How The West Was Won comparison *PIX* - Page 6

I thought the reason was that the cameras were bulkier and very heavy and inconvenient ?

Yes exactly

bulkier, heavy and inconvient = time = money

also add that the filmstock itself is also more expensive.

I'm pretty sure the modern "standard" 65mm cameras from Panavision and Arri are comparable in size to their 35mm counterparts, so the "bulkier" argument isn't really valid. Also, the cost of filmstock and processing for a modern movie is one of the smallest entries in the budget, so in terms of cost, shooting in 65mm vs. 35mm isn't a big deal. Hell, Kenneth Branaugh shot HAMLET in 65mm, and the budget of that film was less than $20-million.

The general public "might not care", but so what? One could argue they "don't care" about Blu-ray's significant upgrade in image quality vs. standard DVD, too. Does that mean that High-Def media should be abandoned? I doubt most folks here would agree with that notion.

What we need are more visionary directors like Chris Nolan who will make the case for shooting in a large format and have the clout to insist upon being allowed to do it. Maybe IMAX is too difficult for an entire motion picture, but "standard" 5-perf 65mm isn't. Not at all.

Vincent

It depends on what you will shoot, many times the crew shoot with even smaller S16 cams. Because even the 35mm cams are to bulky for the task.

Shooting entirely in studio would suit the more bulky cams, but many movies that shoot car chases etc etc on location, wants as little hazzle as possible, because they get that anyway.


Nope that doesnt mean that it shouldnt be used, but for the studios, if someting isnt making sense from an economic viewpoint, its chances for survival will be dim, no matter how much we movielovers wants it.


I agree with you, Im just not sure the studios does.

Plus the fact that todays fine grain 35mm negative film stock delivers results comparable or better than the 65mm negative stock available back then....

The main reasons 70mm release prints were used in the past were the ability to support 6 channel mag sound tracks and that you could put more light on the screen with he larger 70mm film area. Modern audio reproduction via DTS, Dolby Digital etc eliminated one of the two reasons 70mm release prints were used.

Vern

I was a 16mm and 35mm film collector for a lot of years with xenon arc projectors and viewed many, many dye transfer Technicolor films. I finally watched HTWWW tonight in its BR version with fours of my my pals, all who have seen hundreds of film prints in home/mini theater situations. The BR of HTWWW looks more like a true IB Technicolor film print than anything I have ever seen in home video. It has superlative contrast and sharpness as well. Outstanding job by Warner Brothers.

Today's film stock/film processes are not even good enough it seems to make modern movies look as good as HTWWW in a medium with a resolution of 1920 x 1080.

And very true about the audio part, 70mm Blow-Ups dies almost instantly when there were cheaper alternatives.

That about sums it up. While shooting in 70mm is a bit different than shooting in 35mm it can be done without too much hassle these days, cameras are small and film stock is cheap, too and the added cost for the usual 150+ million $ Hollywood production would be very small.

But as you say:

people in general don't care

Studio bosses may talk about quality but in the end they only see the bottom line, this is what killed 70mm for the first time in the early 70ies.

Looks like sharpening/filtering artifact to me, especially around Stewart. There is also a white fine haloe on the top image border. It's minor and it does not get much better with this kind of interpolation and 4:2:0 format. Could be much worse. Perfection has to wait for 4K delivery.

The film stocks are up to the task, unfortunately the short cuts taken by the studios like Super35 and DI's done at insufficient resolution negate much of the results.

The resolving ability and quality of todays projection lenses far exceed anything we had back in the days of 70mm projection. However without a competent projectionist, much of that advantage is also lost.

Vern

I was lucky last weekend to be able to screen some contact printed 70mm films from the 60ies and 70ies and some of these movies definitely put anything I have ever seen of new films to shame. The movies were projected with new state of the art lenses and I would like this quality to be possible for all modern movies. Of course the stylistic choices directors make will still make a difference but bad production workflow should not.

Holy crap, just saw this thread now....that is AMAZING. I cannot believe this movie can look this good!

Strange that I haven't seen one post (unless I missed it) mention the other CRUCIAL part of a 65/70mm advantage - being shown on a HUGE screen (where the PQ difference really shows it's stuff)!

So, I think in a strange way "people don't care" is part of it - it's only enthusiasts like us that would even know or care to seek out a screen big enough to see the difference between 35 and 70, or where you could even see that difference.

Where do the majority see movies? A cineplex. Even if you did project 70mm, is it going to be that much better on a comparitively small screen? Even 35mm looks worse in practice than HD at home due to average theatre conditions! Generally lousy focus and running the film 'loose' in the gate because it's all one reel rather than separate reels so the poor projectionist can run off to start one of the other sessions...

Actually now I think of it that probably IS an advantage of 70mm in a cineplex - would they be able to thread the whole thing up on one reel? Focus and therefore detail may actually be better for that reason - anyone care to fill me in? Absolutely fine-grain modern 35mm film stocks have closed the gap, but how often in practice do we SEE what even standard 35mm is capable of at the average showing?

Conversely, I think this is EXACTLY the reason why IMAX is becoming steadily more popular - The screen is huge, and the sound and vision IS generally great so you can actually see the difference, even if it's only the disingenuous Imax "uprezzing" technique (note that I'm not talking 3d or 2d stuff like Dark Knight that does use the increased rez and at times the whole screen). I sure hate being asked to pay 25 bucks (in Oz), but I will if that's what it takes - and it seems like the steady Imax release of mainstream 2d films confirms that average Joe DOES want it, even if the general public are being sorta hoodwinked by the marketing. SO actually they kind of DO care, but don't know it, and are essentially being tricked by Imax into getting exactly what they should when they see a movie at the regular cineplex - a regular format movie, with a technically proficient presentation, on a decent/large sized screen.

Thanks Vern, this is usually my mantra too, and I bring up the whole thing every time someone ignorantly (not an insult - although they could google the thing) brings up how 2k rez is "way beyond" 1080p rez! I'm all for shooting film 'til the cows come home, but projecting it digitally these days in a regular cinema is generally way beyond the 35mm film thing being DId at 2k (VFX are normally done at 2k too), and projected incompetently and on one reel, where the focus and therefore detail goes to the dogs (in addition to lax focus in the first place!). I even feel like some of the colour gamut advantage of film is lost when they do that. Maybe it's still there, but how can you appreciate it?

Then of course there's the whole screensize thing, which I raved on about in the last post!

Sorry, triple post (but again. slightly different subject although thread-related).

If we're talking about the viability of larger-negative stocks, and their affordability, what about Technirama (the Sleeping Beauty release reminded me)? I know it's not Cinerama, but it's still 8 perf!

The stock is just 35mm film, so that would be no more expensive, right? And is it that costly to make the required add-on/replacements to run the film through the camera, and finally the projector? It's still less expensive (if that's the criteria) than 70mm, right?

I don't know what Kodak is charging for their 35mm stock vs. 65 these days, but I think shooting VistaVision would be a bit of a wash since you're shooting twice as much film since it's 8-perf vs. standard 35mm 4-perf.

Vincent

The problem with horizontal 8-perf is that there are no printers anymore that can do a positive print from an 8-perf negative. Plus being an optical process a little resolöution is lost on top of what is missing in the first place because of the smaller negative area compared to 70mm.

70mm would be the best choice with all necessary equipment available and prices rather moderate compared to the other costs of shooting a big movie.

What we need is that the theaters go digital, and they can that way shoot on what ever format they want, as long as there is digital scanners that can handle the film.

Excuses for Patton...

the source isn't that detailed

the detail is there on my screen

it looks better in motion

Stop complaining and enjoy the movie

Great point but if it's animation (like Sleeping Beauty) you're not going to be using anything like the raw footage from multiple takes in a live-action situation. The rehearsal/takes are done in the pencil tests. And surely shooting plates for vfx for live-action doesn't chew up that much footage either... Also if it's live-action, it still varies an awful lot. I wouldn't have thought they'd crack the million-feet-shot bottle of Champaign on a Judd Apatow flick, but there you go!

Anyway as Xylon's caps prove, any large format is the shiznit...

Just out of interest, how long does a large format mag last? Anyone? Bueller?

Just watched this film.....Better than i recall it being....I enjoyed it.

The detail is fantastic.

How about:

"It is very good for such an old movie"

"You cannot know that this was not the filmmakers intent was as you have not watched this movie in the theater back in the days"

And as an answer for people who say they have watched it theatrically:
"It has been such a long time ago, your mind is playing tricks on you, this is as good as it has ever looked - so clean and just like looking through a window !"

"It is much better than the DVD and my LD, too !"

"This is surely as good as it gets - because the studios always know what they are doing and would never do a bad job on such an important film !"

"George C Scott and Karl Malden had it in their contract to be shot with soft filter lenses - in fact all of the production was done that way to have everything seamlessly integrated "

"It looks great on my 24" LCD form 15 feet away"

"My Dad/Grandpa/cat/dog was crying upon seeing it again in this pristine quality so it must be great"

OK, OK I'll stop now - back to HTWWW and a great job by Warner, seriously !

Oliver

http://www.avforums.com/movies/index...diareview=9496

Are you saying that the DNR on this one is minimal or is bothersome ?

1) Should this be mentioned in the DNR/EE thread as a major issue ?
2) Should this be highlighted in the Artistic Intent thread as a minor issue ?

Though I haven't seen this movie, I have ordered the Blu-ray based upon the comparison pix which shows tremendous leap in resolution similar to your favorite HD DVD "Hot Fuzz".

This type of DNR reminds me of Grand Prix. Please clarify.

35mm 4-perf runs at 17 frame per foot. So, a 1000 foot magazine would 11 minutes and change, almost 12-minutes actually (11.805 mins). Obviosly, 8-perf Vistavision would be half that.

5-perf 65mm with a 1000 foot mag would give you 9-minutes and change (9.4444444). Go to 15-perf IMAX, and it's one third of that, or just over 3-minutes for a 1000 foot mag.

Vincent

xylon,

If you have a chance, can you please post dvd screen caps of the newer remastered version if you don't mind?