Jump to content


Photo

Murder on the Orient Express in 70mm


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3633 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 October 2017 - 02:35 AM

I have to say for the record, I've known about this movie for over a year now. I've been tight lipped because I didn't know what I could or couldn't say, but now that it's close to release, it's time to chat!

Murder on the Orient Express is shot exclusively in 5/65, using Panavision cameras. They actually had 3 cameras, two sync sound reflex and one MOS reflex.

The film was mostly shot on soundstages but in actual reproduction train cars with moving backgrounds out the windows. It's a very clever method to eliminate the need for green screen, making it a lot easier and cheaper for post production.

The film was processed in the UK by Cinelab. I had a few discussions with their senior VP about the process and they were very excited to be involved with such a big movie on 65mm, having lost out on Dunkirk. They will also be processing the next Star Wars film, which is suppose to be 65mm as well.

Post will be all digital @ 4k resolution and lasered back out to film at Fotokem in the US. It's looking like there will be a dozen or so prints struck for New York and Los Angeles, but no other locations scheduled at this moment in time. There will also be a few European runs, but I beleive they will be using the same prints from the US.

This is Fox's first foray into 70mm for decades. They're jumping on the Weinstein/Warner bandwagon and here is hoping it works. I for one am very excited for this release, not only do I love train's, but I love a good mystery, I love the cast and the fact it's mostly practical, it gives me heart palpatations! Add 5 perf 70mm to the mix and I'm all in! I'm just happy a normal studio with a normal movie, took the 70mm plunge. Unfortuantely, I will be away the weekend of it's initial release, but I will catch it during the week.

Here is a little marketing film that shows some cool hardware and explains some details about the making of.


  • 1

#2 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2246 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 18 October 2017 - 02:55 AM

Cinelab did not have their 65mm line running when Dunkirk was shot it came on line months later .


  • 0

#3 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3633 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 October 2017 - 03:06 AM

Cinelab did not have their 65mm line running when Dunkirk was shot it came on line months later .


OHHHHHHHHHHHH They didn't say that! Now it all makes sense, thanks for clearing that up! :D
  • 0

#4 Ravi Kiran

Ravi Kiran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 October 2017 - 06:33 PM

Post will be all digital @ 4k resolution and lasered back out to film at Fotokem in the US. It's looking like there will be a dozen or so prints struck for New York and Los Angeles, but no other locations scheduled at this moment in time. There will also be a few European runs, but I beleive they will be using the same prints from the US.

 

35mm or 70mm prints?


  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3633 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 October 2017 - 06:43 PM

35mm or 70mm prints?


No 35mm prints, only 70mm.
  • 0

#6 Scott Pickering

Scott Pickering
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:52 PM

Its a shame it was digitally done instead of optical prints. 4K is no where near the rez of true 65mm origination. At best its not close to 35mm limits either. So in this case I wouldn't be too excited for the 70mm prints struck. 8K would have been better in this case, which was a possible option. I think Lawrence of Arabia had a 70mm print struck from the recent restoration efforts, and it too I think was only 4K. 70mm is so much better then 4K. I'd rather see Robert Harris' 70mm print from Lawrence. At least that was optically done. Since there is an 8K scanning and film out option for 65mm/70mm, I don't see why they don't take advantage of that. Why cut costs when using 65mm just to be lazy about the way its shown in theaters? It makes 70mm look not as good as it could. And with Dunkirk recently shown in 70mm, we know what the film format can do.


Edited by Scott Pickering, 18 October 2017 - 10:55 PM.

  • 0

#7 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3633 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 October 2017 - 12:06 AM

Its a shame it was digitally done instead of optical prints.


Agreed, but there are too many VFX in this movie, can't render it in anything else but 4k.
 

4K is no where near the rez of true 65mm origination.


Very true, 65mm OCN is close to 8k, but prints struck from an IN are in the 4k range. So a lasered out IN @ 4k with prints struck directly off it, won't be TOO bad. I think Batman V Superman was a 4k laser out, but Wonder Woman was 2k and so was Beasts.

At best its not close to 35mm limits either.


35mm prints struck off IN's are in the 2k range. Off the original negative, around 3k. You lose a lot making prints.
 

I think Lawrence of Arabia had a 70mm print struck from the recent restoration efforts, and it too I think was only 4K.


Yep the restoration of Lawrence is being done in 4k. The reason why it's not a photochemical restoration is because the elements are too gone and they needed to clean them up through the computer. It's true they COULD have done it at 8k, however it costs around 4X as much money to do the post work in 8k. Nobody has that kind of money, studio's would rather spend that on a new movie, than restoration.

It's unfortunate, but at least we'll have a nice clean print, the current ones in circulation suck.
 

I'd rather see Robert Harris' 70mm print from Lawrence. At least that was optically done.


It's not that good actually. It's extremely noisy and is missing a lot of the color density you get from even the BluRay release. I hope this new release resolves some of those issues.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19696 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 October 2017 - 12:12 AM

I think you guys are getting too pixel peepy... "Samsara" was shot in 5-perf 65mm and digitally mastered and projected in 4K and it looked fantastic.


  • 2

#9 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Director

Posted 19 October 2017 - 02:56 AM

I think you guys are getting too pixel peepy... "Samsara" was shot in 5-perf 65mm and digitally mastered and projected in 4K and it looked fantastic.

