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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » TOO LATE - 35mm only release (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: TOO LATE - 35mm only release Stephan Shelley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 854 From: castro valley, CA, usa Registered: Nov 2014 posted 03-03-2016 06:05 PM                     The Berkeley engagement is in El Cerrito. The Rialto Cinemas theatre in Berkeley does not have 35 mm capabilities anymore. The El Cerrito theatre does.  |  IP: Logged Matt Miller Film Handler Posts: 10 From: Los Angeles, CA, USA Registered: Dec 2015 posted 03-11-2016 12:59 AM                        Thanks Stephan. We'll fix the listing. Everyone, feel free to watch the first entry in our series of TOO LATE featurettes: "Why 35mm": http://deadline.com/2016/03/cast-crew-of-neo-noir-too-late-talk-exclusive-35mm-release-1201716626/  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 03-11-2016 07:07 AM                     Oh man this is so exciting! Calendar is marked!  |  IP: Logged Ed Inman Expert Film Handler Posts: 103 From: Jackson, Mississippi USA Registered: Jul 2004 posted 03-16-2016 05:51 PM                        Hi Matt, Congratulations on the film. I only have one question: I saw the video on facebook about how you were shooting continuous 20-minute takes with 1000 feet of 35mm film. How is that possible? Assuming you were shooting at standard 24 fps 1000' of 35mm film runs for 11 min., 7 sec. using 4-perf frames. Even if you shoot 3-perf that only lengthens the time to 14 min., 49 sec. It just doesn't seem to add up unless I'm missing something. Thanks in advance for any clarification you can offer. --Ed  |  IP: Logged Shawn M. Martin Expert Film Handler Posts: 175 From: Arlington, VA, USA Registered: Feb 2012 posted 03-16-2016 06:11 PM                    They shot 2-perf. Just over 22 minutes per 1000 feet.  |  IP: Logged Ed Inman Expert Film Handler Posts: 103 From: Jackson, Mississippi USA Registered: Jul 2004 posted 03-16-2016 06:18 PM                        Interesting. Never heard of such. I assumed they must have used two cameras and as seamlessly as possible switched over half way through.  |  IP: Logged Stephan Shelley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 854 From: castro valley, CA, usa Registered: Nov 2014 posted 03-16-2016 06:30 PM                     It is known as techniscope. Was popular as a cinemascope alternative in the 60s. Lower resiloution that cinemascope.  |  IP: Logged Matt Miller Film Handler Posts: 10 From: Los Angeles, CA, USA Registered: Dec 2015 posted 03-17-2016 01:53 PM                        Hi Ed, and thanks! Shawn and Stephan are correct. We shot in the Techniscope (aka "2-perf") format. Basically, each shot in TOO LATE is the length of an entire reel (roughly 20-22 minutes). There are no hidden cuts, no digital stitching or anything like that. Everything was accomplished in camera and on set with the crew. The camera rig was so heavy that we had to use two steadicam operators who would handoff the camera mid-take like a baton so that one could rest while the other continued the second half of the shot. You can see how we did it in this behind the scenes featurette: TOO LATE: "Steadicam Handoff" Featurette  |  IP: Logged Daniel Schulz Master Film Handler Posts: 387 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 03-20-2016 01:53 AM                        quote: Stephan Shelley It is known as techniscope. Was popular as a cinemascope alternative in the 60s. Lower resiloution that cinemascope. Techniscope was especially popular for spaghetti Westerns. I am going to see this with my wife on Sunday, 3/20 at the Sundance Cinemas in West Hollywood. Thanks Mr. Miller for engaging with the forum, and thanks for helping to bring this to the screen on film!  |  IP: Logged Tyler Purcell Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Van Nuys, CA Registered: Dec 2015 posted 03-23-2016 02:42 AM                        Hey guys, so I saw Too Late in 35 at the Sunset 5 tonight. I've been looking forward to seeing it, not just for the 35 projection, but also the 2 perf AND 20 minute takes. Unfortunately, the print looked like it was dragged along the floor for quite sometime. Reel's one and two were solid/deep scratches. Reel three and four weren't so bad, but reel five was toast as well. Again, to me it looked like cinch marks, same complaint I had with the Star Wars screening at the Vista. I can't imagine a projector making those scratches, they were so deep, right into the color layers on reel five. What kills me is that the print wasn't dirty, it was just scratched. Also, the projectionist never bothered focusing it, even after I complained. He went back, did a small tweak, but it was absolutely out of focus. I was very dismayed with the screening because honestly, we're suppose to be film advocates which means, we need to make sure what we show is absolute top notch. The filmmakers spent all this time creating this film in 35mm to benefit the format and tell a story in an unconventional way. It was clearly a lot of work and to see it wasted by a bad print, it just ticked me off. I don't see how anyone would come out of that screening happy with the results of the filmmakers hard work. I know how hard it is to get a film distributed/released, especially with only a few recognizable cast members. It's even harder to get 35mm releases today, which makes the road Too Late took, even more remarkable. With that said, I feel the filmmakers could have spent a bit more time on the script and focused less on the single shot gimmick. To me, a lot of great moments were wasted due to the nature of the photography process. Sure, it draws people like myself to go and see how it came out, but the vast majority of audiences don't care and it does hurt the film. Why? Well because it's impossible to light for 20 minute takes outside in daylight for instance. It's also impossible to properly pace scenes AND I felt the acting lacked due to the nerves of the cast members trying to get through yet another 20 minute take. So as a consequence of the gimmick, the film was a bit weaker. I was also a bit dismayed that it was DI print. I could tell right away it wasn't done photochemically, some bright highlights were blown out with noise and that just doesn't happen with a photochemical finish. Once you go DI, you might as well project digitally, you don't GAIN anything from scanning negative and printing back to film, you actually loose quality. I gather the filmmakers choose DI because they were shooing 2 perf (due to the long takes) and if I know FotoKem, they over-charge for the optical blow up and claim it looks bad so it drives people away from making it. They want the easy way out, which means 4k scan, digital finish and film-out. If it were my movie, I would have forgotten the gimmick and stuck to a complete photochemical finish, which in my opinion, would have made it A LOT BETTER, for sure less grainy, absolutely better performances for the weaker cast members and more interesting because you can build pacing better. So yea, those are just my thoughts and I'm sorry if they aren't all positive. It was well worth watching to see what other young filmmakers are doing today with their low budget movies and I learned quite a bit from the screening and the direction I will take with my upcoming projects.  |  IP: Logged Daniel Schulz Master Film Handler Posts: 387 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Registered: Sep 2003 posted 03-23-2016 09:53 AM                        quote: Reel's one and two were solid/deep scratches. Reel three and four weren't so bad, but reel five was toast as well. <snip> I was also a bit dismayed that it was DI print. Yeah, those Reel 1 and 2 scratches were really bad. I was at a screening with an audience Q&A and asked about the DI - according to the director, the original plan was to do a photochemical finish, but when they hit postproduction they couldn't find a lab that could/would do the optical blowup. They were told that the printers could not be adjusted to accommodate 2-perf. One suspects that if it were Christopher Nolan a way could have been found, but for a low budget independent film the labs were not going to go out of their way to figure out a workaround.  |  IP: Logged Tyler Purcell Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: Van Nuys, CA Registered: Dec 2015 posted 03-23-2016 01:03 PM                        Right, FotoKem just made an excuse; "it can't be done" because they don't care. Lets face it, if it weren't for 65/70mm work, they would have closed their lab years ago. Every time I talk with them, they have zero interest in helping people with photochemical finishes. I've had arguments about negative cutters, they'd say "Ohh we don't have anyone anymore" and I'm like really? What about Quentin and Christopher's movies? They just make excuses why they can't do things. I would have talked with Robert @ Cinelab in Boston. He would have figured out a way to make it work.  |  IP: Logged Markus Lemm Expert Film Handler Posts: 113 From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Registered: Nov 2005 posted 03-23-2016 01:42 PM                        Hey Everybody, I'm the Projectionist at the Mayfair Theatre here in Ottawa, Canada. I can confirm that we will be screening 'Too Late' starting April 29th. Looking forward to running 35mm again. I can guarantee that it will not be plattered, as we have never owned a platter. That being said I hope we get a nice clean print. Just wondering if anyone knows how many prints were made?  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-23-2016 02:27 PM                        quote: Tyler Purcell Every time I talk with them, they have zero interest in helping people with photochemical finishes. Really? When did this change? In 2014, Foto-kem was very helpful to me with two 16mm shorts, including both 16mm prints and 35mm optical blowups. I dealt with Walt Rose and Denise Marquis there and they were both terrific to work with. And I was very much a small-time customer. Honestly, I don't see the problem with photochemical finishing of a film. Any lab should be able to do this and it is cheaper than a DI. What is actually harder is trying to find someone who can shoot titles optically on an Oxberry animation stand. I ended up finding an animator in Pittsburgh who had the requisite skills and equipment, both of which are now in short supply. Even animators who do hand-drawn work are scanning the drawings and working on computers now. This has been the case for the last decade or so, leaving very few Oxberrys and skilled animation cameramen behind.  |  IP: Logged Danny Baldwin Film Handler Posts: 5 From: Encinitas, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2011 posted 03-28-2016 09:39 PM                        Yeeeesh, I also just saw it at the Sunset 5 and that print was more beat-up than any I've seen in the last few years. Every reel was scratched; I think 3 and 4 were just less noticeable because the lighting is darker. The projectionist was completely out of focus for the first reel and after that, it wasn't perfect, only tolerable. Too bad they couldn't score an ArcLight Hollywood opening. Loved the idea, but I wished I had been watching a DCP given the circumstances.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.