|
|
 
|
|
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 07-31-2019 12:57 AM
If it's true that the 35mm and 70mm film prints originate from the same 4K DI as the DCP, then I don't know what all the fuss is about this being presented in film. It's more of a Tarantino vanity project, a half-misplaced nostalgic thing.
I haven't seen the movie yet, since it's not been released here yet, but if it's true, then I wouldn't even dare to run this in 35mm or even 70mm. If the 4K DI is the master, then all color timings were done on that. The closest thing to the 4K DI is the 4K DCP. It doesn't only have the superior image, as it involves less duplication steps (it's essentially a single step conversion of a lossless 12 bit format into a lossy, but still high quality 12 bit M-JPEG2000 format), it also has the superior sound...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 07-31-2019 05:55 AM
The frame steadiness at MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS and PHANTOM THREAD in70mm was excellent, the sharpness of the dup at PHANTOM THREAD also good. However both titles had a bad photographic quality, which was corrected in the home cinema editions (Blu ray). The same with DARK KNIGHT and DARK KNIGHT RISES in 70mm vs. Blu ray.
When 35mm was printed on traditional Bell and Howell Model C at 480 feet per minute, the picture steadiness on contact machines since 1962 was also excellent. Panel printers like BHP 7700 HD continuous motion contact printer, they was designed primarily for high-speedrelease printing, was modified for illegal speed up to [xxx] fpm in some english laboratories since the mid of 90s.
Unfortuntaly HATEFUL 8 and INTERSTELLAR in70mm had a not very satisfying picture sharpness (I have seen many hundreds of classic 70mm prints of the 60s for comparision), showed a lack of unsatisfied balanced scene by scene color correction. In 2001: ASO the color and gradation were an absolute catastrophe in the last 70mm version from 2018, but also on the home cinema media. The look of the most titles was similar to the earlier Eastern European Orwocolor prints.
Five years ago, we wondered how the filmmakers in question could go through the full analogue process from original negative to intermed positive, intermed negative and release print (Nolan, Almodovar, Tarantino) without making any compromises, and sooner or later be forced by post-production to accept the Digital Intermediate Process with certainty. This has now been proven true at ONCE U.A.T.I.H.
By the way, the fully analog 70mm film prints of HATEFUL 8 and INTERSTELLAR already looked as bad in color as they did from Digital Intermediate between 2000 and 2013. But here we also know from the history of the European labs that bottlenecks and under-budgeting also led to cheating: this is unavoidable in our industry.
A question: Were there struck 70mm film prints of the 65mm original negative of HATEFUL? One heard, it could have been six to ten prints? I have never seen such a print.
I don't know of similar substandards from DeLuxe and Technicolor, although Technicolor had recently declined very much. But Burbank is in my eyes the lowest point of 70mm print quality and standards. As said a "Orwocolor" look.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-31-2019 08:42 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
. . . If the 4K DI is the master, then all color timings were done on that. The closest thing to the 4K DI is the 4K DCP.
That's not necessarily true. The practice when film prints are planned to be made from a digital file is to create a seperate color-timed version of the file (a "deliverable" in industry terms) that takes into account the reproduction characteristics of the film stock. There are color management systems associated with digital color grading that include look-up tables for such things as Kodak 2383, and I have a feeling that Tarantino and Robert Richardson carefully tested and signed off on the 35/70mm release by viewing an in-theatre projection, or at least I hope they did, knowing how meticulous they are about image quality. I saw a 35mm print yesterday, and while I haven't seen a DCP of this yet to compare it with, I doubt highly that there was enough of a discrepancy between the two color-wise to make a difference.
quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
In 2001: ASO the color and gradation were an absolute catastrophe in the last 70mm version from 2018, but also on the home cinema media.
Everybody knew that the last 70mm release of this title was warts-and-all, a final attempt to release pure-play photochemical prints from worn elements. It was a very successful release, by the way. I don't know what was released there in Germany home video wise, but my BluRay of the 2018 restoration looks damn good.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-31-2019 10:19 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
...but not the superior contrast.
Steve, how do you think laser-based systems, such as the ones in Dolby Cinema theaters or IMAX with Laser compare to 35mm or 70mm contrast?
quote: Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Unfortuntaly HATEFUL 8 and INTERSTELLAR in70mm had a not very satisfying picture sharpness (I have seen many hundreds of classic 70mm prints of the 60s for comparision), showed a lack of unsatisfied balanced scene by scene color correction.
One obvious difference between 50+ year old classic movies on 70mm and the more recent films from Christopher Nolan: low depth of field. So much of the 65mm footage in Nolan's films, from The Dark Knight to Dunkirk, was shot in light-starved conditions with the aperture opened up wide, yielding a very narrow plane of focus. Even in scenes with bright daylight, such as the beginning of The Dark Knight as the camera dollies toward Joker's back and his mask, the 15/65mm image still has low DOF. The end results are images with fleeting levels of 70mm quality sharpness.
When I think of classic 50+ year old movies shot on 65mm film I think of scenes shot on big sound stages with plenty of light or outdoor scenes in bright daylight. A bunch of the night time scenes in Lawrence of Arabia were shot in daylight (a common practice back then).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 07-31-2019 03:22 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Steve, how do you think laser-based systems, such as the ones in Dolby Cinema theaters or IMAX with Laser compare to 35mm or 70mm contrast?
I'm not answering for Steve, but this is my own experience:
A proper RGB laser setup like a Barco 6P system is comparable to the contrast of a good 35mm projection, one with a sufficiently sized lamp.
A Dolby Vision setup will not beat the resolution of 70mm, but it will beat the contrast of 70mm projection, at least at the screen sizes currently used. If it can beat 15/70 on proper IMAX sized screens remains to be seen. I guess the current Dolby Vision projectors / light source combos (Christie only) are unable to produce light levels sufficient to fill those screens.
The remaining problem nowadays is ambient light due to a mixture of local codes and people not giving a flying #@$5 to keep the ambient light away from the screen.
My experience with lasersharktank-IMAX is limited, but bad. Distracting speckle all over the place, bad contrast, bad focus and pixel-soup all over the screen, due to the enormity of the screens. I've only ever seen it in action in former "documentary" 70mm venues (those with the real huge screens). It's the most convincing example of 4K laser not being able to replace proper 15/70 film in terms of pure resolution and and apparently also not in contrast.
quote: Mark Ogden
That's not necessarily true. The practice when film prints are planned to be made from a digital file is to create a seperate color-timed version of the file (a "deliverable" in industry terms) that takes into account the reproduction characteristics of the film stock. There are color management systems associated with digital color grading that include look-up tables for such things as Kodak 2383, and I have a feeling that Tarantino and Robert Richardson carefully tested and signed off on the 35/70mm release by viewing an in-theatre projection, or at least I hope they did, knowing how meticulous they are about image quality. I saw a 35mm print yesterday, and while I haven't seen a DCP of this yet to compare it with, I doubt highly that there was enough of a discrepancy between the two color-wise to make a difference.
I don't want to be the petulant child here, but to be honest, it would be the least I'd expect that they would make a color-corrected DI or "correction map" for the film prints, so the colors in the film prints end up being as close to the DI and therefore the DCP as possible.
Still, the DI, in this case, is the master, the way the movie is supposed to look and the version that adapts for errors in the printing process is just nothing more than a purposely color corrected version.
And like Steve also pointed out, you won't get any extra resolution by copying/printing a "digital master" to an analog medium, even if this analog medium would have a far greater resolution than the digital medium. Also, it involves at least two more duplication steps, none of which adds any resolution but only adds potential errors.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08-01-2019 07:47 AM
quote: Emiel de Jong
Maybe it has something to do with the original negative (Vision 3) being designed for DI and not for traditional finishing ?
Ironic, isn't it? Film purists make repeated claims about the uniqueness of the photochemical aesthetic, and then go and use a stock, the formulation of which is designed to mimic the look of digital!
As for The Love Witch, I agree that the visuals were very stylish, but that movie is yet more proof of Enticknap's Law: the higher the technical quality of the print being viewed, the lower the quality of the actual movie (writing, acting, direction, etc.) is likely to be.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 08-01-2019 04:51 PM
quote:
As for The Love Witch, I agree that the visuals were very stylish, but that movie is yet more proof of Enticknap's Law: the higher the technical quality of the print being viewed, the lower the quality of the actual movie (writing, acting, direction, etc.) is likely to be.
Damn, somebody should strap that Enticknap guy on a rocket and fire it directly into the sun, maybe together with that other guy called Murphy. Don't you think? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But yes, "The Love Witch" was a beautiful film to look at, but a terrible movie to watch. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
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