Jump to content


Photo

'The Master' - 85% 65mm, but photochemical-only workflow?


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Tuohy

Richard Tuohy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Daylesford, Australia

Posted 11 December 2012 - 10:08 PM

So a 70mm print, perhaps THE 70mm print, of 'The Master' is showing in Melbourne next week. For one thing, I assume it is a 70mm print without magnetic sound. I assume the availability of the traditional mag-striped 70mm print material stopped long ago.
Anyway, according to the article in the Kodak magazine, the makers of the film had initially intended to shoot about 20% of the film on 65mm, but after seeing results, decided to shoot the majority of the film on 65. In the same article it stresses that the film used an entirely photochemical workflow. If that is so, I have a few questions.
Firstly, if 15% of the film was shot on 35mm, and the print is 70mm, then there must have been an optical blow up stage for those 35mm sections. That would mean (would it not?) making a 35 or 65mm interpositive, then a 65mm dupe-negative of those sections shot on 35mm. These internegatives would then be cut with the 65mm camera negatives to make the master negative. Then, either the few 70mm prints would be struck directly from that mostly camera original and spliced master negative, or else they would have had to make an interpositive and then dupe-negatives of the entire film. This would mean that the 65mm material seen in the cinema on a 70mm print would be 4th generation (which I guess was the normal thing for a modern 'traditional' entirely photo-chemically finished film) and the 35mm sections would be 6th generation.
Secondly, surely the fact is that the majority of cinemas that screen this film will do so digitally. So would that mean that the transfer was made from the cut 65mm negative, or from the negative before it was cut? For some time when we have seen 35mm prints in the cinema we are nontheless seeing something that has gone through a digital stage. While it must be a task to make the 35mm print version of a digitised film look the same as the digital cinema print version, it must be harder still to make a digital cinema print version of a film look the same as an entirely photochemical version of the film. To be true to the spirit of the entirely photochemical conception of the film, the digital tweeking of the scan would have to be limited to attempting to approximate the photochemical version, rather than exploiting the possibilities of the digital stage. The digital could only be 'lesser' than the photochemical.
I guess my musings are about the problem having a digital and a film version of a movie where the film version isn't 'just' a 'print out' from a DI but rather an entirely photochemical affair. Yes, in the past, this was the way things were done - a finished photochemical print and a telecine for the small screen. It seems a different set of problems now however.
  • 0

#2 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 December 2012 - 10:22 AM

What I read is the 65 was done the traditional photochemical route and all other versions were colored digitally. I wish I could find the article on it. The 70mm prints have different color timing vs. the 4k and 2k projection.

I watched it in 70mm on a very large screen here in NYC and it looked phenominal, though there was a little bit of strobing in the whites.
  • 0

#3 James Compton

James Compton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:00 PM

The ENTIRE film was photochemical. Read here:

http://www.theasc.co...aster/page1.php
  • 0

#4 Richard Tuohy

Richard Tuohy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Daylesford, Australia

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:19 PM

Thanks for the link to the article.
So they did at least three separate finishes to the film;

They made an inter pos of the 35 neg on 35, then blew that interpos up to a 65 dupe neg. This was then cut with the 65 camera neg to make a 65mm master negative. From this they made an inter positive and also some 70mm prints (note, not from an inter negative struck from the inter positive, but from the master neg If I read the article correctly).

They made a deduction of the 65mm inter pos to make a 35mm inter neg, then cut this neg with the original 35mm camera neg to make a 35mm master neg. A 35mm interpos was made and then either interneg and prints or prints from the master 35mm neg.

They made a DI from the original camera neg - 8k for the 65 and 6k for the 35. This was for the digital exhibition of the film.

Amazing.
  • 0

#5 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 December 2012 - 06:13 PM

That sounds exhausting!
  • 0

#6 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:20 PM

Holy crap! No wonder it still cost $32 million despite no CGI.
  • 0

#7 Richard Tuohy

Richard Tuohy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Daylesford, Australia

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:28 AM

Hmmm, and what a silly film it turned out to be. Such a disapointment.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

The Slider

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Opal

Tai Audio

Technodolly

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Willys Widgets