The Master

Ask and ye shall receive - http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Master-Blu-ray/56065/

Video quality wise it looks good, but I can't quite agree with stuff like "The existing Blu-ray format may not have sufficient resolution to convey the full image detail of a 65mm negative. (DP Malaimare estimates that 8K resolution would be required.) "
There is a suspicious lack of fine details in texture sharpness considering it's 65mm. My personal opinion is some amount of what is known as DNR (very loved word on this forum) has been applied. Encode is very solid however, and it was shot in a 'bohkelicious' manner which makes detail pop out much more than with normal 35mm + wide-to-normal lenses combo.

Did you see it in 70mm? The print I saw was miles ahead of any blu-ray image I've ever seen.

No, I only saw the bluray. And I was left with the impression that I've seen better 35 mm than this. I'm not saying 65 mm sucks, but that the bluray definitely doesn't look as if it's bursting with resolution.
So my guess is that some manipulation has been made.

Yep, I'd expect more detail from a modern 65mm film. Outclassed by some other 40+ year old 65mm films

I believe it's scanned from an IP, rather than the O-neg like the likes of Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia. Though you'd think that either way BD would be the limiting factor. Never saw it in DCP projection so not sure what they had to work with, digitally. The analog 70mm image was extremely detailed, I believe the prints were made straight off the negative.

How come the Blu ray is in 1:85:1 and not in standard 70mm 2:20:1 ?

Yeah, I saw it at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and when I saw it, it seemed very wide for a 70mm release.

Thanks for the clarificaiton!

That's how it was framed and shown in theaters. It's never been shown at 2.20:1, 70mm screenings included. In fact, it looks like the 70mm prints were hard-matted to 1.85:1. That's unusual for 65/70 but not unheard of -- Playtime was also framed for 1.85, and in fact some of the venues that showed The Master in 70mm used the same masks they'd originally used for Playtime.

EDIT: This post is supposed to go before djdmt's second post, I accidentally screwed up the order by deleting and reposting.

hey, that kinda looks 2.20:1ish!

Nobody's denying that 65/70 is normally 2.20:1. But every scintilla of evidence shows that The Master was framed for 1.85:1 and was uniformly projected in that format, apparently with hard mattes on the theatrical prints. (I don't know where that last image came from, but it doesn't look like a theatrical print -- there should be a track for DTS/Dataset timecode, as in the images at in70mm.com. Nobody does magstriping anymore and Dataset is apparently the only digital system with a 65/70 variant.) Plenty of 35mm 1.85:1 films are shot in unmatted Academy ratio, but that proves nothing about their intended AR.

I believe it's a photo of some workprint that was posted by PTA on some blog or other during post-production.
The ASC writeup about it ( http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/November2012/TheMaster/page1.php ) says it was conceived and produced as a 1.85:1 film. Which obviously is an extraction from the 2.20:1 65mm frame.

The detail was stunning in the theatrical 70mm presentation I attended. It looks like they lost some detail at some point due to filtering or whatever else it was. With regard to texture and detail The Master in its best scenes should rival Samsara, but unfortunately it doesn't.

My Blu-ray arrived yesterday.........today I was going to play it and found that it will not load at all.
I tried several times and nothing.
Anyone else having this problem?

My Netflix rental was very slow to load on my Panasonic 110 player. Took at least 2 or 3 minutes from closing the drawer until the screen said "Loading", then took another minute or two to get to the menu. Player has the current firmware.

Well...........I switched Blu-ray Players from the Panasonic 210 to the Sony 586 and it loaded fine..........surprised...........something odd here.
Both players have current firm ware as well.

While I did expect slightly more high-frequency detail for a new 65mm production on Blu-ray, the likely DNR on its transfer was done with a deft touch. There are practically no tell-tale signs of its use, other than the super-clean appearance.

You would not need DNR to achieve a super-clean appearance. Not only was it shot on 65mm, but on very slow film stocks, as PTA is fond of doing. The film has next to no visible grain outside the 35mm scenes.

There's no grain in IMAX scenes from TDK and TDKR. The International is also extremely clean (and extremely amazing), and it was shot on 35mm.

There's no grain in IMAX scenes from TDK and TDKR. The International is also extremely clean (and extremely amazing), and it was shot on 35mm.

I have to say that from frame one it was clear the use of the larger format paid huge dividends in depth and quality of image akin to the best footage from dark knight and the like. It's nice to see someone else embrace the large formats instead of focusing on gimmicks.

NJPETE,
After reading your post on the long load on your Panasonic 110 I went back to my Panasonic 210 and it took a little over 1 minute and 30 seconds to load the menu on the Master Blu-Ray.
Don't understand it........long load time.

Have a 310, took awhile on that too. Annoying, thought we were past this by now.

How is it ‘important?’ It’s not a historically accurate depiction of events I take it? I’m just not sure how you mean ‘important.’

Anyway, I was reluctant to even see this oddly enough out of its topic related to Scientology and whatever that’s all about that I have no real grasp of and how it is seemingly intertwined with some of Hollywood’s most powerful figures. I’ve got enough issues with cryptic secret societies in my life to deal with.

I used to be a HUGE Fiona Apple fan though (not feeling much reciprocation of that btw which has relevance to this sorta). She dated PTA back in the late 90s and he was the subject of much of her music. This is why I am mainly familiar with PTA beyond loving Boogie Nights.

So, I’m outing myself now as what might be interpreted as pretty crackpot. I’ve believed there to be a significant parallel to my admiration of Fiona (and others) and the Jonny Cash story depicted in Walk The Line with Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon. A college friend of mine’s father was from Johnny Cash’s hometown and went to school with Johnny Cash’s brother and knew the family too which is something I only found out well after the passing of Johnny Cash. I actually caught that film while on a trip out to San Francisco to see Fiona on tour for the first time in 2005. This might just be considered trivia related to my review of this film.

Anyway, I admired Joaquin’s portrayal of Johnny and what seemed to be his honest interpretation of that story and character. I appreciate that he really poured himself into the character and story – I’m not sure if the Cash Family feels the same way about the portrayal, but I at least appreciate that he really gave so much to the interpretation of the story.

I also caught his documentary on Netflix recently, but I wasn’t overly enthused with that portrayal of the behind the scenes of the life of an artist/actor quite frankly. No offense to him personally, but it didn’t reflect well in my opinion, but that’s not the world that I live in and who am I to judge. I’m really not sure that it wasn’t a ‘mockumentary’ frankly.

It did add to the mystique of seeing The Master and how his character exhibits so many of the traits of him as a person or as you would believe after seeing the supposed documentary of his hiatus from acting. The movie itself sort of recalls that PTA Boogie Nights surrogate family of outcasts theme. I quite frankly was left thinking; what a couple of weirdoes, but weirdoes make for an interesting story I suppose. No offense to Joaquin personally. I admire what he brings to the screen.

The picture quality seemed pretty impressive to me, but I’m not the seasoned expert in that arena. I didn’t note any particular stylistic cues for that matter visually. Just seemed like a nice, high quality picture. I was watching it after reading on here it was shot in 65mm and taking note of the detail, etc.

Sorry if I included too much trivia related to my view of the movie…..

Wow, that’s a pretty inflammatory response to a pretty simple question isn’t it? You could just provide your reasoning of why you consider it important without being such a dick, huh? Is that too hard? Is this some kind of reference to Walk The Line? I sure hope so.

I guess for me personally; it took a lot of wind out of the story to realize that it was generally fictitious, yes. If it broke some new ground in some manner or was otherwise significant that I might not have grasped; I would be open to enlightenment.

I’m not knocking it. It was a compelling journey and the acting was superb imho. I guess I just missed the ‘importance’ of it? I see on Wiki that it was a chronicle of religious activity in post war eras that PTA had been working on for several years. Which, I suppose ironically, makes me think of Tom Cruise’s character in Magnolia and the cult like following that he had as I recall if my memory serves me.

IDK, in the end – while it was entertaining and I could appreciate what seems like a continuance of the theme of a surrogate family of outcasts from PTA; I missed the ‘importance’ as you referenced it I guess? Maybe I have a bias against ‘religiously’ based surrogate family themes.

I’m not trying to dig a hole with anyone for speaking my mind on this. I am curious what others who are enthusiast about film found to be significant. The acting itself?