|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Fantastic Beasts in 5/70mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julian Antos
Film Handler
Posts: 76
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Nov 2009
|
posted 09-22-2016 02:49 PM
BATMAN V SUPERMAN was shot on film (16, 35, 5/70, 15/70) and some digital. It looked great!
As for digital to film transfers, the two most recent ones I've seen (MAGIC MIKE XXL and MAD MAX: FURY ROAD) were both improvements over their DCP counterparts. Contrast and color were better, sharpness and detail were about the same, maybe even a little better. Things like fast panning shots, of which both these movies had several, looked a lot nicer and less jittery on 35.
Anyway, I'm glad to see more 70mm releases, regardless of shooting format (though obviously 65mm is preferred). I don't know if I'd call it a gimmick, at least not any more than Dolby Atmos.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-22-2016 08:38 PM
quote:
BATMAN V SUPERMAN was shot on film (16, 35, 5/70, 15/70) and some digital. It looked great!
That movie was heavily post processed via digital intermediate, in 2K resolution, then output to those film formats.
The film prints would have offered more of an advantage if the movie had used an enitrely film-based work flow. There would't be any 2K resolution bottle-neck or bottle-necks on color and contrast depth either. But nobody is using a 100% film-in/film-out process.
quote: Julian Antos
As for digital to film transfers, the two most recent ones I've seen (MAGIC MIKE XXL and MAD MAX: FURY ROAD) were both improvements over their DCP counterparts. Contrast and color were better, sharpness and detail were about the same, maybe even a little better. Things like fast panning shots, of which both these movies had several, looked a lot nicer and less jittery on 35.
You must be comparing a decent film setup with a bad d-cinema setup, especially if you're seeing more detail and better color on a film print that is generations removed from the movie's digital source. Soft focus and dim picture will make a d-cinema show look like crap compared to a Blu-ray played on a TV set.
quote: Julian Antos
I'm glad to see more 70mm releases, regardless of shooting format (though obviously 65mm is preferred). I don't know if I'd call it a gimmick, at least not any more than Dolby Atmos.
Dolby Atmos, when used effectively, is a lot more than just some gimmick. It can take surround sound to an entirely new complex level, blowing away conventional 5.1 and 7.1 audio.
70mm prints (if confirmed on this 2K digital movie) would mostly be a waste and barely even qualify as a gimmick. The public would need to know what benefit 70mm would provide. In this case there really isn't any benefit.
quote: Scott Norwood
The risk of doing this, of course, is that customers will see the "70mm!!!" listing on the marquee or in the theatre's advertising, show up to the screening because of it, and then leave wondering what the big deal was.
Absolutely.
If the movie industry wants to revive 70mm print use they need to go about it correctly or risk ruining any remaining appeal of the format.
I think 70mm prints are a waste on any digital-sourced movie rendered at 2K resolution. 70mm use is even questionable on 4K originated and rendered material. The latest cameras from Arri and Red can shoot in 6K and 8K resolution respectively. Sony is working on a 8K CineAlta camera. If a movie production maintained that high resolution completely through post production and output it to film then a 70mm projection setup could have a clear advantage over digital systems limited to 4K. Right now no contemporary movies are being post processed at higher than 4K.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 09-23-2016 04:27 PM
The big problem is that the industry doesn't have a workflow for anything higher then 4k resolution, which is more or less equivalent to a first generation super 35mm resolution. Unfortunately, subsequent interpositive, internegative and distribution prints, bring that resolution down to a bit more then 2k, according to a Kodak study performed in the mid 2000's. Due to the cost and time associated with 4k finishing, most movies today are still being finished and distributed in 2k. So when you look at what has changed quality wise, we really haven't seen the dramatic bump in quality expected from this move to digital. Truthfully, all digital has done is put a lot of people out of work and reduced the amount of talent required to make and distribute a movie. During the film days, the whole workflow required a lot of skill and talent to make an acceptable image in post, but today with digital cinematography and digital finishing, you just don't need that much talent.
It's well known that an original camera negative 5/70 frame is around 8k and because we don't strike a lot of prints, the quality today of 5/70 is far superior to that of even 35mm prints of a few years ago. Batman V Superman was shot almost entirely on film and only some visual effects were 2k, mostly everything was 4k. Even though the content wasn't great, even though the very "digital" style of finishing wasn't great. The actual "presentation" of the 5/70 image, do I dare say, was excellent. Partly thanks to the modern 5/70 projector at Arclight and projectionist who did a great job. But also thanks to the filmmakers caring about making prints and making them look good.
Star Wars Episode 7 failed miserably in this department because the 35mm prints were atrocious and the digital release was 2k. For a movie released in 2015, you'd think they could do better, but in my eyes it was a complete "technological" failure. Episode 9 is rumored to be shot entirely on 5/65. In fact, there are THREE slated 5/65 movies to be shot in 2017!!! Do I dare say this whole thing MAY be taking off?
Where I agree the 70mm logo is great to have, I also find scanning a movie shot in less then 4k resolution to a high resolution format, is kind of a waste.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic