|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood 70mm/35mm release?
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 08-11-2019 04:37 PM
quote: Emiel De Jong
You mean the camera lenses, or the anamorphic attachments used for projection? I have seen the attachments can cause trouble: the show I saw in Amsterdam had some sharpness issues: the image was sharp in the center field and the area around it slightly blurred, after the intermission it was the other way round.
Maybe I was lucky, I've also seen it in 70mm in the same theater and the presentation itself was good, but not perfect, at least I didn't encounter uneven focus across the picture.
But I've seen similar focus issues during the latest screening of 2001 in 70mm in the same theater, although this was obviously without an anamorphic lens. Also, there have been a lot of comments regarding the print quality of that latest 70mm Nolan-sponsored release, which was notoriously "unaltered", so maybe it was the print...
Also, their Kinotons seem to have slight registration issues on both screenings. I've seen steadier 70mm projections even on Vic-8's...
Too bad they don't use a pair of DP-70s, but I guess they made their choice based on part availability and technical knowledge at hand.
But in case of the H8 print, maybe the print itself wasn't entirely steady, like Steve mentioned and I'm blaming them for nothing.
My opinion might be unpopular, but I thought that the use of Ultra Panavision 70 was pretty misplaced for a release like H8, where the format had almost no added value. Then again, it's only one guy who could've pulled it off... I consider it his personal f-u towards Hollywood for trashing film...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 08-12-2019 05:13 AM
After the clarification of my question, for which I thank the forum that not a single 70mm print of THE HATEFUL 8 was included in the evaluation, which was produced according to the traditional 70mm principle, some legends have to be cleared up, according to which in city X, Y or Z a result was achieved that was even close to the level of the 1960s or somehow new and modern so called stunning levels. In four cities I have seen this H8 experiment full of hope, and also the use of the projection lenses recommended by the production company could not overturn this general evaluation and ideologically lapsed from the questionableness of a controversial photography and the film print quality rightly deplored in this thread as well.
If THE HATEFUL 8 introduces the marketing attribute "perfect", then the views on research but also defence of really worth preserving characteristics of roadshow procedures are far apart.
But everyone is free to like or dislike something...
I am afraid we lose sight of the overall context. Even if the projection quality of H8 in 70mm was, in my opinion, excellent in at least two or three European cities, it does not help to overcome the often mentioned lack of sharpness, contrast or color timing of the new 70mm prints. The fact that a normal digital projection of ONCE UPON A TIME IN H. in Los Angeles is richer in contrast and brighter versus the 35mm print does not prove the superiority of Digital Cinema, but the deficiencies and financial budgets of the 35mm laboratories works.
It is absolutely true to point out that the "lack of competition" has always led to a decline in quality in the history of film processing.
Allow me to cite a few examples of my disappointment with THE HATEFUL 8:
- permanently fluctuating color and light balance, especially in the hut at the end. Anyone who has ever worked in a laboratory knows how demanding the color timing of snow scenes is. Already here THE HATEFUL 8 collapsed all along the line regarding the snow scenes in the beginning: sometimes green, sometimes yellow, sometimes blue-green-blue and altogether too darkly timed. On the other hand there existed an other Ultra Panavision film with snow scenes in excellent film print quality in 1965 with stunning snow scenes: THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
- "Razor-sharp images, pseudoplastic images without glasses, brighter images of 70mm images"? Seen in THE HATEFUL 8? There is to ask: On what basis should H8 have achieved these advantages? On the basis of a dup print over two further generations to this Intermediate?
We are convinced that the 70mm result seen with H8 in terms of sharpness and resolution could have been achieved with 35mm photography. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that the filmmakers got better results and better than DCPs when viewing the 70mm dailies derived off the 65mm OCN, but unfortunately not the rest of the world
- Compared to Ultra Panavision productions like KHARTOUM, THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HALLELUJAH TRAIL, BEN HUR or MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY you might ask, what is more interesting, new, sharper, more steadiness, more immersive or "perfect" about THE HATEFUL 8? I ask for examples
There would have been possibilities to avoid these weaknesses, both with regard to photography and undoubtedly with regard to the film laboratory.
One explanation is that the interest, but also the influence of the filmmakers on the film laboratories that still exist today is limited. Therefore I think it came also for the first time to the compulsion for Mr. Q.T. to work on ONCE UPON A TIME IN H. with film prints over the digital Intermediate Process. Another is that in recent years there has been a reduction in the workforce at the aforementioned lab due to economic bottlenecks.
One final explanation is that the photochemical development process is now difficult to get under control.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 08-13-2019 04:12 AM
Interview with the DOP Mr. Richardson (HATEFUL 8, ONCE UPON A TIME IN H.) in "Filmmaker":
Filmmaker: Not only did you shoot on film, but you projected your dailies on film as well.
Richardson: Yes, we printed every select in 35mm. That’s the way Quentin reviews the dailies—35mm projected on a screen. So, if you fail in shooting, you fail in your dailies. There’s no correcting. There was a digital aspect in that we did a digital intermediate, which we didn’t do on The Hateful Eight. However, that digital intermediate was all about replicating the work accomplished in our 35mm dailies.
Filmmaker: There are about 50 theaters playing the movie in 35mm on opening weekend and another half dozen screening it in 70mm. When you did The Hateful Eight, there were a lot of stories about the monumental undertaking of getting the 70mm projectors up and running. Were there any similar difficulties for the 35mm release of Once Upon a Time In Hollywood?
Richardson: From [an equipment] perspective, no, there wasn’t that much work because there are so many theaters that still have 35mm projection equipment. But there are very few people who know how to properly project film. It’s an art that’s lost. Because of that, the projection is going to be hit or miss. We’ve lost that art, we’ve lost that skill. Just like we’re going to lose [the art of film development]. How many labs can actually take film in and develop it and print it? Very few. We’re going to lose that art and I’m sad about that. I love digital as well. Don’t look at me as a naysayer. I love both, but we need to keep film alive.
https://filmmakermagazine.co m/107926-there-is-no-video-village-dp-robert-richardson-on-shooting-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-in-35mm/?fbclid=IwAR1NmXm-OzGpsR7LxKMM0v5NmASMMHCTzs_0JrgF3jix25mbMEoEQTXKJcU#.XUkobfIzZaQ
-> How many labs can actually take film in and develop it and print it? Very few. We’re going to lose that art and I’m sad about that.
This statement could already have been made 15 years ago, at least with regard to many 70mm prints and in the recent years also the development of original negatives. First and foremost the 70mm prints of since about 2002 have now the so-called Orwocolor Look (green-yellow, wrong gradation, lack of contrast, lack of color saturation, some losses in the shadow zones), which in the decades of cinema distribution before neither with Eastman Color nor Fujicolor applied and deeply dejected.
Some titles with the so called "70mm Orwocolor look": MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS, PHANTOM THREAD, "Christopher Nolan's" 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, INTERSTELLAR, DUNKIRK, DOCTOR DOLITTLE, SPARTACUS/LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (prints from about 2003) and so on.
This suddenly becomes clear even to people who have never worked in a lab or who have been trained in photography, as soon as the comparison appeared later on home cinema editions (Blu ray Disc of INTERSTELLAR, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY [still recognizable in places in the Blu ray version from 2008], PHANTOM THREAD, SPARTACUS [version from 2014]). It is astonishing that suddenly (with the delay of a finalized post-production) "original" film qualities usual for decades become visible again, although it would have been the task of the photochemical labs to defend such standards.
Even with the 70mm 5perf print of INTERSTELLAR, I was surprised that the Warner distribution mark was still sharp, but the rest of the film unfortunately showed a slight weakness of the dupnegative. Later, the Blu ray disc could be considered to be absolutely flawless, true to color and also sufficiently sharp (this doesn't concern the photographic style).
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Kornfeld
Film Handler
Posts: 24
From: Cambridge, MA/USA, USA
Registered: Apr 2017
|
posted 08-13-2019 03:52 PM
quote: Tyler Purcell
The projection lenses had an issue. Evidently when they'd heat up, the elements were shifting.
There were two different sets of lenses manufactured for H8's release. The first set, the majority, were made by ISCO. The second set, the minority, were made by Hyperion.
I was told the ISCO lenses were troublesome, but, as I only handled a bunch of them & never actually used them, I cant say for certain. I will say that the suggestion that the elements heated up & lost focus strikes me as unlikely. Some KOWA lenses, sure, that could happen. ISCOs? I'm doubtful. There are so many varying factors that can cause focus problems in 70mm, I would be hesitant to place the blame on this single cause.
The Hyperion lenses were reverse anamorphics, & those were the lenses I used, and those, if they were correctly adjusted -- repeat: correctly adjusted -- were pin sharp. And there was no focus drift at all. And my theatre ran H8 longer than any other venue in the country, so I had ample time to check.
quote: Gutzeit
But there are very few people who know how to properly project film. It’s an art that’s lost. Because of that, the projection is going to be hit or miss. We’ve lost that art, we’ve lost that skill. Just like we’re going to lose [the art of film development].
