criterionforum.org

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has nothing to do with IMAX. It was shot in the same 65mm cameras used for 2001, etc. Hollywood classics, not with IMAX cameras. Aspect ratios are completely different.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Not to criticize as I sure Anderson knows what he is doing, but it seems to be on the excessive side to shoot that way. Either way, there's no denying it's going to look fantastic in that format.

As much as I love large-format films, I agree that it seems wasteful in this day and age. Very few people are going to be able to see this projected in 65mm, and I'm not sure the added detail on the negative is appreciable in a 35mm or 2K digital reduction or on Blu-ray.

eerik wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has nothing to do with IMAX. It was shot in the same 65mm cameras used for 2001, etc. Hollywood classics, not with IMAX cameras. Aspect ratios are completely different.

No, you're right. IMAX film and 65mm film are different, but IMAX theatres are probably the only theatres left equipped to project 65mm.

eerik wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has nothing to do with IMAX. It was shot in the same 65mm cameras used for 2001, etc. Hollywood classics, not with IMAX cameras. Aspect ratios are completely different.

Wait, does IMAX have a set aspect ratio? I never heard of that one.

Anyways, the standard for 65mm tends to be IMAX nowadays and the only places that can really project 65mm are probably IMAX equipped theaters.

Tell that to the 2001: A Space Odyssey Blu-ray, Matt!

Well, yeah, and I've seen VistaVision films in 1080p that look like you could walk right into them. But the clarity of 35mm film in 2012 is miles ahead of 35mm film in 1968, not to mention shooting something on a 4K or 5K digital camera. Using 65mm film today is an artistic decision as quaint as shooting with vintage lenses or using only vegetable dyes for your period costumes. Very few people will notice the difference (unless you're actually projecting in 65mm).

The linked article stresses that Nolan shot portions of THE DARK KNIGHT in 65mm as did Bird on MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL. These films were shot with IMAX theaters in mind, so the implication is THE MASTER might be headed that way too. Those who've seen THE DARK KNIGHT blu-ray know that the aspect ratio changes between 2.35:1 (for the 35mm footage) and something close to 1.78:1 (for the 65mm footage). This replicates how the film was screened in IMAX theaters whereas the aspect ratio was a consistent 2.35:1 for standard theaters.

I agree with mfunk9786 that there is an improvement when a blu-ray is sourced from a larger negative, but that difference would still not be worth the cost of shooting a film in 65mm unless IMAX was a real consideration for theatrical showings.

Matt wrote:Well, yeah, and I've seen VistaVision films in 1080p that look like you could walk right into them. But the clarity of 35mm film in 2012 is miles ahead of 35mm film in 1968, not to mention shooting something on a 4K or 5K digital camera. Using 65mm film today is an artistic decision as quaint as shooting with vintage lenses or using only vegetable dyes for your period costumes. Very few people will notice the difference.

Why didn't you tell me that before?!

IMAX and what Anderson is using (which I believe is basically Super Panavision 70) both use 65mm negatives. IMAX has a native ratio of 1.44:1, and SP70 has a native ratio of 2.20:1. They both use spherical lenses, but IMAX runs through the camera horizontally, and is 15 perfs wide. SP70 runs through vertically and is 5 perfs tall.

I'm all for filmmakers using large format stocks, and would love to see that become a trend. Unfortunately, as Matt has pointed out, that's only useful if there are theaters capable of projecting the image. I'm afraid I'll probably see The Master projected in 4K or a 35mm reduction print. I assume the 65mm projectors in IMAX cinemas could show it, but those tend to be reserved for blockbusters.

Matt wrote:Well, yeah, and I've seen VistaVision films in 1080p that look like you could walk right into them. But the clarity of 35mm film in 2012 is miles ahead of 35mm film in 1968, not to mention shooting something on a 4K or 5K digital camera. Using 65mm film today is an artistic decision as quaint as shooting with vintage lenses or using only vegetable dyes for your period costumes. Very few people will notice the difference (unless you're actually projecting in 65mm).

Can Blu-Ray capitalize on 65mm's capabilities then? I remember being absolutely blown away while watching The New World on blu ray and definitely could tell the difference between that and 35mm films.

Being a larger sized negative, the choice to shoot in 65mm surely affects qualities of the image beyond simple resolution. The most obvious is probably depth of field; when you step up in sensor (for digital) or negative (for film) size, it changes the type lens you need to achieve the same coverage. So to get the kind of perspective a 50mm gives you on normal 35mm, at 65mm you would need something closer to 100mm. In photography, the longer your focal length, the shallower your depth of field is at the same f-stop. That's one reason the focus pullers on The Dark Knight had such a hard time, they're filming action and the margin of error was slimmer than your typical 35mm setup because there is always less in focus. It's also what give the Canon 5D its unique look, the full-frame sensor is larger than standard 35mm motion picture film even though the video resolution is way, way less.

Simply saying we won't notice a resolution boost in 35mm reduction prints or 1080p bluray is missing the point; it's about aesthetics.

James Mills wrote: I remember being absolutely blown away while watching The New World on blu ray and definitely could tell the difference between that and 35mm films.

Really? Because it was almost entirely shot in 35. Only a handful of scenes were shot in 65mm, and (apparently) only one scene made it into the final cut. Can you tell which one?

Contrary to many opinions, I think there should be MORE shooting on 65mm, because it is by far the most future resistent format out there. Digital films shot at 2k or 4K are forever limited by their format, and the challenge will be how to deal with them in the future where 8K, 12K, 16K and beyond are commonplace, and high def has gone the way of standard def.

Film you can keep scanning, and scanning in high resolution, and it will resolve quite nicely, though the grain on the smaller gauge films can limit useable resolution.

65mm by comparison needs at least 8K scanning to really capture the useable detail, and probably even better suited to 12K or 16k. So it can withstand the test of time, as new technologies emerge, 65mm neg can simply be scanned again and again and it will hold up and last for decades, generations even.

Not to mention it is surely the most versatile high quality format. 5 perf 65mm, shot at 2.20 AS reduces beautifully to 35mm, yielding a print superior in quality than 35 to 35. It would blow up quite nicely to Imax, and with simple letterboxing on top and bottom. On blu-ray it is quite simply glorious. See "Baraka" if you want a taste of it.

As for cost, the investment is minimal. Cameras rent for the same rates at 35mm, and often Kodak will sell the stock for competitive rates; when Ron Howard shot "Far and Away" in 65mm, he paid the same price as 35mm stock.

The real expense is in the processing which is significantly more. It will add an estimated $500,000 to a film's budget. So 65mm is not for any ole production. But when you're a studio shooting a 150,000,000 picture, what is $500,000 more to ensure a production that will be future proofed for decades? 65mm is great insurance, and I think the studios are crazy for rejecting it. Then again, if QUALITY was of ANY concern to them, we'd be shooting all our color productions in the 3-strip technicolor process and printing in dye-transfer, but that's another story...

Matt wrote:

James Mills wrote: I remember being absolutely blown away while watching The New World on blu ray and definitely could tell the difference between that and 35mm films.

Really? Because it was almost entirely shot in 35. Only a handful of scenes were shot in 65mm, and (apparently) only one scene made it into the final cut. Can you tell which one?

That's what we in the internet business call ownage

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Anyways, the standard for 65mm tends to be IMAX nowadays and the only places that can really project 65mm are probably IMAX equipped theaters.

I can't speak for other cities, but the big screens in and around Leicester Square in London can certainly project 70mm, though they've not been called upon to do this for some years. The last 70mm release I can remember was the 2001 reissue of 2001 at the Curzon Mayfair. (The recent reissue of West Side Story, a film shot in 65mm, was wholly digital as far as I could gather.)

Incidentally, there is another 65mm/70mm production on its way: Ron Fricke's Samsara. (I saw Baraka in 70mm at the what was then called the MGM Haymarket way back in 1993.)

Matt wrote:

James Mills wrote: I remember being absolutely blown away while watching The New World on blu ray and definitely could tell the difference between that and 35mm films.

Really? Because it was almost entirely shot in 35. Only a handful of scenes were shot in 65mm, and (apparently) only one scene made it into the final cut. Can you tell which one?

Hmm, for some reason I wanna say I particularly remember a tracking shot early on where John Smith approaches the camera through the trees and then looks out over the mountain's cliff and over the ocean. But besides that, I kept thinking that a good portion of it was at 65mm because it looked so amazing (but perhaps my watching was tainted because I went into thinking that a good portion was 65mm, so I just convinced myself). I think the blu-ray is also an extended cut, so perhaps some of the extra scenes / shots were 65mm?

GaryC wrote:Incidentally, there is another 65mm/70mm production on its way: Ron Fricke's Samsara. (I saw Baraka in 70mm at the what was then called the MGM Haymarket way back in 1993.)

Unfortunately, while it may have been shot in 65mm, Samsara is not getting released in any 70mm prints - digital 4K only. (Baraka is being reissued by the same distributor (Arrow) - again digital-only.) Could they not have struck just one 70mm print? This is very disappointing.

Given that West Side Story (also shot in 65mm) was reissued digital-only last year, I hope this isn't a trend, and I hope that this does not happen to The Master, whenever it is released.

Film savior and all-around awesome person Megan Ellison has tweeted that the release date for The Master is hopefully going to be in October.

I haven't been so excited for a film since... There Will Be Blood, probably

Weinstein Co. has officially set release date as October 12. \:D/

Oh my goodness. A trailer should be right around the corner.

Film still being edited, PTA contacts Cigarettes and Red Vines directly to provide an exclusive negative clipping.

That shot looks just about as Kubrickian as it gets.

mfunk9786 wrote:Film still being edited, PTA contacts Cigarettes and Red Vines directly to provide an exclusive negative clipping.

That shot looks just about as Kubrickian as it gets.

How awesome is that to see someone cutting a 65mm negative with a pair of scissors and nary a computer in sight. Real hand-made film. Fantastic!

(Yeah, I know I'll only get to see a 35 mm reduction or a 4K scan of that negative, but in principle, it's still really cool.)

Knowing PT's sensibilities, and given he probably lobbied hard to shoot 65mm to begin with, I'd be surprised if they DIDN'T strike at least one 70mm print, perhaps for the premiere, and then for special occasions after.

It's rare but not uncommon for one or two prints to be struck. James Cameron insisted on having one or two 70mm blowups made of Titanic, which later made the rounds in a few spots stateside and in Europe. And Disney's "Dinosaur" also had a single 70mm blowup made.

Yes, a 70mm print costs around 100,000, IIRC. But for a major multi million dollar production, that is a drop in the bucket to do just ONE. And in the end, I think everyone will be to curious to see what it looks like on the big screen in 70, to do just one print for the gala premiere.

Just a shame that only a privileged few will get to see this. I've seen Hamlet in 70, as well as Baraka (struck in a new print from the OCN) and both share top ranks for my most memorable movie-going experiences. They were utterly glorious to look at, and Hamlet's 4.5 hour runtime (including intermission) flew by. Honestly, I could watch a film about paint drying if it were shot in Super Panavision 70 or Imax.

70mm aside, the 4K and 35mm reductions of the original will still be quite spectacular. Crisp visuals with nary a spot of grain. They'll be marvelous.

My goodness, can that man cut a teaser trailer that gets your blood boiling in anticipation or what? Interesting aspect ratio... his first film not in 2.35:1.