Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: A return of 35mm installs for Nolan's next project "Interstellar" ?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » A return of 35mm installs for Nolan's next project "Interstellar" ? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: A return of 35mm installs for Nolan's next project "Interstellar" ?

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 09-02-2013 03:41 PM

Paul, I believe the Varsity in Toronto and kept them for the re-release of The Master as well.

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 09-02-2013 04:03 PM

quote: John Roddy
I was actually quite surprised at how crisp it looked when we first had it installed.

From where? The booth?

How does it look from the front third of the auditorium?

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 09-02-2013 04:33 PM

Come on Geoff, we all know that 15/70 is superior to Lie-Max. Don't pay attention to John.

Bobby already said it well in the below quote,

quote:
As opposed to HDTV resolution video blown up to a size way past acceptable scale? Puh-leeze!

Most people on here would appreciate any 35mm screening over a digital show, Manny K included. We don't even need to mention 70mm.

| IP: Logged

Mark Hajducki
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Edinburgh, UK
Registered: May 2003

posted 09-02-2013 04:34 PM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I highly doubt the big chains are going to have any problem installing a dozen or so 35mm projectors in major cities for a huge movie.

From my experience with one of the UK's large chains all the projection equipment was destroyed at the switch to digital.

They would also have difficulties staffing film projection as the majority of projection staff (not that many of them were trained projectionists) received P45 (pink slip) when their site went digital.

It would be a nice boost to the more specialist cinemas (with film still in operation) to get a few weeks exclusivity on a main release although not all of them would be able to fully staff themselves for full time film showing.

I suspect the two largest screens in Edinburgh capable of (easily) showing 35mm have projectors built in the 1950s.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-02-2013 07:32 PM

quote:
Most people on here would appreciate any 35mm screening over a digital show, Manny K included.

BULL. SHIT.

Anybody who knows me knows that I would not prefer "ANY" 35mm screening. Indeed, I wouldn't condone most 35mm screenings. No offense to the medium, but I've seen too many bad things happen on-screen. And I've seen it too often.

And, as I've said repeatedly here on F-T, a new 35mm print derived from a DI is inferior to the DCP. I'd rather show the DCP and be "that much closer" to the original source.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 09-02-2013 09:40 PM

A digital intermediate or lack thereof is really the big variable on whether showing a 35mm print is worth it. Nolan has done old school style film-in/film-out post production work on previous films.

The biggest negative aspect of DI is the thing being rendered at 1080p HD or 2K resolution. Some DI's are rendered in 1080p and blown up slightly to 2K. I don't think that is acceptable even though the majority of d-cinema installations are 2K resolution including all the IMAX digital installations.

A 2K DI output to 35mm will have less than 1080p HD resolution thanks to generational loss that does occur in the high speed film printing process. Add to that the declining quality of 35mm release prints in recent years. If a movie had its post production "color timing" work finished as a 2K digital intermediate then the movie is only good watching in a modest 2K resolution d-cinema theater.

If the DI is rendered in 4K resolution or higher that might help a 35mm release print look better than the same show projected in 2K [dlp]

, but that's only if the lab did a really good job making the 35mm prints and if the theater does a good job showing that print.

With IMAX 15/70mm film there's just such a huge difference between that giant film format and what one can see in mere HD resolution that it is worth it to make the 15/70 prints if a lot or all of the movie was shot on 15/65mm negatives.

I see no point at all in taking a movie shot with 2K video cameras or rendered in a 2K DI and blown up to 15/70 IMAX film prints. I think that's an absolute waste of time.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 09-02-2013 11:29 PM

Note: The Dark Knight Rises did not use a DI.

I don't think Inception did either.

I'd imagine Interstellar will be the same.

If this has an exclusive film (35 or 70) engagement, and by 2014 all the chains have converted, does this leave art houses, mostly staffed by competent people, to run this film? I'd actually be ok with that!

AJG

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-03-2013 12:45 AM

Only the purest of live-action scenes would truly be an "all film workflow."

Any VFX that were not created photochemically -- i.e. any CGI -- would be "filmed out" from a DI, versus a true "optical" negative.

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 09-03-2013 02:30 AM

What an interesting topic. I've been wondering the same thing recently.

I mean, SURELY they wouldn't do a 35mm only run. I really doubt they'd even release it to film houses a week early.

