Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Inherent Vice 70mm

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Inherent Vice 70mm (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Inherent Vice 70mm

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 12-14-2014 12:28 PM

well aside from this release two other 70mm features are promised for 2015

- Quentin Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight"
- Terence Davies' "Sunset Song"

'Jurassic World' ? - I can dream can't I [Wink]

with 4K creeping into 'home' theater faster than the commercial theaters [word is that 4K blurays will hit the market in the fourth quarter of 2015], why the hell is 4K DCP's a rare commodity?

| IP: Logged

Mike Schulz
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 122
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: May 2007

posted 12-14-2014 01:35 PM

I attended a SMPTE meeting recently and the main presenter mentioned that we need to be really skeptical with the upcoming "4K" Bluray releases. Almost all current feature film post production is being master with a 2K DI workflow and the reason is data capacity and bandwidth. If you are using a 4K DI, the data storage space required raises astronomically and if you are rendering (VFX and especially fully animated features), the rendering time is also astronomically more which can delay post production and other problems.

Due to this, a very large percentage of "4K" releases will literally be up-scaled from a 2K master. Just food for thought for those of you who like to jump on bleeding edge tech bandwagons.

- I should also mention that this is strictly done in post production so they still might have a 4K source (or even 6K or 8K from a film scan) but they down-scale it to 2K for post, and then up-scale it back to 4K for release.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 12-15-2014 02:28 AM

With no confirmed prints for Europe, we're again out of luck here.

I think the only reason to go for a 70mm release, even if it's a 35mm blowup, is because anno 2014/2015 it's the only way to ensure it even has the chance to get a proper, high quality presentation on film.

Still, if you free your mind from nostalgia and look at it objectively... Those 70mm presentations will most likely not look much better than any decent 4K presentation, but at a much higher cost.

If 5/70mm is to have a future, the source material should really be (largely) shot on 65mm.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 12-15-2014 03:22 AM

It's odd in some way, that the Studio advert in LAT does not mention 70mm at all.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-15-2014 11:00 AM

I'm kind of surprised the Dallas-Fort Worth market didn't get one of those Inherent Vice prints. Brad's three 70mm setups aren't permanent, but something probably could have been worked out to get at least one print into the metroplex.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
with 4K creeping into 'home' theater faster than the commercial theaters [word is that 4K blurays will hit the market in the fourth quarter of 2015], why the hell is 4K DCP's a rare commodity?

Two things: Money and 3D.

It's true 4K UHDTV sets are proliferating now at a surprisingly affordable rate. I bought a new 65" 1080p HDTV set a few months ago and now wish I would have waited. My girlfriend's daughter bought a Samsung 55" 4K TV for a little over $1500 and the same Sears store had a 65" 4K TV for $2200 -that's only a couple hundred more than I paid for my TV set.

More consumer devices are suppoting 4K video capture. Several smart phone models can do. GoPro cameras can capture 4K. Some new DSLR models offer it as well.

In movie production 4K is still kind of a rare thing, although it is starting to become more common. 2K is a whole lot cheaper to produce and store. Movies with 3D versions will almost always be limited to 2K because commercial movie theaters can't show 3D movies in 4K. Plus a 3D movie in 4K would have pretty tremendous bandwidth and storage requirements. Nevertheless, Hollywood studios will be under a whole lot of pressure to deliver since the next generation of digital projection systems will support 4K 3D.

quote: Mike Schulz
I attended a SMPTE meeting recently and the main presenter mentioned that we need to be really skeptical with the upcoming "4K" Bluray releases.

At the very least, consumer hardware is going to be hitting shelves by late 2015. There is a lot of pressure to make 4K Blu-ray players available. Current hard disc based 4K movie players are brand specific, limited in title selection and expensive. I'm under the impression Sony's 4K media players are limited to Sony studio product. When you buy a movie you have to download it -a huge download. Netflix is offering 4K streaming of certain titles like House of Cards. But you must have one hell of a fast connection to actually get the video stream in 4K. Blu-ray players with 4K capability will solve some of those problems.

The consumer electronics industry isn't going to hold back on 4K. They need to be able to sell "the next big thing." The market is saturated with standard 1080p TV sets with very little room for profit.

quote: Mike Schulz
Due to this, a very large percentage of "4K" releases will literally be up-scaled from a 2K master. Just food for thought for those of you who like to jump on bleeding edge tech bandwagons.

If this is actually happening on a lot of titles the movie studios are going to get found out about it. They already know various review sites often don't pull any punches. Some movie productions are maintaining 4K resolution all the way through the post production pipeline. Much of Gone Girl was actually shot in 6K. David Fincher and his crew used the extra image real estate to either adjust compositions, either cropping or down-sampling to 4K.

Basically the movies that are fake 4K are going to get compared to real 4K movies and not be treated kindly over it.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-15-2014 02:48 PM

Wrt to 4K versus 70mm on 35mm source material (blow ups)...really? You can't tell a 35mm versus a 4K image? And then you can't really tell a 70mm image (even from 35mm source) from 4K? While the resolution is just about there, the color and definitely the contrast is not. Also, there are no Morie patterns on the screen. [Razz]

And the case of the typical AMC/Regal 4K theatre...with the 70mm print, there would only be one image coming out of the port!

So yeah, I'll still take a 70mm blowup to a 4K DCP or 35mm release print...every time...the odds are just better on the outcome.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-15-2014 04:52 PM

They wanted a 6 week minimum booking for a 70mm print...at Christmas...on a small movie.

Had they released in January it would have happened, but not in December for that movie.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-15-2014 06:07 PM

I can kind of understand that. It is a substantial investment for the print...and for the theatre, you get a bit of an exclusivity for a month.

Historically a 70mm title would have been worth a 6-week run, minimum!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-15-2014 07:31 PM

Maybe if the movie had been filmed in 5/65mm, and scored a little better with critics, it might have been worth a 6 week run.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-16-2014 06:37 AM

Yeah but you are getting a rather lengthy exclusivity with it. I believe 4-weeks. Even a marginal movie will do well if the nearest theatre to you is hundreds of miles away. Unless you are totally out of market, you'll likely do better with that sort of deal than being one of hundreds if not over a 1000 theatres running a title of a "hit" movie.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-16-2014 09:37 AM

Again, it's the timing of it. The movie just isn't big enough in this day and age to warrant a 6 week run which for most of the existing 70mm first run theaters to tie up their largest auditorium for the entire holiday season.

I'm working on a way for the two Dallas SMG locations to be able to move the 70mm into a smaller (not small, just not the biggest house) which would have helped in this scenario.

But I thought I read Vice was playing in a digital auditorium at the 70mm complex in California. Is this the case? If so then the studio screwed up and should've made it a 70mm exclusive (not even 35mm like Nolan did) and only after a month let it go to other formats.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-16-2014 10:30 AM

Yeah, I can recall a few movie releases with exclusives in New York City where the movie was playing at only one theater in Manhattan and in 70mm Dolby mag before going wide to other theaters days or weeks later. This was usually done for movies released near the end of the year just in time to squeak under the wire for Oscar™ consideration.

Inherent Vice might have been a natural for that treatment. It would have allowed the expensive 70mm print to be hyped more in the ads (as has been done in the past).

Unfortunately the investor-driven nature of the movie business these days often dictates pushing a movie out to as many screens as possible, fast as possible. Get the theatrical run played out and over with ASAP and get on to the home video release platforms quickly to pay down loans and eliminate interest payments. Executives don't have very much patience for "platforming" a movie release from a handful of exclusive screens to adding more and more on a steady pace weeks later.

Inherent Vice may have had less trouble getting a 6 week 70mm exclusive if the movie had been released in January, April or late August, traditionally times when studios are clearing out a lot of crap product and it sucks to go to a movie theater. But I think the studio intended Inherent Vice to be in the running for various awards, hence the December release date.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 12-16-2014 04:47 PM

quote: Brad Miller
I thought I read Vice was playing in a digital auditorium at the 70mm complex in California. Is this the case?

Yes, it appears so. If the ArcLight's showtime breakdown is correct, "Inherent Vice" is playing on three screens: two in 70mm and one DCP. (One of the two 70mm presentations is in the Dome.)

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-16-2014 08:54 PM

quote:
- Terence Davies' "Sunset Song"

Really? The combined grosses of every film he has ever made probably wouldn't pay for the prints. Beautiful filmmaker, but who did he sleep with to get a 70mm release?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-16-2014 10:51 PM

Apparently they're shooting Sunset Song in 5/65mm using the Arri 765 camera. An article in the Hollywood Reporter talked about the use of 65mm film to capture the Scottish landscape.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.