|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Superman Returns Article- What could have been shot in 65mm ends up in HDTV
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 07-05-2006 09:50 PM
quote:
“It dawned on me that the reason the 65mm test blew me away was that we were watching it projected in 65mm, and the ability to exhibit this film that way today would be almost non-existent,”
Bummer! This makes three productions in the past year or so where 65mm origination was seriously considered. The other two that I'm aware of were "The New World" (which did manage to incorporate a small amount of 65mm, although the majority was originated in 35mm anamorphic) and Wim Wenders' "Don't Come Knocking."
It really is too bad that it appears 65mm photography (for commercial motion pictures) is a thing of the past, but I think fans of large-format, reluctantly, must accept that the cons of shooting in 65mm outweigh its benefits and that this IMAX DMR silliness is better than nothing. Plus, the number of suitably-equipped theaters in which to project (in 5-perf 70mm) a first-run, studio-produced wide release has been reduced to pathetic numbers. Even where the equipment still is in place, if a print was delivered today, would the staff even know what to do with it?
It's disappointing still to realize that here in Southern California, "Superman Returns," despite the lack of any 5-perf 70mm prints, has been booked into several 70mm houses, including the Village (in Westwood), the Chinese (Hollywood) and Edwards Big Newport in Orange County, all first-class venues that in "The Day" would've likely got a 70mm print had they been made.
quote: Lyle Romer
I guess nobody told him they were going to end up releasing in IMAX, not to mention the hundreds of theatres that could have played 70mm.
I bet there's less than a hundred at this point.
It's hard, and sad, to realize that at its peak in the early 1990s, 5-perf 70mm was installed in well over 1,000 screens.
A fascinating stat to ponder (and disgusting from a nostalgic perspective): During the week of June 8-14, 1984, I estimate there were FOUR-HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN 70mm prints between six titles in service in the U.S and Canada.
The major studios relied upon Lucasfilm's Theater Alignment Program to get involved in the evaluation and tuning of the theaters and to monitor the labwork. The infrastructure was there...and then it was destroyed in the name of "progress."
[ 07-06-2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-05-2006 10:26 PM
I'm way beyond tired of reading these interviews from filmmakers who say, "we thought about making the movie in 65mm, but decided not to do so."
My answer to that kind of thing: why did you even bring it up then? Who gives a fuck about a project thinking about using 65mm? It is NOT 65mm unless it actually used the process!
These guys should not be throwing around terms like 65mm, especially when it sounds like they're using it as a means of promoting a standard 35mm project or something merely videotaped in HDTV format. Basically they're trying to ride on the coat tails of 65mm without actually using the format.
I read one report that stated Superman Returns cost $250 million to produce. With such a huge budget it seems like there would be enough money to shoot the entire film in IMAX 3D. But no! Let's videotape it in HDTV format and blow up to IMAX and manufacture some 3D stuff and try to pass it off like the show was actually made in IMAX.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The arguments against using 65mm are not convincing. Not all 65mm cameras are gigantic, heavy monstrosities. Sure, there's not all that many 70mm equipped theaters. But lots of big equipment roll outs have happened in support of big movies before. If Superman Returns had actually been filmed in 70mm and some effort was made to get theaters in key places booked, I guarantee some 70mm installs would have happened -even if they were only temporary. They would have found some way to make it happen.
The thing I find far more destructive is the choice more major productions are making in shooting on video. They like the convenience of the format. But they are sacrificing the long term marketability of their property by doing that. 1080p HD may be today's best home video format. That will change. In perhaps a decade or two video formats may boast a much higher pixel count.
The 5-perf 65mm/70mm format may be that icky ass "analog," but it is not locked down into a video resolution standard already more than a decade old. The imagery may be analog, but it is also highly scaleable. A movie shot in 65mm will gracefully transfer to a video format with 10 times the pixel count of 1080p or even higher than that.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for independent movies to shoot on video or any project where the budget is limited or there are really severe time constraints. But it's stupid for major productions to do the same. They should at least be shooting on 35mm if not moving to larger formats like VistaVision and 5/65.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 07-05-2006 11:03 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
Those who shot Superman Returns are not as skilled as those who shot Lawrence of Arabia.
As unfortunate as it is, Joe actually hit the nail on the head on this one. Today's movie makers are raised on different equipment than those of the past, and as such there are fewer and fewer DP's willing or able to use 65mm.
This isn't a bad thing, nor should it give us pause to question the value of movies or their makers. All this means is that different equipment is coming along that will aid in movie making instead of hindering it.
There is an entire new generation of movie makers that will be able to further their craft and advance the technology to do so.
quote: Christopher Seo
Maybe filmmakers today are just wusses.
It isn't a matter of being a wuss. It is instead a matter of choosing equipment to further a project that best suits the goal in question.
If the project is a 2 million dollar project, we say it's ok to use digital, but if it's 200 million, they have to use 65mm in order for it to be good? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Don't look at the budget, how much people get paid, or whatever. Instead look at the finished product on its own, never taking into consideration any other factor.
WAS IT GOOD OR NOT? ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
I loved the film. I don't care how much money it cost or what they shot it on. None of that changes how much money I paid to see it or how much I enjoyed it.
Ciao
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-06-2006 05:34 AM
Bobby Henderson, Joe Redifer and others have already nailed it.
I was very dissatisfied with the look of SR.
As someone who (now) buys a ticket to see a movie in a theatre, I am not interested in the improved workflow of the crew or the production. I want to see long shots that are full of detail, color and contrast, not mushy, 7th generation, bad release print quality that is fobbed off as the latest in video camera technology (but they 'saved money' on the most expensive feature yet produced!).
Could this be the first remake with technically lower quality visuals than the original? That's embarrassing!
Why be defeatist, as in, 'most theatres can't play 70MM anyway'? Well, why not address this and make it happen? $260 million sure buys a lot of stuff! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
In short, why not ask how we can get technology to help us get THE BEST POSSIBLE RESULT, rather than THE SOFT OPTION?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-06-2006 06:23 AM
quote: Paul Linfesty
The Panavision Genesis camera does not record to videotape. Its uses hard drives in a detachable compartment that looks like a small film magazine.
No, that's not true at all. That's a Sony HDCAM/SR video tape recorder that's docked at the top.
And tape is very, very far from obsolete. While most television networks are on playout servers for air, and all camera manufactures have non-tape recording formats, the vast majority of non-ENG video based production in America whether for TV or cinema is still onto tape, and it's going to be around a while longer. Once in awhile you see a production that lays off onto a hard drive, and Panasonic is trying to move to PCMCIA sized flash memory, but it hasn't yet taken hold on a wide scale, and the cost of the cards is huge. The best format to come along is Sony XDCAM, which records HD onto Blu-ray DVD, and is now available in a Cinealta configuration for feature production. Everything I've seen from this format looks great, and from personal experience, it's a pleasure to work with.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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