 

Amen


  • 0

#10 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3633 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 October 2017 - 12:41 PM

I think you guys are getting too pixel peepy... "Samsara" was shot in 5-perf 65mm and digitally mastered and projected in 4K and it looked fantastic.


Samsara was also scanned at 8k and FINISHED in 8k.
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19696 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 October 2017 - 09:58 PM

Sorry, you're right about the scanning at 8K but it was shown in a 4K DCP.

 

But I think it's the wrong attitude to take that a 65mm movie can't look good finished to 4K.  


  • 1

#12 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1848 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 19 October 2017 - 11:47 PM

A good HD script is alot better than a crap 16K one.. 


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 19 October 2017 - 11:48 PM.

  • 2

#13 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3633 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:14 AM

But I think it's the wrong attitude to take that a 65mm movie can't look good finished to 4K.


I agree... I think a 4k laser out is sufficient. Not saying it's optimal, but it's vastly preferred over a digital projection version.
  • 0

#14 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3633 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 October 2017 - 12:47 AM

Great article about the making of the movie with some stills:

http://www.in70mm.co..._info/index.htm
  • 0

#15 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:33 AM

Sorry, you're right about the scanning at 8K but it was shown in a 4K DCP.

 

But I think it's the wrong attitude to take that a 65mm movie can't look good finished to 4K.  

 

I would echo this sentiment.  I once had the privilege of seeing Lawrence of Arabia in two formats - a 70mm print from the first restoration, and a 4K DCP from the most recent.  

 

What I found was that BOTH formats had their strengths.  I found the 70mm print to be a bit more lush in terms of color, and richer in contrast, but the 4K won out in terms of detail and grain, because one was sourced from the negative, while the print represented a couple generations of loss.  

 

Ultimately, the image quality of the original source medium is what matters, and that original clarity carries over in either medium.  

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: regardless of exhibition medium, be it film or digital, large format or DCP, if a studio really wants to go for maximum versatility and future resilience, they'd do well to consider shooting 65mm, at least, for their bigger budgeted films where the additional cost of stock and processing is a relatively small percentage of the whole budget.  I mean, if a film is already $150,000,000, what is another 500K or 1 mil more for 65?


  • 0

#16 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3633 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:55 PM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: regardless of exhibition medium, be it film or digital, large format or DCP, if a studio really wants to go for maximum versatility and future resilience, they'd do well to consider shooting 65mm, at least, for their bigger budgeted films where the additional cost of stock and processing is a relatively small percentage of the whole budget.  I mean, if a film is already $150,000,000, what is another 500K or 1 mil more for 65?


For a movie like Murder on the Orient, where they in many cases shot 3 cameras on certain scenes, the budget increase would be 10's of millions, especially when it comes to lasering out the finished product onto 65mm, which is a very costly and time consuming process.

If you're extremely frugal, use one camera and have a lot of time to make your movie, you can make a 90 minute ish length film and the cost difference between Anamorphic 35mm + 10 prints vs 65mm + 10 prints is around 1.5M USD with a photochemical finish and a 4k scan of the negative when finished. The problem is, ya gotta shoot at a tight ratio and very few filmmakers today even know how to do that. We've become the "perfectionist" generation, where we just let the cameras roll and roll and roll to get it perfect. I'm not of that generation, I'll shoot 5:1 ratio no problem and be happy with the result.

I have a 14M budgeted feature I want to shoot on 65mm someday and it's VERY doable.
  • 0

#17 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1578 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:30 PM

Why is it that films like this and Hateful Eight use these high resolution film formats, at great expense and difficulty, and then set the whole movie within confined spaces? I mean, I'm happy they're bringing 65mm back into vogue, but it doesn't seem the best way to showcase it.

People remember the visual impact of Lawrence of Arabia or Ben Hur or 2001 for a reason.
  • 1

#18 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:51 PM

For a movie like Murder on the Orient, where they in many cases shot 3 cameras on certain scenes, the budget increase would be 10's of millions, especially when it comes to lasering out the finished product onto 65mm, which is a very costly and time consuming process.

If you're extremely frugal, use one camera and have a lot of time to make your movie, you can make a 90 minute ish length film and the cost difference between Anamorphic 35mm + 10 prints vs 65mm + 10 prints is around 1.5M USD with a photochemical finish and a 4k scan of the negative when finished. The problem is, ya gotta shoot at a tight ratio and very few filmmakers today even know how to do that. We've become the "perfectionist" generation, where we just let the cameras roll and roll and roll to get it perfect. I'm not of that generation, I'll shoot 5:1 ratio no problem and be happy with the result.

I have a 14M budgeted feature I want to shoot on 65mm someday and it's VERY doable.

 

I hope you make it happen!  I'm in post production on my new documentary, which I shot entirely on S16mm BW.  I kept to a very strict shooting ratio, right around 5:1 which is very tight for a doc, but I did not feel confined at all, because I did a ton of leg work on pre-pro, including storyboarding and having shot lists, so when it came to production, in a lot of cases I only needed one or two takes of a lot of scenes, which enabled me more freedom on the complex shots.

 

I love doing animation, and would love to shoot something on 35mm still so I could have a negative format akin to VistaVision.


  • 1


FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Opal

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Tai Audio

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc