on 5/21/02 8:43 AM, "Jessica Rosner <[log in to unmask]>" wrote:

> ============================================================
> From: Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 2002/05/20 Mon PM 02:31:46 EDT
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Reply: film price
>
> 'rgb' writes:
>
>> It's [MaxiVision] based on 35mm. It basically *is* 35mm but instead of the
>> analog soundtrack taking up space, it's given up for additional picture
>> area. Plus, it rolls along at 48 frames per second.
>
> Forgetting the lab issues who in the world could PROJECT This?

Any theatre with a 35mm projector could project it with modification to the
head only. Equipment rentals run into 280 a week, but that was two years
ago. The reason for the use of the format is that it's basically "poor man's
IMAX". Not that I'm making a sequel to The Beach or anything like that, but
an underwater 35mm is a lot cheaper than the other options.

> You seemed to be indicating that this involved some kind
> of "commercial" release but you should be aware that the bigger problem than a
> print is getting any real theater to show whatever it is would be in this
> format

Not necessarily a commercial release. Trying to get interest in the
subject(s) with a superior format that doesn't cost in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

> Good Luck

Tar =)

> Jessica

Jamo
+BIL

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite