Jump to content


Photo

Star Wars 9 to be shot on 65mm film


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#1 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 12 November 2016 - 06:42 PM

I can't a post about this by anybody else here:

We seem to be straying ever further from Geo Lucas's myopic 1999 vision:

http://www.slashfilm...e-shot-on-65mm/
 

My personal vision is that the Next Big Thing is going to be lightweight wall-sized screens that can be rolled up like an old-fashioned home movie screen. At the moment, screen sizes bigger than about 65 inches are at about the limit of practicality; anything much bigger that that will need some means of stowing it when not in use.
Clearly they want to future-proof their franchise as much as possible.


  • 1

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2016 - 08:05 PM

Great news about all those 65mm film productions!


  • 0

#3 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3645 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2016 - 08:21 PM

Yea, it's very exciting to see two more 5/65 productions being shot next year. What kills me is that nobody is talking about printing. I just hope they understand that 65mm camera negative needs to be printed to 70mm film for theatrical release. That's truly the only way to see it.
  • 1

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2016 - 08:51 PM

70mm print projection is tricky to arrange, judging by the release of "Hateful Eight" -- it would be nice, but I suspect all of these productions other than "Dunkirk" will do a 4K D.I. so any 70mm print would be made from a film-out to a 65mm IN.  But we'll see what happens. 

 

65mm-to-4K DCP looks nice in a different way than 65mm-to-70mm print.  If someone shot a 65mm movie designed for neg cutting and contact-printing, hardly any vfx work, then a 70mm contact print is something special, but for a vfx heavy movie, then most of the shots would get scanned anyway.


  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3645 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2016 - 08:57 PM

I'm totally cool with 8k DI treatment of 65mm, but anything less then that is a travesty. I believe 'Interstellar' used a 11k laser out to 70mm, which is an unnoticeable process. The IMAX prints were made that way, they were 100% digital scan out.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:32 PM

I thought "Interstellar" did the same workflow as the "Dark Knight" films in terms of making sure that the IMAX footage was contact printed whenever it didn't have a visual effect, and everything else around it when through a conversion, and the same for the 35mm anamorphic version, it was contact printed whenever possible, so two negative masters were cut. I didn't think Nolan wanted to take the whole movie through a D.I. for the film prints.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:41 PM

https://www.theasc.c...ellar/page3.php

This article says the vfx work was done at 6K for the IMAX version and cut into the 15-perf 65mm negative to make prints.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:44 PM

You said in March that "Interstellar" was all done at 8K:
http://www.cinematog...showtopic=70554
  • 0

#9 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3645 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 November 2016 - 01:38 AM

Whoops, yes 11k scans and 8k laser out, my bad.

I was referring to the 5/70 prints of interstellar, not the 1:1 15/70 material.

But that's besides the point, my point is 8k scan and laser out, doesn't really effect the quality of 5/70, so it's possible to do an 8k finish and strike prints, since there aren't any 8k digital cinemas.
  • 0

#10 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 09 December 2016 - 11:44 PM

So, it looks like film is still the best of the best. It's the elephant in the room softly and warmly breathing down the necks of all who say, yeah, film is nice and quaint, but .... Personally I'd take a sack of Red and Alexa air-cooled 'brains' and put 'em in a potato sack and heave them as far into the sea off the rocky heads at Noosa as I could.


Edited by Jon O'Brien, 09 December 2016 - 11:54 PM.

  • 2

#11 Stephen Baldassarre

Stephen Baldassarre
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Idaho

Posted 08 March 2017 - 02:44 PM

Bear in mind that most theaters were forced to get rid of their film projectors in order to get DCP systems.  So 70mm prints will have to be a road show at best, though I'm not sure what the point would be since they'd most likely use a digital intermediary so they can screw with the color for no reason.

4K projection is a compromise at best.  Yeah, it's 4x the pixels but also 4x the compression, so the advantage isn't as great as one might hope.  Still, I'm always glad to hear about productions being done on film.  Alexas are great cameras but nothing beats the real thing IMO.


  • 0

#12 Jesse Straub

Jesse Straub
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Student
  • Washington D.C.

Posted 12 June 2017 - 05:53 PM

"George Lucas's myopic vision"?

Rogue One was shot digitally, and in my opinion was much more visually appealing than The Force Awakens, though some of that might be due to the fact that Edwards can direct circles around J.J.

 

And many of the best directors and cinematographers of today are very on board with digital shooting. (Fincher and Deakins, just to name 2 superstars.)


  • -1

#13 Michael Rodin

Michael Rodin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Moscow

Posted 12 June 2017 - 06:08 PM

Well, the person whom Deakins himself considered the No 1 cinematographer was a big digital sceptic and found even hi-end video tech very crude and limiting.  And it wasn't because of Yusov being anti-progress or whatever: you can't call an inventor of a remote-controlled crane head and numerous other innovative devices anti-progress.


  • 0

#14 Jesse Straub

Jesse Straub
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Student
  • Washington D.C.

Posted 12 June 2017 - 07:41 PM

When did he (Yusov) voice his opinion on digital shooting though?
Because digital imagery is looking exponentially better all the time. Compare Attack of The Clones to Rogue One. Hell, compare Attack of The Clones to Revenge of The Sith.

George Lucas said it best when he said (i'm paraphrasing) "We are now at the start of a new hill of technology to climb. But the top of this hill has the potential to be much something of much better quality than anything we have now".

 

And i'd say that that's coming true. The first movie I saw that I mistook for film was X-Men: Days of Future Past, shot on the Alexa in 2014 (well, in theaters in 2014). That's when I started to really like digital.

 

Digital isn't *better* than film yet, but in the right hands it's certainly on par with 35mm.


Edited by Jesse Straub, 12 June 2017 - 07:41 PM.

  • -1

#15 Michael Rodin

Michael Rodin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Moscow

Posted 12 June 2017 - 08:03 PM

When did he (Yusov) voice his opinion on digital shooting though?

Not that long ago. He died in 2013 and was involved in Russian cinema and education till his last days. He was an active supporter of motion picture film and insisted cinematography students should be taught on film.

 

Because digital imagery is looking exponentially better all the time. 

Resolution and S/N figures have gone up quite a bit, surely. But a much more important thing - colorimetery - generally hasn't advanced much from the days of Varicam-27 and Sony F23. Alexa is an exception, a big step forward but hopelessly inferior to Vision, Eterna/Reala or any modern stock in terms of color reproduction.

 

 

Digital isn't *better* than film yet, but in the right hands it's certainly on par with 35mm.

Depends on your priorities. If you're after a flashy sharp image (suppose you're not) and what matters to you is detail and cleaniness, then video is already better for you.

If you want flexibility working with color and contrast and generally follow realism (I mean, for example, Yusov's realism, not the modern "a la documentary" fad), video will indeed be limiting.

 

 


  • 1

#16 Michael Rodin

Michael Rodin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Moscow

Posted 12 June 2017 - 08:09 PM

By the way. When everyone was talking about "death" of film (remember Fuji discontinuing Eterna, Kodak's bankrupcy) Yusov kept telling us, literally, "Film's gonna be back". Now we see he was right.


  • 1

#17 Jesse Straub

Jesse Straub
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Student
  • Washington D.C.

Posted 12 June 2017 - 08:17 PM

I think film will always have its niche, because it is distinct from digital and has its own feel that can be preferable for certain movies (though I wonder if when digital matures if it will be able to somehow indistinguishably replicate film, even feel-wise?), but I think within 15 years digital will be technically superior than 35mm. 70mm on the other hand...


Edited by Jesse Straub, 12 June 2017 - 08:18 PM.

  • 0

#18 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11918 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 June 2017 - 08:23 PM

I hate to sound like an embittered cynic, but does it really matter what it's shot on?

At this level it will look professionally acceptable as a bare minimum. The rest is down to craft, not tech.

P
  • 0

#19 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3645 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 June 2017 - 08:39 PM

Rogue One was shot digitally, and in my opinion was much more visually appealing than The Force Awakens


The story had better locations... I mean it had more scale. I thought cinematography wise, it was very flat and had a dystopian color pallet that wasn't very exciting or appealing. I felt The Force Awakens had a much broader color pallet and was more in line with the 'star wars' look.

though some of that might be due to the fact that Edwards can direct circles around J.J.


Considering they re-shot more then 40% of Rogue One and completely changed the ending, I'd have to say JJ wins on the "directing" front.

And many of the best directors and cinematographers of today are very on board with digital shooting. (Fincher and Deakins, just to name 2 superstars.)


Deakins doesn't shoot film because the lab infrastructure imploded on itself from 2013 - 2016. There are 5 labs opening up this year, 3 of them were older labs that were re-instated. Thus, re-building some of the missing infrastructure. There is an even bigger push to open more labs by the end of 2018, there is just so much work. The commercial industry is also shooting film more today, thanks to the labs, so it's growing again.

Most filmmakers shoot digital, film has been relegated to smaller projects, but the vast majority of big hollywood movies shoot digital because in their minds what's the point of shooting film? They don't care about longevity of their product, they don't care about a unique theatrical experience, they don't care about keeping the technology alive. They care about making money and that's what the industry is all about... outside of a few whack jobs like myself, who care about the artistic side more then the money side.
  • 1

#20 Jesse Straub

Jesse Straub
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Student
  • Washington D.C.

Posted 12 June 2017 - 08:48 PM

The story had better locations... I mean it had more scale. I thought cinematography wise, it was very flat and had a dystopian color pallet that wasn't very exciting or appealing. I felt The Force Awakens had a much broader color pallet and was more in line with the 'star wars' look.

 

Considering they re-shot more then 40% of Rogue One and completely changed the ending, I'd have to say JJ wins on the "directing" front.
 

 

Well first, I don't think TFA was in line with the Star Wars look at all, mostly because JJ was so obsessed with being the exact opposite of the PT that he made the locations even more lifeless and bland than what technology could muster up for the OT.
Just take the Yavin 4 rebel base in ANH versus the mundane construction site-esque base for the "Resistance". The Yavin 4 base at least attempts to look exotic. (A base that featured prominently in Rogue One, I might add.)
 
As for your second point, reshoots are irrelevant if the finished product still works. And as far as production issues go, TFA had it far worse. They won't even release J.W. Rinzler's comprehensive BTS book (that he completed) because of how bad JJ (or possibly Iger, who was the one that rushed the movie so much that the original script writer dropped out) screwed up.

Edited by Jesse Straub, 12 June 2017 - 08:54 PM.

  • 0


Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Abel Cine

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

CineTape

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC