I'm not sure why that says 70/70, not 65/70. (But if Tarantino got Kodak and Arri or Panavision to retool for a new, even larger camera film gauge, go him!)
Jump to content
"The Hateful Eight" in 65/70
34 replies to this topic
Posted 31 July 2014 - 05:11 PM
70mm film is just wider outside of the sprocket holes to allow for the soundtrack on the print -- the picture area is the same size as on 65mm film.
Posted 31 July 2014 - 09:15 PM
Tarantino's apparantly describing the format as "Super Cinemascope;" could he be letter-boxing a 2.39 image in the 2.2 70mm prints? I see no reason why he couldn't but I don't know of it having been done, before.
Posted 31 July 2014 - 11:09 PM
I doubt that there are many theaters equipped for 70mm projection any more. However he chooses to shoot it, most people will see it digitally projected.
Posted 01 August 2014 - 01:33 AM
well, if properly scanned it should look better than a digicam shoot
Posted 01 August 2014 - 10:16 AM
Could this be Tarantino's way of attempting to breathe life back into large format motion pictures and, hence, try to bring back film projection? I know that would be a real long-shot. But I know he feels that's where the true "magic" of the cinema lies - all those still images projected at 24fps to create motion.
And as much as I don't care for him, he's right about that.
Posted 01 August 2014 - 12:40 PM
Digital projection is also a bunch of single frames projected in sequence. A movie projector flashes each frame twice using a twin-bladed shutter, so it is 48 flashes per second with a dark interval. I don't know if digital cinema projectors simulate this but they must have a higher refresh rate than 24 Hz or else people would complain of flicker, just as they would if a film projector didn't use the twin-bladed shutter.
One movie release isn't going to bring back film print projection, especially not a 70mm release. A comparable event would probably be "The Master", also shot in 65mm mostly and released in a 70mm print to a few art house theaters in the major cities. Most of the theaters would get a DCP probably.
70mm print projection went into decline back in the late 1990's once digital sound came along, thereby allowing 35mm prints to have multiple tracks of sound. Previously you had to release on 70mm if you wanted six tracks of sound. The studios and the theater owners were both happy to see the end of 70mm prints. Oddly enough, what replaced it was the trend of releasing in 15-perf 70mm IMAX, but the trouble with that was that art movies shot in 65mm would never have a chance of getting booked into IMAX theaters. But now even true IMAX releasing is going away, replaced by digital IMAX (which currently is just twin 2K projectors creating a faux 4K.)
On a side note, I went to the old Academy 6 theater in Pasadena, a second-run theater, to see a movie I missed when it was released two months ago. Hadn't been to that theater in years. The theater is still old, but the projection is all digital, and it was interesting to see a movie in a 2K DCP that looked the same as it did on Day One of release... rather than a beat-up print.
Posted 01 August 2014 - 08:51 PM
70mm couldn't be projected on a platter system by some kid running back and forth to the concession stand, it required a trained projectionist who knew how to do changeovers. And now, that's even more work compared to running a DCP off of a drive.
Posted 01 August 2014 - 09:47 PM
How funny that filmmakers are racing to the top on screens that are racing to the bottom...
Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:37 PM
I remember seeing films like The Abyss and T2 in 70mm as a kid and peeking through the projection booth window to see the huge platter spooling off the film. Heck, I even saw a few films in the 90's in 70mm, with single projection.
Film requires someone to build the platter, maintain the projectors and diagnose issues when they come up. Today, digital projection is pretty much automated. All the projectionist has to do is upload the files from a hard drive into the system and type in a unlock key, pretty simple.
In roughy two years, we've seen the death of film in theaters. IMAX is the only hold-out with over 200+ screens still FILM ONLY, with no intentions on doing any modifications in the future.
People forget this, but 15 perf 65mm is 18k worth of resolution. Standard digital cinema is 2k and a few theaters are starting to move over to 4k, even though most of the sources are delivered in 2k still. The worst part is, film scanners are still only between 4 - 6k, so when you watch a modern IMAX film, its still only 6k resolution because its been scanned and color corrected digitally and put back to film.
In contrast, standard old 4 perf 35mm is 6k. So its still way more resolution then what we're presenting in current cinema's.
Its sad to see film in theaters go away, so many talented projectionists retired or forced to operate digital projectors. We've lost what separates cinema from what you can see at home. Today modern home theater projectors are excellent and 2k sources at home are right around the corner. So without seeing something special at the theater, what's the point of going? I have a feeling film will make a huge come back when hollywood runs out of ideas on how to trick people with gimmicks. They'll realize, the best gimmick of all is what they've already been doing for 100 years, they just need to advertise it better!
Posted 05 August 2014 - 11:58 AM
Shooting on film that will be projected digitally, trivializes the whole purpose of shooting on film in the first place. It's great that Tarantino wants to shoot on 70mm, but the fact is mainstream theaters are not equipped with screens big enough to project the film the way it was intended to be seen. I haven't been to a movie theater in such a long time. There's just nothing worth seeing anymore. I kind of feel it's the beginning of the end.
Posted 04 September 2014 - 11:02 AM
There are theatres who can do it. Quite a few were able to show the last Batman on 70mm. It also looks better even when projected digitally. Watching "The Master" the other day on television I switched back and forth between that and a movie shot on digital. Despite the same means of displaying the two films they looked very different. If I'm only allowed to watch digital projection then at the very least I hope directors continue to use film if it suits the project.
Posted 04 September 2014 - 12:52 PM
Its nice he is shooting film even better 65mm but i have know idea where it can now be shown in 70mm . I think all those projectors have been dumped and Digital Projectors in their place , very sad.
Posted 04 September 2014 - 02:25 PM
Looks like the Odeon in the West End of London still has 70mm capabilities and was a screening location for the 70mm print of "The Master" in 2012.
Posted 04 September 2014 - 04:54 PM
I saw a 70mm print of The Master at the Ziegfeld here in NYC. But I'm not sure how many other first-run theaters in the city have the ability to project a 70mm print. So yes, most people would see it projected digitally which totally defeats the purpose of the format since you're losing resolution.
When I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Lincoln Center Cinemas, they rolled out a reel of 70mm film and talked about how digital can't hold a candle to it. That's really true.
Posted 05 September 2014 - 03:02 AM
I believe the Castro Theatre in SF still has a 70mm projector. They used to do a 70mm Film Fest every summer, and I'm told by a friend who lives nearby that they still do it. I got to see 70mm prints of Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, and Playtime there, as well as some 70mm blow-up roadshow prints like Bridge on the River Kwai and The Road Warrior (badly faded, unfortunately).
I went to see Lawrence in 4K there last week and it looked pretty good, although the blacks were not quite as deep and there were some distracting 'screen door' artifacts (DLP?) on the blue skies and flat desert sands. On the whole, I preferred the celluloid experience.
Posted 19 October 2014 - 10:53 AM
Anyone have any idea whether this "Super Cinemascope" name that is being used with be the 65mm frame cropped down to 2.39 or some kind of modern Technirama equivalent with anamorphics?