But there is that part of me that actually wants it to happen because I happen to work at a location that would fall under the film umbrella and what a sight that'd be to have it open that flick first........ Not that I'm saying it'd be done 'right' because the sound hasn't been so much as touched in a decade but still.......

| IP: Logged

Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-03-2013 08:33 AM

No studio in its right mind would release a major budget film to ONLY 35mm and IMAX screens this far into the digital exhibition age, and I'm guessing that no director, including Nolan, has the clout to demand it. In addition to an immediate loss of industry credibility at the exhibitor level, there would be a revolt among shareholders, who will expect maximum return on investment. Look at what is happening over at Sony, where a minority hedge-fund owner is causing an uproar over under-performance of the studio division. Possibly, possibly, the film might get a film-exclusive window, a week or so. But I'm betting against it. In fact, I'm hoping against it because frankly, all these guys like Nolan, Pfister, Spielberg and their holier-than-thou "I still use film" chest-pounding is getting awfully goddamned tedious.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 09-03-2013 08:39 AM

Buck, it is great to see that you are excited. And you are right, there is no chance at all that the studio would do an all film run for the movie. I believe some of the former 15/70 theaters have kept their 15/70 equipment for a special run like this. If the studios and theater chains would do the unprecedented thing of added 70mm for a very small run of The Master, then adding some 35mm to a few theaters in each major city is something that can be done.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 09-03-2013 10:03 AM

quote: Mark Ogden
I'm hoping against it because frankly, all these guys like Nolan, Pfister, Spielberg and their holier-than-thou "I still use film" chest-pounding is getting awfully goddamned tedious.

The "chest pounding" going on there is primarily about the production format, not the exhibition format. While video cameras have been getting better, they still have a lot of improvements to make before anyone can make truly honest claims of them beating 4-perf 35mm on every quality level. Right now that isn't happening. Some video-originated movies, like Ted for instance, look really terrible.

So if guys like Spielberg, Tarantino or Nolan want to continue to shoot movies on film I say more power to them.

If someone like Christopher Nolan is going to go farther and shoot a movie in 5/70mm or even 15/70mm then there ought to be some way to show that content on a 5/70mm or 15/70mm film print. There is no video camera system or d-cinema projection system in existence that compares favorably to 70mm.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-03-2013 10:24 AM

Spielberg says he likes the smell of film and it's essentially an emotional attachment. He admitted this during a talk at USC. I was there.

| IP: Logged

Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-03-2013 10:50 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
While video cameras have been getting better, they still have a lot of improvements to make before anyone can make truly honest claims of them beating 4-perf 35mm on every quality level.

Yeah? Right now, high-end digital cameras, the Red Epic, the Arriflex Alexea, the Sony F65, EXCEED 35mm resolution, EXCEED 35mm spectral response, EXCEED 35mm in low light response by a large margin, and, in log mode come within a stop of full 35mm dynamic range (and if you operate the Red in HDX mode, it EXCEEDS 35mm dynamic range by two stops).

So where exactly is it that digital falls off on 35mm? In the magical, dancing film grains?

quote: Manny Knowles
Spielberg says he likes the smell of film and it's essentially an emotional attachment

And that's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all, as long as you admit that it is just that, and you don't try to criticize or become high-handed to your fellow film-makers who have moved on.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 09-03-2013 11:24 AM

quote: Mark Ogden
Yeah? Right now, high-end digital cameras, the Red Epic, the Arriflex Alexea, the Sony F65, EXCEED 35mm resolution, EXCEED 35mm spectral response, EXCEED 35mm in low light response by a large margin, and, in log mode come within a stop of full 35mm dynamic range (and if you operate the Red in HDX mode, it EXCEEDS 35mm dynamic range by two stops).

Based on whose claims? Those of fanboys employed by the companies making the equipment?

The Arri Alexa has a native resolution of 2880 X 1620, but that's only if you use ARRIRAW. It down-samples to 1080p if you output to HD-SDI or ProRes. That isn't exactly the 4K level many are using as a loose guide of sorts for what passes as 35mm film resolution. Sony and Red have native 4K cameras. The Red Epic Dragon can shoot 6K material.

The way the footage is recorded and manipulated is another issue. Just how many movie productions originating on video are shooting in native 4K resolution? How many are shooting everything in deep color depths, like 16-bits per RGB channel or even higher than that? How many productions maintain that color depth all the way through the work flow and output it to the DCP? I'm willing to be not many bother. Bandwidth and storage requirements are already challenging for uncompressed 4K material at basic 8-bit depths. If the movie is only going to be in theaters for just a month and be on Blu-ray only a season later the bean counters are going to be asking "why bother?"

Anyone can plainly see what's happening in the finished results. Modern video cameras do well in brightly lit scenes, but low light performance is still an especially nagging issue. Even the very best video camera systems can fall all over themselves, creating a muddy, smeary mess that is pure hell for any post production worker trying to color grade away that pasty video look. It's pretty hard to do if the footage looks like something from a surveillance camera system.

I suspect the engineers designing these camera sensors have been doing the same thing that has been going on with DSLR sensors for many years: they record a lot more levels of detail and color on the right, highlight end of the histogram and a lot less to the left, shadow side. DSLR chips aren't linear in the steps they record from absolute dark to light.

Too many movie productions shooting on video are lighting night time location shoots as if they're still shooting on film. I don't think the cameras are designed to handle that.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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.