Okay, time to get real: film projection is a CRAFT, not an "art." Film processing & printing are CRAFTS, not "arts." Whats next? The "art" of changing a tyre? The "art" of pouring cement? The "art" of house painting? The "art" of tying a necktie?
People: we tiny few who continue to work in this DYING CRAFT are not composing Beethoven's Ninth, or scribing Othello, or directing Citizen Kane. We are running machines & showing a movie. And when we go -- and we will! -- we'll take our CRAFT down with us, & it will die the way so many other crafts have died.
But, hey: if Mr Tarantino wants to cut me a large cheque to thank me for being one of the very few projectionists to keep his new print in pristine condition -- and I have! -- I'll be happy to cash it in!
quote: also Gutzeit
On the other hand there existed an other Ultra Panavision film with snow scenes in excellent film print quality in 1965 with stunning snow scenes: THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
Yeah: I'd really like to know where exactly you had a chance to see an LPP UP reprint of that movie. Is there one floating around that I havent heard of? Because if there is, I'd love to book it & run it. I know there are none in the US, & the one print in Europe that I do know about has completely faded.
Very interested in your reply. Sure hope youre not talking about one of the Tech prints, as that would be an unfair comparison.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 08-13-2019 08:42 PM
quote: David Kornfeld
There were two different sets of lenses manufactured for H8's release. The first set, the majority, were made by ISCO. The second set, the minority, were made by Hyperion.
I was told the ISCO lenses were troublesome, but, as I only handled a bunch of them & never actually used them, I cant say for certain. I will say that the suggestion that the elements heated up & lost focus strikes me as unlikely. Some KOWA lenses, sure, that could happen. ISCOs? I'm doubtful. There are so many varying factors that can cause focus problems in 70mm, I would be hesitant to place the blame on this single cause.
The Hyperion lenses were reverse anamorphics, & those were the lenses I used, and those, if they were correctly adjusted -- repeat: correctly adjusted -- were pin sharp. And there was no focus drift at all. And my theatre ran H8 longer than any other venue in the country, so I had ample time to check.
Yes must have been the ISCO's. All I know is what I was told and what I saw with my own eyes. I saw Hateful Eight 3 times, once was with the original 1960's panavsion projection lenses over a month before the theatrical release at a special DGA screening. It was flawless. The 2nd time at LACMA during a double screening of It's a Mad Mad Mad world and Hateful Eight. During that screening, the lenses were screwed up. I then saw Hateful Eight at the Laemmle with the same issues, all be it a bit better. The issues were odd out of focus blotches, it was a real oddball.
quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
This suddenly becomes clear even to people who have never worked in a lab or who have been trained in photography, as soon as the comparison appeared later on home cinema editions (Blu ray Disc of INTERSTELLAR, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY [still recognizable in places in the Blu ray version from 2008], PHANTOM THREAD, SPARTACUS [version from 2014]). It is astonishing that suddenly (with the delay of a finalized post-production) "original" film qualities usual for decades become visible again, although it would have been the task of the photochemical labs to defend such standards. Even with the 70mm 5perf print of INTERSTELLAR, I was surprised that the Warner distribution mark was still sharp, but the rest of the film unfortunately showed a slight weakness of the dupnegative. Later, the Blu ray disc could be considered to be absolutely flawless, true to color and also sufficiently sharp (this doesn't concern the photographic style).
Honestly, when doing a photochemical blow up from 35mm to 70mm, there are a lot of variables. Interstellar was "soft" but it had good contrast and excellent colors, especially the 15 perf scenes. I've seen it on 5 perf many times and of course have the BluRay to compare it to. The BluRay looks flat and uninteresting, the 70mm print has so much more depth to it.
I watched the new print of 2001 made from the original IP, which looked like dogshit, soft, noisy, lots of registration issues. Then I saw the new Nolan version and outside of some very minor issues with Nolans grading choices, it looked amazing. Far better than the BluRay, perfectly sharp and you could actually see the grain, where the BluRay is flat and uninteresting in comparison.
The Phantom Thread is a different story, the 70mm prints were outstanding, one of the best I've ever seen. Color was spot on, looks identical to the BluRay. Why it's different is because it's a spherical show, so blowing up was a lot easier and it worked great. I was very impressed with the print and saw it twice.
Yes, Fotokem is the last lab doing 70mm print work in the world. There are rumors of a new lab opening in Europe AND another in Arizona, both dedicated to large format. Until they open, we're stuck with Fotokem, who did an OK job on Once Upon a Time, but not a perfect job. One of the rolls of the print I saw wasn't very good, but I didn't really care, the film over-all looked great from start to finish.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 15 pages: 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic