Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 70mm Prints for Phantom Thread (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: 70mm Prints for Phantom Thread
Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 362
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003


 - posted 12-16-2017 03:35 PM      Profile for Daniel Schulz   Author's Homepage   Email Daniel Schulz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In keeping with Paul Thomas Anderson's affinity for shooting and releasing on film, there is going to be a small 70mm print run for Phantom Thread. The film was shot on 35mm (flat), and as I understand it the 70mm prints will be a film out from a 4K DI.

Opening in 70mm on Christmas Day in New York and LA, with prints then going to Austin, Chicago and San Francisco to open January 12.

 |  IP: Logged

Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 156
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015


 - posted 12-17-2017 12:22 AM      Profile for Tyler Purcell   Author's Homepage   Email Tyler Purcell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'll be seeing it the 25th! [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5198
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 12-19-2017 12:02 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Shot in 35mm and then pillar-boxed out to 70mm from a 4K DI? Doesn't sound like a 70mm print is going to bring much to the table, other than the trendy marketing hype of being able to claim it's being shown "on film" (the trendy new buzz word) and 70mm at that.

Why not do an optical blowup to 70mm and keep it end-to-end organic film -- image going from the camera lens to screen on film? There have been some great looking blowups from anamorphic 35mm negs -- CAMELOT comes to mind.

 |  IP: Logged

Sascha F. Roll
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 104
From: Berlin, Berlin / Germany
Registered: Sep 2015


 - posted 12-19-2017 01:48 AM      Profile for Sascha F. Roll   Email Sascha F. Roll   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Looking at the DCP trailer for "Phantom Thread" (and having seen INHERENT VICE) I guess it's going to be another "Looks like 16mm" experience on 70mm. Congratulations.

@Frank: AFAIR "INHERENT VICE" has been done the photochemical way, even the DCPs have been derived from a colortimed I.P. instead of doing an OCN Scan and D.I. process. No idea why they have chosen the D.I. route now.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10702
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 12-19-2017 10:40 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not in principal against using a digital intermediate as a source for creating a 70mm film print. But rendering the DI only in 4K? Gotta quote the ESPN Monday Night Football guys: C'mon man.

Baraka was scanned and cleaned up at FotoKem in 8K resolution damned near 10 years ago. Modern computing technology is far more powerful now than it was a decade ago. The Baraka project was daunting back then. An 8K project now would be would be a whole lot easier, at least in terms of the data crunching and render times.

I can almost give Murder on the Orient Express a pass for putting its 5/65mm imagery though a 4K DI resolution bottle-neck. There was a lot of CGI digital backlot stuff incorporated into the imagery and rendering all that stuff in 8K might be difficult. Models, texture maps and other effects have to be 4 times higher in resolution to be done in 8K; basically no one does this at all since there is no such thing as a digital projector higher than 4K resolution. Most CGI work is still done only in 2K.

The big HOWEVER for this is the movie's marketing: using 70MM to attract us film geeks. If a movie production is going to market its show as a 70mm movie then it needs to have real 70mm resolution imagery in the end product. 4K is just not good enough. True 70mm is better than that. If a 4K DI is going to be involved then there's really no point in shooting on 65mm, much less making 70mm prints of the end result. The output 70mm prints do little more than keep the film lab running and give projectionists something to practice their skills.

Judging by its trailer Phantom Thread doesn't appear to have all those CGI digital backlot rendering issues. It looks like it was shot on non-digital real sets and real locations. In the end the issue is what resolution to use for a straight forward scan and digital intermediate. A 4K scan of the 4/35mm negative might have been enough to capture the fundamental detail (fabric weave, hair, etc) in the image, but an 8K scan would have worked further to capture the film grain itself. 4K is good enough for mainstream d-cinema stuff (and far too many "deciders" believe 2K is still good enough). An 8K DI is going to be more costly and time consuming to produce. But it's still do-able, and a lot more practical to do than it was a decade ago.

There is a growing number of 6K and 8K d-cinema camera systems to go along with existing 5/65mm and 8/35mm camera systems. If the movie industry wants to market to us film geeks and differentiate itself from the 4K UHDTV sets at home then they need to get with it already and source these 70mm film prints they're showing from elements better than a 4K DI.

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler

Posts: 356
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013


 - posted 12-19-2017 05:10 PM      Profile for Bill Brandenstein   Email Bill Brandenstein   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I guess what remains to be seen is if a 4K restoration of a title such as "Lawrence of Arabia" and output to 70mm is still worthwhile enough to justify film presentation. Since the Egyptian is running it this week in a new 70mm print from a 4K DI, well, there you go.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16221
From: Bountiful, Utah
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-19-2017 09:38 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Daniel Schulz
the 70mm prints will be a film out from a 4K DI.
Now this is getting to be really stupid! Why even bother?

 |  IP: Logged

Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 437
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000


 - posted 12-19-2017 10:58 PM      Profile for Thomas Hauerslev   Author's Homepage   Email Thomas Hauerslev   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
PTA is a lot more pragmatic about 70mm, resolution,cinema and people's opinion in general.

While we wait for more "Phantom Thread" details, here's Director Paul Thomas Anderson (transcribed from a YouTube video), at the time of the release of "The Master", about watching 70mm prints in the cinema:

Question: Your choice to film in 65mm, appropriate to the period, obviously. Does it matter if your audience doesn't see that, because presumably only a minority of the audience are going to see it in 70mmn

Paul Thomas Anderson: Yes, no, I mean, does it matter? If you are in that kind of thing, you'll probably love it. You know, you’ll be able to feel a slight difference if you know, but it's ultimately No. I mean, listen, I've loved movies I've watched on my phone, I hate to say, and I loved moves I've seen in theatres

I mean, it's a hard thing now a days, and hopefully, you know, the people that loved to go to movie theatres, loved to go movie theatres, and we kind of hopefully presented this option, that if you wanna dig it this way, it's there for you. I prefer it. I enjoy it. I think it's a more well balanced meal, just in terms of the way that it kinda comes through the projector and the light and umm, and things moving around, and..... I prefer it. But certainly does not mean you are not gonna like the movie if you have to see it in any other way. It also doesn’t mean you gonna like it any more.

Question: Can't imagine what “The Master” would be like on a phone

Paul Thomas Andersson: [Laughs] Actually no, hopefully not too bad. Shouldn't matter, I mean, I remember like seeing, like these guys, like hovered around in a garage watching "Saving Private Ryan" on this like little teeny black and white TV, and these guys were just loving the film in a parking garage in South America, and they were completely in to it. They didn’t need it on a big screen, they didn’t need whatever HiFi sound and all that. They are just digging the film

 |  IP: Logged

Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 156
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015


 - posted 12-20-2017 04:30 AM      Profile for Tyler Purcell   Author's Homepage   Email Tyler Purcell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What what? You guys don't know the benefits of 70mm?

First off, the movie was shot 3 perf 35mm, which means you can't make prints without an optical. This means, to retain any quality they'd have to do a DI.

Second, 3 perf 35mm resolves around 5k, so scanning at 4k is perfectly acceptable. There isn't MUCH loss of quality and scanning any higher than 5k doesn't garnish a better image, only a more noisy one.

Third, 3 perf 35mm has a native aspect ratio of about 1.75:1 which means any 35mm prints would be matted top and bottom, meaning far less quality than an open gate 4 perf or anamorphic print.

Fourth, for a true 35mm photochemical distribution from a 3 perf negative, this is the workflow: Cut OCN>3 perf IP> 3 to 4 perf blowup IN> release prints. So you'd be dealing with 4th generation for theatrical prints on 35mm. Where with a DI, you scan the negative and you laser out DIRECTLY TO 70MM IN. So release prints are being struck off a 70mm IN which for all practical purposes is an identical replica of the 3 perf 35mm negative. So you're dealing with prints made from 2nd generation, instead of 4th generation with the optical printing process. YES one could do an optical blow up directly from the negative, but the cost to do every single print that way, is exorbitant, so it's really never done.

Fifth, 70mm is a 2.20:1 aspect ratio format. So yes, the sides will be lopped off, but unlike 35mm where the top and bottom are lopped off for a 1.85:1 presentation, you aren't losing any resolution like you are with a 35mm print.

Sixth, 70mm prints wear better and can be run for longer than 35mm prints whilst retaining decent quality.

So you guys are aware, there are 2 sync sound 65mm cameras in the world that are maintained and workable, both come out of Panavision Los Angeles. Both have been in constant use over the last year thanks to Dunkirk, Murder On the Orient, The Nutcracker and now Star Wars Episode IX. Even if PT wanted to shoot his movie in 65mm, it would have been impossible thanks to the camera schedules. Arri's 65mm solution comes out of Germany or the US and it's not very good. Everyone has issues with it and it slows down production tremendously. So PT was stuck using a more conventional 3 perf 35mm format.

I know PT's dream is to shoot vistavision and when I see him, I'm going to discuss what it will take to get him a quiet vistavision camera for a future project, as it's something I've always wanted to do. This is partially why he shot The Master on 65mm but in 1.85:1 because he just loves that aspect ratio, but wants the field of view of 65mm vs 35mm. Unfortunately 3 perf 35mm doesn't give you the same look, but the right aspect ratio, as shooting 4 perf is just a waste of stock these days.

Yes I'm disappointed he shot The Phantom Thread in 35mm, but it is what it is. The scheduling and added cost of 65mm, can be huge setbacks even for an experienced filmmaker like PT. With that being said, we should be thankful for someone who gives two shits about projectionists and presenting movies on film. I'm so happy to be living in a time where normal movies are projected on 70mm, thanks to you guys! [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged

Julian Antos
Film Handler

Posts: 58
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Nov 2009


 - posted 12-20-2017 10:54 AM      Profile for Julian Antos   Email Julian Antos   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well whatever they did looks nice to my eyes. We ran a 70mm trailer for the film and it looks lovely. Very much looking forward to running the feature and very glad prints are being made in any format with any workflow.

BTW Tyler 70mm should wear no faster or slower than any other film format, all things being equal.

 |  IP: Logged

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1573
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000


 - posted 12-20-2017 03:57 PM      Profile for Sean McKinnon   Email Sean McKinnon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So when should we start building vista vision projectors? [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged

Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 362
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003


 - posted 12-20-2017 04:04 PM      Profile for Daniel Schulz   Author's Homepage   Email Daniel Schulz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Tyler Purcell
First off, the movie was shot 3 perf 35mm, which means you can't make prints without an optical. This means, to retain any quality they'd have to do a DI.
Why on earth would you shoot Super 35 for a movie with a 1.85 aspect ratio?

 |  IP: Logged

Tony Magallanes
Film Handler

Posts: 3
From: LOS ANGELES, CA - USA
Registered: Sep 2017


 - posted 12-20-2017 05:40 PM      Profile for Tony Magallanes   Email Tony Magallanes   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We, at FotoKem, took the 35mm cut original and blew it up to 65mm. I must say, it looks fantastic!! There was NOT any 4K DIs made on Phantom Thread. We made blown up 65mm I.P.'s and then I.N.'s & 70mm Prints.

 |  IP: Logged

Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 362
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003


 - posted 12-21-2017 01:30 AM      Profile for Daniel Schulz   Author's Homepage   Email Daniel Schulz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Tony Magallanes
We, at FotoKem, took the 35mm cut original and blew it up to 65mm. I must say, it looks fantastic!! There was NOT any 4K DIs made on Phantom Thread. We made blown up 65mm I.P.'s and then I.N.'s & 70mm Prints.
Thank you for clarifying, and my deepest apologies for the misinformation in the OP! Clearly I was given bad info. I take it the original negative is then a 4-perf/35mm neg?

Do you know if the DCPs are made from a 2K or a 4K scan of the print?

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 7991
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 12-21-2017 07:53 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Daniel Schulz
Why on earth would you shoot Super 35 for a movie with a 1.85 aspect ratio?
I realize that this is irrelevant at this point in the thread, but, to answer this--probably because it gives a bit more image area for scanning (assuming a DI) and extra head and foot room for a nicer 4x3 version (if this is even still done).

Also, isn't there an issue with cutting negatives on 3-perf films? Something about how the splices end up in the image area, so 3-perf films need to be cut into A&B rolls, like with 16mm?

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.