Movie Film's Last Gasp - Page 5 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 79Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 07:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 21,056
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked: 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
The working negative is 36x24.
As others have mentioned, what you're describing is not physically possible for 35mm film unless it is going through the camera sideways (8-perf pull-across VistaVision). Even if you're talking about the full width of the film, 35mm film is not 36mm wide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
"original" 70MM,(70MMx24.25MM) better known as panavision, died in 1961. John Dykstra and George Lucas brought it back to life for the VFX shots on Star Wars. It has enjoyed a good run for VFX, but not one movie since 1961 has been entirely filmed with it.
No, Dykstra used VistaVision for the VFX shots on the original Star Wars and ILM continued to use that format for the rest of the trilogy and other productions they did VFX for.

Also, 70mm was not "better known as panavision". 70mm was marketed under many brand names. Panavision is one of several manufacturers that made 70mm cameras. For example, the Arri 765 was used for the last shot in Gravity.

As for the format dying in 1961, here are the movies since then that have been "entirely filmed with it":

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)
Cleopatra (1963)
The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
My Fair Lady (1964)
Cheyenne Autumn (1964)
The Sound of Music (1965)
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965)
The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
The Hallelujah Trail (1965)
Battle of the Bulge (1965)
Lord Jim (1965)
Khartoum (1966)
Grand Prix (1966)
The Bible: In The Beginning (1966)
Doctor Dolittle (1967)
2001: A Space Oddyssey (1968)
Ice Station Zebra (1968)
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
Star! (1968)
Hello, Dolly! (1968)
Krakatoa, East of Java (1969)
Airport (1970)
Patton (1970)
Ryan's Daughter (1970)
Song of Norway (1970)
The Last Valley (1970)
Far and Away (1992)
Baraka (1992)
Map of the Human Heart (1993
Hamlet (1996)
Samsara (2011)
As Wonderland Goes By (2012)
The Master (2012)

The above doesn't include an equally long list of movies since 1961 that were partially shot in the format, nor foreign language movies, special venue, short subject or the 189 Soviet Bloc movies since 1961 filmed in 65mm.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 07:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Speaking of the last gasp of film, here's a very sobering video about a small theater in Oklahoma having to shut down because they can't afford to make the changeover to digital:

https://vimeo.com/101235645

This has happened to a lot of film theaters in North America, and it's exacerbated by the fact that the Hollywood studios are no longer willing to send out prints, not even for old repertory titles. All they have from this moment forward is digital DCP files.

BTW, Sanjay above left out Tree of Life, which I believe also used some 65mm negative for certain sequences. Unfortunately, as with many films on that list, shooting on film didn't help it make any money.

I don't think film is a commercially viable medium anymore in America, simply because the logistics of having to develop the negative and get dailies made (even digital dailies) is much more formidable today than it was even 2-3 years ago.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #123 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 10:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,956
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post
Yeah they should waste time trying to reinvent the wheel, makes a lot of sense. Lucas added fake film grain to his last two SW films but if he had simply shot on film they would look great at 4K instead of being locked into 2K although the vfx would had to be done at 4k as well.
That's the rub. A lot of companies *today* still aren't doing VFX at 4K.


The postproduction pipeline at a lot of studios still have many 2K elements for many, many films...all of which will be forever locked to 2K (even the ones shot on 35MM). It just isn't the SW prequel trilogy.
Marc Wielage likes this.

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
post #124 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 10:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 21,056
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked: 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
Sanjay above left out Tree of Life, which I believe also used some 65mm negative for certain sequences.
Which is why I said in my previous post "The above doesn't include an equally long list of movies since 1961 that were partially shot in the format".

But, since you brought it up. Here are the movies with certain sequences shot in the 70mm format after it "died in 1961":

How the West Was Won (1962)
Mackenna's Gold (1969)
The Horsemen (1971)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Tron (1982)
Blade Runner (1982)
Brainstorm (1983)
Ghostbusters (1984)
Masters of the Universe (1987)
Die Hard (1988)
The Judas Project (1990)
Alien 3 (1992)
Little Buddha (1993)
Contact (1997)
Spider-Man (2004)
The New World (2005)
The Prestige (2006)
Sunshine (2007)
The International (2009)
Shutter Island (2010)
Inception (2010)
Unknown (2011)
The Tree of Life (2011)
Snow White & the Huntsman (2012)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
To the Wonder (2012)
Gravity (2013)

Still being used in 2013. Not bad for a dead format.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #125 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 10:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Gravity (2013) ...
Still being used in 2013. Not bad for a dead format.
The problem is: where are you going to process the 65mm negative? Deluxe Toronto closed over a year ago. Deluxe Hollywood closed in May. Technicolor Glendale closed at the beginning of this year:

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/te...es-1200981010/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...b-close-686600

As far as I know, that was the last lab in North America to be able to process 65mm. Fotokem in Burbank was retrofitting some of their developers to handle 65, but I think the reality is it's going to be cost-prohibitive to the point where nobody's going to use it.

Again: bear in mind that I worked for Technicolor for almost 20 years, so I have some knowledge in this area. The film post area was dying for a long time before this happened. Most of us on the digital side saw this trend happening 10 years ago, but I think the top business execs at the labs and at Kodak were blinded by a lot of outside factors. I think in a lot of ways, the U.S. economy's slide and unemployment helped create a bad business climate that also led to a pro-digital decision on both the sides of production and exhibition.

The last gasp to me was Imax' announcement that they're now using their own 3D 4K camera (actually two modified Phantom Flexes bolted together), which has a resolution that approaches that of 70mm 3D. I don't think the dynamic range or the colorimetry is as good as film, but done properly, I think it can work very well.

Go watch the Keanu Reeves documentary and see if you can grasp the real issues here. It's beyond just economics; there's also issues of philosophy, time, and shooting styles that have pushed film aside. It's not a simple "just one or the other" argument.

BTW, I was just reading about how the #1 blockbuster of the year, Transformers, shot on five different formats: Red Epic, Imax 3D Digital, 35mm film and Phantom digital, along with a handful of GoPro shots. Everything nowadays is kind of a mish-mash in post, so often no single format is used. The main reason film is hanging around is because they can do slo-mo beyond 120fps without any resolution compromises, so it's perfect for movies that blow a lotta stuff up (like this one). And Michael Bay does blow a lotta stuff up.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #126 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 10:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked: 226
Marc, your last line reminds me of Boyd's classic line in Justified,

"Now i don't know about a lot of things but i do know how to blow s*** up".
Marc Wielage likes this.
Orbitron is online now  
post #127 of 221 Old 08-04-2014, 11:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 21,056
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked: 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
The problem is: where are you going to process the 65mm negative?
Must be somewhere, considering Christopher Nolan has 15/70 IMAX footage for his upcoming film Interstellar and Quentin Tarantino is shooting entirely in 65 for his upcoming Hateful Eight.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #128 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 05:16 AM
Member
 
hanshotfirst1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Must be somewhere, considering Christopher Nolan has 15/70 IMAX footage for his upcoming film Interstellar and Quentin Tarantino is shooting entirely in 65 for his upcoming Hateful Eight.

If there are more than a half-dozen 70mm prints or hell, more than a dozen 35mm prints of the new QT movie, I'll be very surprised. Uncle Harvey has deep enough pockets to humor him, but he and Nolan are probably making celluloid's last stand .
Marc Wielage and CinemaAndy like this.
hanshotfirst1138 is offline  
post #129 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 07:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 21,056
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked: 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
If there are more than a half-dozen 70mm prints or hell, more than a dozen 35mm prints of the new QT movie, I'll be very surprised.
Even if there is one 15/70 IMAX print, Marc still asks a valid question: where was the 65mm camera neg being processed and where is the print being struck?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #130 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 08:50 AM
Senior Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Even if there is one 15/70 IMAX print, Marc still asks a valid question: where was the 65mm camera neg being processed and where is the print being struck?
Fotokem, in Burbank.
CinemaAndy likes this.
dschulz is offline  
post #131 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 09:39 AM
Member
 
jurid001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
The vast majority of Digital Cinema Packages (DCPs) are indeed 2K, even if many of the theaters they're going to have 4K projection. Mostly this has to do with the expense and logistics of doing a 4K finish - even if the original image capture was done at 4K, it's much faster and cheaper to render VFX at 2K. Even for a non VFX-intensive movie, the file sizes for 4K imagery balloon such that most productions opt for a 2K Digital Intermediate that is then used for the 35mm filmout and DCP mastering.

As Moore's law marches on, it will become easier and cheaper to keep the pipeline 4K all the way through, and we'll start seeing more and more 4K DCPs in cinemas.
Yes, that's what i heard. We may have trouble with 4K material though when 4K Blu-ray comes out. The 4K movies bundled with 4K TV are underwhelming, there is no way there are 4K detail in them. More like uprezzed 2K.

A2, A35, 150, 62fd, s6200, WDTV LIVE, HTPC w/ HD-DVD/BD
jurid001 is offline  
post #132 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 10:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 21,056
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked: 1423
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Fotokem, in Burbank.
Are they done with the retrofit that Marc mentioned and able to handle 70mm?

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #133 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 10:16 AM
Senior Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Are they done with the retrofit that Marc mentioned and able to handle 70mm?
Yes. There will be more than a few 15/70 prints of Interstellar, and Datasat is in the middle of a 5/70 restoration of a classic 70mm film with them as we speak.
dschulz is offline  
post #134 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 10:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rezzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Matrix
Posts: 8,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Has anyone mentioned how Bollywood might be adjusting to the digital transition? Are they the last frontier, or is it switch or die?

"I knew you'd say that"...*BLAM!*
rezzy is offline  
post #135 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 10:33 AM
Senior Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post
Has anyone mentioned how Bollywood might be adjusting to the digital transition? Are they the last frontier, or is it switch or die?
Bollywood is currently an interesting mix of DCI-compliant Digital Cinema, 35mm film and non-DCI-compliant digital projection. The Hollywood studios insist on DCI-spec for their content, with all the encryption and standards that implies, but I have heard of some distributors and exhibitors using high quality HD video playback and projection.
dschulz is offline  
post #136 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 11:40 AM
Member
 
hanshotfirst1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Even if there is one 15/70 IMAX print, Marc still asks a valid question: where was the 65mm camera neg being processed and where is the print being struck?

I'm. It saying this to be a smartass, but if IMAX have the equipment, wouldn't it follow that they'd have some way of processing it?
hanshotfirst1138 is offline  
post #137 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 12:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 21,056
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked: 1423
^^^ Sure, I was just curious where (which Dan answered).

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #138 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 06:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Phrehdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: So Cal
Posts: 625
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 136
Since it is a forum for opinion - I am all for both digital and film being used. I prefer the look of film and 24 frames. As for digital, we still continue to have "issues" with standards, TV makers doing their version of interpolation and so forth. Until digital can get some real standards across the board at all facets from beginning to end (presentation), it remains a hit and miss affair. I'll include in the latter the lack of consistent quality transfers of film to digital medium such as Blue Ray. The consumer in my opinion remains like Windows users - the world's biggest beta tester group for crap.
Phrehdd is offline  
post #139 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 07:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,692
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 357
So film stays?

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/08/0...k-film-letter/


home theater addict

Last edited by saprano; 08-05-2014 at 08:01 PM.
saprano is offline  
post #140 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 08:05 PM
Member
 
hanshotfirst1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

God willing, hopefully they aren't just delaying the inevitable.
hanshotfirst1138 is offline  
post #141 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 08:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 622 Post(s)
Liked: 118
One other thought: Last year I saw 2001 Space Odyssey on the 70mm projector here in Chicago... they had to roll the projector into the theater for just this one showing (they almost had to cancel the screening because the 1st 70mm projector broke I think)... well in any case I was blown away. One of the most enjoyable movie going experiences of my life.
Aras_Volodka is offline  
post #142 of 221 Old 08-05-2014, 09:04 PM
Member
 
hanshotfirst1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicalfox View Post
Comparing 35mm film to a digital file is like comparing an oil painting to a piece of graphic art. The texture of film has a timeless, atmospheric, almost dream-like quality, which I have yet to see replicated in any digital medium. It's worth noting that both Steven Spielberg and Paul Thomas Anderson are also advocates for 35mm film capture. Long may that continue...

We feel this way, and I wholehearted agree about its importance, but this will be of little consequence to the next generation who're all trained on digital anyway. Once the last generation of filmmakers like these fighting for film are gone, I doubt anyone will care enough for it to matter .
Marc Wielage likes this.
hanshotfirst1138 is offline  
post #143 of 221 Old 08-06-2014, 11:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 622 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
We feel this way, and I wholehearted agree about its importance, but this will be of little consequence to the next generation who're all trained on digital anyway. Once the last generation of filmmakers like these fighting for film are gone, I doubt anyone will care enough for it to matter .
But there are painters who still use traditional materials... even though time and time again the art world declared that "painting is dead". I think there will be those that are curious, provided the medium is still around, they will make use of it. Though I'm aware polaroid closed down their ultra large format despite demand by those like Chuck Close to keep it open... but that was a very esoteric type of medium to begin with.

I guess it all depends on how many artistic directors like PTA or vintage friendly people like Abrams might be around with the wallet to keep film going. If the next generation has no connection to that medium then perhaps it might not matter, as those of us who enjoy film might be too old to care anyhow, but I think it has a ways to go yet.
rezzy likes this.
Aras_Volodka is offline  
post #144 of 221 Old 08-06-2014, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Must be somewhere, considering Christopher Nolan has 15/70 IMAX footage for his upcoming film Interstellar and Quentin Tarantino is shooting entirely in 65 for his upcoming Hateful Eight.
Ask any old film DP about Monday morning dailies!

The key to success in any film lab is consistency. That means stability on a large scale. The chemistry is difficult to control and the worst thing you can do is to shut the plant down and let the "soup" sit and cool.

The point is without a steady stream of material to process, a lab is going to have an increasingly hard time providing quality output. The expense of operation will skyrocket over the next few years.
Marc Wielage and RSF_LA like this.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #145 of 221 Old 08-06-2014, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,422
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1272 Post(s)
Liked: 1278
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
That completely misses the point of shooting on film.
which is what, then?


I thought the point of capturing video was to get the highest quality possible? if digital were developed a little more it could surpass film. so why would one stick to an inferior method, that's also more difficult and more expensive?


I just feel there's too much nostalgia limiting video right now. both with this and at home. it seems like today's displays are not about reproducing realistic, life-like images. they are about reproducing the kinds of images they replace. Digital video is only good if it has film grain? Plasma/oled/lcd still trying to replicate CRT? none of this makes sense to me.


if you went back 100yrs, and gave every director who's made a movie since then the choice between using film and current digital technology(let alone future) do you really think they'd all stick with film? I'm sure back then there goal wasn't to make a movie look like a movie, it was to make it look life-like.


now were stuck with 24fps, film grain. and who knows what else simply because it's 'tradition' and it's what we think looks 'movie-like'. It's always been my goal to make my home theater as life-like as possible. I want to feel like I'm looking into the movie, not into the movie theater.
MLXXX, hernanu and Mark12547 like this.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #146 of 221 Old 08-06-2014, 11:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
The key to success in any film lab is consistency. That means stability on a large scale. The chemistry is difficult to control and the worst thing you can do is to shut the plant down and let the "soup" sit and cool.
We had terrible problems with development consistency with film negative in the 1990s. Sometimes with sitcoms, I'd see one roll look perfect and the next roll (shot 10 minutes later) look about 30% bluer. It was maddening. Eventually we found out that the film was being developed on different machines in different parts of the building by different people at different times of day. So... everything looked totally different, mainly because of the temperature.

By the early 2000s, Technicolor, Fotokem, and Deluxe got their acts much more together, and I think the film started getting a lot more consistent. But then the film bidness hit an iceberg in 2008, and it's been sinking (as opposed to syncing) ever since.

There are things I'll always miss about film, but I also remember all the headaches. Not all the facets of celluloid were good, and there were instances where things went horribly wrong. But one good thing I'll always say is that if you screw up the exposure with film, you can generally get a usable picture out of it; with digital, it falls apart a lot faster.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #147 of 221 Old 08-07-2014, 02:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
As others have mentioned, what you're describing is not physically possible for 35mm film unless it is going through the camera sideways (8-perf pull-across VistaVision). Even if you're talking about the full width of the film, 35mm film is not 36mm wide. No, Dykstra used VistaVision for the VFX shots on the original Star Wars and ILM continued to use that format for the rest of the trilogy and other productions they did VFX for.

Also, 70mm was not "better known as panavision". 70mm was marketed under many brand names. Panavision is one of several manufacturers that made 70mm cameras. For example, the Arri 765 was used for the last shot in Gravity.

As for the format dying in 1961, here are the movies since then that have been "entirely filmed with it":

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962)
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)
Cleopatra (1963)
The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
My Fair Lady (1964)
Cheyenne Autumn (1964)
The Sound of Music (1965)
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965)
The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)
The Hallelujah Trail (1965)
Battle of the Bulge (1965)
Lord Jim (1965)
Khartoum (1966)
Grand Prix (1966)
The Bible: In The Beginning (1966)
Doctor Dolittle (1967)
2001: A Space Oddyssey (1968)
Ice Station Zebra (1968)
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
Star! (1968)
Hello, Dolly! (1968)
Krakatoa, East of Java (1969)
Airport (1970)
Patton (1970)
Ryan's Daughter (1970)
Song of Norway (1970)
The Last Valley (1970)
Far and Away (1992)
Baraka (1992)
Map of the Human Heart (1993
Hamlet (1996)
Samsara (2011)
As Wonderland Goes By (2012)
The Master (2012)

The above doesn't include an equally long list of movies since 1961 that were partially shot in the format, nor foreign language movies, special venue, short subject or the 189 Soviet Bloc movies since 1961 filmed in 65mm.
Yes Vistavision not panavision, my bad.
I really don't see what the fuss is about. You guys are bringing up long dead formats. VistaVision, Techniscope, Super 35. And i guess we can spend some time on Cinerama, Kinopanorama, and Cinemiracle as well. None of the above matters as SMPTE 195-1993 sets what the widescreen ratio will be, regardless of film stock. That is the reason today all you hear is "Flat" or "Scope". The landing shots on Gravity were all filmed in 65MM. The Film Journal ran a pretty good piece on that movie. The Jurraisc Park reboot is completely shot on 65MM film stock. And i was there, at the board meeting at Universal in 1992 when the man in charge said "Richard Donner's widescreen movies, will look like Stephen Spielberg's widescreen movies, this 2.35, 2.37, 2.91, whatever ratio, has to stop. Period." That was coming from all the studios. So you had "Flat" or "Scope".

STPME says 35MM can be +/- 1mm so isn't that 36MM or 34MM? Have you ever watched film going through a aperture gate on a camera or projector? I have. One blinded me and the other, i got hit by a book that Joel Schumacher threw at me. It could be up to 38MM before it got stuck in the drum or gate.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1251px-VistaVision_8_perf_35_mm_film.svg.png
Views:	46
Size:	66.2 KB
ID:	200850   Click image for larger version

Name:	234perf.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	102.2 KB
ID:	200858   Click image for larger version

Name:	formats.jpg
Views:	359
Size:	99.2 KB
ID:	200866   Click image for larger version

Name:	oldstock.jpg
Views:	32
Size:	104.4 KB
ID:	200874  

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #148 of 221 Old 08-07-2014, 02:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
The problem is: where are you going to process the 65mm negative? Deluxe Toronto closed over a year ago. Deluxe Hollywood closed in May. Technicolor Glendale closed at the beginning of this year:

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/te...es-1200981010/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...b-close-686600

As far as I know, that was the last lab in North America to be able to process 65mm. Fotokem in Burbank was retrofitting some of their developers to handle 65, but I think the reality is it's going to be cost-prohibitive to the point where nobody's going to use it.
.

I just had four people tell me FotoKem is it for 65MM processing, no one else touches it. So that rings a question of why is it still used. It has to be some form of price or volume gig. Maybe 65MM MP is like the old 40MM still photography, just won't die.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #149 of 221 Old 08-07-2014, 03:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 816
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post
One other thought: Last year I saw 2001 Space Odyssey on the 70mm projector here in Chicago... they had to roll the projector into the theater for just this one showing (they almost had to cancel the screening because the 1st 70mm projector broke I think)... well in any case I was blown away. One of the most enjoyable movie going experiences of my life.
I can almost visualize them rolling a 70MM Christie Epic Projector, or 70MM Simplex into the theater, almost.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #150 of 221 Old 08-07-2014, 10:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 341 Post(s)
Liked: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
which is what, then?


I thought the point of capturing video was to get the highest quality possible? if digital were developed a little more it could surpass film. so why would one stick to an inferior method, that's also more difficult and more expensive?


I just feel there's too much nostalgia limiting video right now. both with this and at home. it seems like today's displays are not about reproducing realistic, life-like images. they are about reproducing the kinds of images they replace. Digital video is only good if it has film grain? Plasma/oled/lcd still trying to replicate CRT? none of this makes sense to me.


if you went back 100yrs, and gave every director who's made a movie since then the choice between using film and current digital technology(let alone future) do you really think they'd all stick with film? I'm sure back then there goal wasn't to make a movie look like a movie, it was to make it look life-like.


now were stuck with 24fps, film grain. and who knows what else simply because it's 'tradition' and it's what we think looks 'movie-like'. It's always been my goal to make my home theater as life-like as possible. I want to feel like I'm looking into the movie, not into the movie theater.
The point is everything, not just resolution, grain or contrast ratios.

Some filmmakers like "handling" physical film, much like some music fans like "handling" records. You don't get that same feel with a digital format on a screen of some device. Sure, digital is easier. So is driving an automatic transmission car, but there's something to be said for that organic, connected feel you get with non-digital solutions.

Film requires discipline. You shoot only what you need. You only print the good takes. Every edit counts. You have to check and recheck your equipment for dust and dirt. You have to handle things carefully.

Sure, you CAN use that same discipline with digital, but those that never had to be conservative or never had to deal with environmental issues while shooting may not have that same amount of discipline. That means you have the potential for overshooting. You get a lot of "frame f*cking" in the edit room (move it back a frame, move it forward 2 frames...). You get problem footage when no one thought to check for dust penetration because they've never had it happen.

One other issue is the tendency for actors to want to look at their takes on the set with digital. Instead of the director and DP deciding when they've "got it in the can", now you have a gaggle of actors wanting to see if they look just right in the middle of shooting. With some young directors, it can be really hard to say no to a big name actor they were lucky to get for the part wanting to make sure they get their closeup.

Image-wise, it's possible for digital to almost simulate the look of film, but that's not the goal. Further it's foolish. Why simulate film when you can avoid the image issues of film in a digital environment. If what you want is a "film look", then use film. Otherwise, use the vast amount of options digital gives you, including higher frame rates.
NetworkTV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off