell" behind new forms of wide-screen cinema. Cinerama grossed an incredible $20 million pretty much on the strength of this phenomenon alone, namely the audience's desire to experience the medium itself. Likewise, present day IMAX relies on this phenomenon to a large degree, where, generally speaking, you buy a ticket regardless of what's playing. And this phenomenon applies to 70mm as well. And this effect will be heightened if 70mm has a major come back to the world scene.

We are witnessing a similar comeback with anamorphic (Cinemascope) films right now. A few years ago, the USA only made a handful of 'scope pictures, and now, many films are shot in 'scope these days. And as you can appreciate, their sort of output represents a lot of production. It will take a while for technologically-conservative Europe to catch up. 'Scope and Dolby are an extra special thing here, but absolutely standard practice in America. There is still a certain prestige and sophistication in producing in Cinemascope and/or Dolby Stereo in Europe. 'Scope and Dolby is one thing, but 70mm is something else all together.

What is the basis for my thinking a 70mm come back is possible or likely? There have been about 50 feature films produced in 70mm in the Western world, the majority of them in the 1960's. The format got a big boost in the 1970's stimulating growth, ironically not through 70mm production, but through the 70mm blow up. But then it faded in the 1980's for a lot of interrelated historical and economic factors. However, as I say, the format seems poised for a major come back in the coming years in response to the introduction of digital television, or High Definition Television (HDTV). In knee-jerk fashion, the film industry has always responded to the rise in popularity of television. It has always hit back with impressive technical innovation to heighten the cinema experience. Television is the cinema's traditional rival, its only real threat. The film industry went along swimmingly for over half a century, enjoying a monopoly on the entertainment market, until the introduction of television in the late 1940's. Apart from sound, all the significant upgrading of the cinema experience was in response, in part or in whole, to the threat of television, including wide-gauge, wide-screen, stereo, and even colour film as we know it today. HDTV and Digital Betacam already rivals the quality of existing 35mm wide-screen, in both image and sound quality. Cinema, if it is to survive as a major industry, will be forced to stay ahead of its traditional rival, television.

Clearly, 70mm is the only real candidate, unless a whole new system is developed and accepted universally. It is unlikely that such a system would come about, as it would have to mimic the established and accepted 70mm system without being able to add anything really different or new to it. It has, for instance, incorporated digital sound tracks. Most of the 'new' technologies are easily incorporated in the existing 70mm format. Significantly, the chemical/optical/mechanical technology at the base of the cinema industry, has nothing fundamentally new to offer the world at this time, except its ever increasing sophistication. The only possible exception is a new, 3D-like, process that doesn't need glasses, and can be applied to all existing film prints. Sounds amazing, almost impossible. It is so new it is not clear if it will get a foothold in the industry or not. The film industry has happily incorporated digital technology, especially in post-production with computer editing and special effects etc, but the chemical/optical/mechanical technology perfected in the last 100 years will still have the leading edge for, quite possibly, several decades to come.

I have little doubt that digital technology will eventually overtake the most sophisticated films processes. Cinema is, after all, technology from the last century. But it will take time. When they can encode digital information into the molecular structure of a simple piece of plastic like a credit card, for example, then these are grounds to forecast the end of a glorious era for cinema, as we know it. Meanwhile, the digital industry has its own problems. The release of HDTV is delayed and delayed. Among other things, they are having trouble with the display medium, in other words, to make some sort of large-screen presentation that is cheap enough for the home. Existing HDTV display for the home is little more than a glorified T.V. set that doesn't look that much better than the one you own already, yet costs 3 or 4 times more. And while they grapple with the problems, the technology for HDTV is already outdated. Things move so quickly in the digital world. The latest generations of home computers and monitors already surpass the quality of already ageing HDTV. It is out of date even before it is released. But never fear, they'll figure it out, eventually. In the meantime, a new age for the fullest exploitation of the creme de la creme of the cinema, 70mm production and exhibition, is ripe for the taking for those who dare. You must be prepared to take risks if you expect to get somewhere in this business.

Arriflex is a case in point, as demonstrated by their development of a state-of-the-art, 65mm, camera (the new 765). I believe, Arriflex, in particular, want to promote the re-emergence of 70mm as a major format. They must believe in that eventuality, or they've effectively squandered the hugh development costs of producing such an expensive camera at this time. Arri, for one, must believe in the future viability of the 70mm format. It seems they were prepared to take the risk on its potential for a come back in the near future. Afterall, a star is a star, and stars attract anything that comes in close proximity, including money or its equivalent.

Like I say, there is no doubt that the format is a draw in itself. And it works behind the scenes as well. Everyone will want to be involved, or have their company name attached to the production, and hence the phenomenon of 70mm. It will attract Europe's best film technicians because they all dream of working with the best. It will attract the equipment suppliers and facilities houses, because they want a little of that 70mm magic to rub off on them, in other words, its good for business. There seems to be the potential for sponsorship for the lower budget level productions, if handled intelligently. And of course it will attract publicity, much of which wouldn't have been forthcoming otherwise. A 70mm film ought to find a place in more of the prestigious film festivals around the world. Funnily enough, I think this will work even if the film can not be screened in 70mm at some festivals. This, in turn, could lead to making more films with a much better opportunity to find financing. A phenomenon like 70mm is likely to have a snow-ball effect helping to keep a productions alive, and leading to more production in the future.

To be fair, and to maintain a reasonable perspective to this discussion, I will also look at the disadvantages of 70mm production. My bias in favour of going 70mm must be clear by now, so you'll have to bear with my attempts to qualify my own list of 'disadvantages'. First and foremost, it costs more. Those items in the budget related to film stock, labs and many aspects of post production will cost about 2½ times more than an equivalent production in 35mm.

I'd strongly argue, the extra paid for the better format is money well spent. I say any increased cost is worth it because 70mm is more likely to increase the distribution potential of the film, and to open up other possibilities for future production. Which brings us back to where we started, the bloody thing costs more, and that's its main disadvantage.

The next biggest disadvantage, although less clear, must be tied up with exhibition. Not all cinemas can screen 70mm, as you know. But how many can? I think the answer is far more than any of us realize. It is no minority format like 16mm - yes, I think there are more 70mm equipped cinemas in Europe than 16mm equipped cinemas (I'm discounting the non-theatrical use of 16mm for the moment, because I'm talking about normal public cinemas). My research is incomplete, but all indications are that there are many hundreds of 70mm equipped and fully functional cinemas across Europe (see the attached country by country breakdown). Big cities seem to have several 70mm cinemas, if Berlin (8 or more) and Amsterdam (5 or more) are any indication? The German Cameraman magazine claims there are 72, 70mm cinemas in Germany (there seems to be at least 79). France has 70 and Sweden 50. And how many film festivals can screen 70mm? I seems many of the so-called "A" festivals, plus quite a few of the others. The Berlin International Film Festival has an incredible eight 70mm equipted cinemas.

It may come as some surprise that 70mm has been a major format in Europe, and in the 1970's at least, it was a much bigger exhibitor of 70mm films than America. Many titles got a 70mm release in Europe while only screening in 35mm in the States. A lab in Madrid, Fotofilm, produced 300 odd, 70mm titles (mostly blow ups), by the early 1970's. That's titles and not prints. So where did they get shown? Yes, in select cinemas - but I get the impression there is a lot of those around. O.K. cinemas close down, and old equipment can fall into disuse, and so on, but what's left? The figures, so far, are very encouraging.

Even a 70mm short could get a "commercial" release as a short-before-the-feature in a 70mm house, because it would be a unique product. A current, 70mm film of any length, would be a rare bird indeed. Actually, Veit Helmer, director of the 70mm short, TOUR EIFFEL, could shed some light on this matter, since he has presumably been through it all already. Again, I think we'll do business precisely because its in 70mm. It could turn out to be easier to exhibit than the 35mm anamorphic prints, because 70mm will generate an interest and a fascination it itself. And isn't it that sort of phenomenon that we're trying to generate with our movies anyway, whether it be connected to name personnel, content, form, style, format, or whatever. I started out to discuss a disadvantage, but I can figure out where the disadvantages end and the advantages begin.

After getting hold of the camera equipment and stock, the production side of things shouldn't be that much different in 70mm than 35mm anamorphic. Then its probably either Madrid or London for final lab work, depending on the best deal incorporating transport and travel costs. Everything is manageable, but a bit more awkward and expensive, and therefore such things are part of the disadvantages of the otherwise wonderful format.

What other nastys does 70mm hold in store? Two versions of the final mix - a 6 track Dolby Stereo version for the 70mm print/s, and a 2 track Dolby Stereo version for the 35mm anamorphic prints. 70mm negative matching? I guess the lab can handle it - Fotofilm advertises it, for example. 70mm Titles? That's a bit of a mystery at the moment. The is a father and son optical company in the U.K. that can handle it. Significantly, the 35mm anamorphic prints are derived optically, and therefore are more expensive than usual. That is part of the cost disadvantages associated with the process outlined earlier. Together with the camera raw stock cost, I imagine the 35mm prints will be one of the heavier expenses incurred.

To summarize the pros and cons ..... In the strictest commercial terms (producer concerns), the increased cost of 70mm production is at best questionable, and at worst an unnecessary waste of money. However, I think 70mm is a special case where you have to look beyond strict economic considerations in a narrow sense. It is also a bit more of a hassle to produce (and maybe exhibit) in 70mm. On the plus side, you've got unquestionable technical excellence on a big, big screen, and you've got hold of some special kind of magic that can make a filmmaker's dreams come true.

POSTSCRIPT: I should point out that there are a handful of other big screen formats, most notably the IMAX system and its derivatives. However, they are not normally used theatrically (although, even as I write this, that is beginning to change ). Generally speaking, they are a highly specialized breed of wide-gauge film systems designed primarily as spectacle, often in a documentary or travelogue-type format, and the so called "ride" movies popular in theme parks in America and now spreading across the world.

Peter Gray
(near Los Angeles)
P.O. Box 5132
Pine Mountain Club, CA 93222
United States of America
telephone: +1(661) 242-1234

dp@petergray.org