Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New Possible Upcomming 70mm Release From New Line Cinema

This is topic New Possible Upcomming 70mm Release From New Line Cinema in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006341

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-06-2004, 06:49 PM:

Quite a number of our customers have received calls from New Line Cinema people inquiring as to how many 70mm screens that they have available. Has anyone else been called by them regarding this and does anyone have any idea what upcomming film may see new 70mm releases? Fortunately we have over 100 screens that can readily run 70mm with little to no additional work here in the Mountain States.

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-06-2004, 07:37 PM:

Peter Jackson has enough clout to get just about anything he wants. Is Newline distributing KING KONG?

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 07-06-2004, 09:21 PM:

King Kong is a Universal release.

It's quite possible that a director has mentioned releasing his/her film with 70mm Prints and New Line is calling exhibitors and checking on which houses are 70mm capable and if it's a worth while investment on their part.

Blade: Trinity is coming at the end of the year so maybe that's the film in question?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-07-2004, 01:47 AM:

Did they ask whether those screens were DTS equipped, or mag only?

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 07-07-2004, 04:27 AM:

Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 07-07-2004, 06:57 AM:

Maybe New Line will do "The Hobbit" in 70mm. That would be excellent [thumbsup]

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 07-07-2004, 07:17 AM:

How many multiplexes built in the last 5-8 years have 70mm capability?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-07-2004, 07:30 AM:

I've received inquires about this as well, as no one else seems to have even made an attempt at compiling a list of 70mm-capable venues.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-07-2004, 08:12 AM:

All of the multiplex's we've installed in the last 5 years with the exception of one have at least two 70mm capable machines just running 35mm right now, some have 70mm capability on all screens. Of the locations I service there are around 100 locations total that could easily run 70mm DTS. We are now rebuilding 12 more DP-70's for installation in a new multiplex early next year. They have been by far the most reliable projectors of all I've ever worked with.

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-07-2004, 11:35 AM:

This is a shot in the dark, but the most recent KISS tour was/is being filmed on 65mm, with 5/70 release prints in mind and possibly IMAX up-conversion.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-07-2004, 02:23 PM:

Possible customer question regarding the possible 70mm release in question:

You mean the tape's bigger? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-07-2004, 05:34 PM:

If the new multipex built their theatre with Strong products (Simplex or Century) then an up-conversion to 70mm would be relatively cheap. Just change the projector head itself, buy the lens for the 70mm format and if they have DTS...get the 70mm reader and convert the platter (presumming they went in that direction) to 70mm. It may sound like a lot but compared to the mag days...this is a drop in the bucket and way less than DCinema.

As to multiplexes Bevan...does the AFI/Silver count...they are a 3-plex that opened last April (2003) and have 70mm capability in mag or DTS and have run both recently. They also have 16mm, 35mm and extensive video capabilities.

Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-07-2004, 06:54 PM:

What's the hard on for a Strong built theater in a 70mm conversion? The same thing could be said for an all Christie package, among others.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-07-2004, 07:08 PM:

With either the Simplex or the Century projector...one merely unbolts the projector head and bolts the 70mm version of the head and the conversion is about done...the optical soundhead is unchanged except adding two rollers for Simplex and the roller bracket assy for Century. There is virtually no sound rewiring (if any) and very little other rework...even the aperture plates "should" still work. Very easy. As for Christie...you'd be changing out the complete projector/soundhead system.

In either case, the removed projector could be reused on an upcoming installation.

Steve

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-07-2004, 08:54 PM:

theOneRing.net, via Slashdot, is reporting that some UK and Denmark theaters have indicated that they will be playing extended versions of LORD OF THE RINGS this fall, before the expected December release on DVD.

Might a limited 70mm release of the extended RETURN OF THE KING be a possibility?

I've looked over quite a few of New Line's upcoming releases, and I don't see anything that I would consider for 70mm.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-07-2004, 09:02 PM:

Seems like a small amount of savings there Steve, and even then having a spare projector head is useless without buying another sound head to go with it, but I guess I can see where you are nitpicking a few bucks.

Return of the King wouldn't look any better in 70mm I don't think. The 2K digital master is still a 2K digital master. It looked VERY videoish to me on a well lit screen.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-07-2004, 09:21 PM:

This thread should be in FHF. Everyone who has posted in this thread is BANNED![av=c]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-07-2004, 11:55 PM:

"and even then having a spare projector head is useless without buying another sound head to go with it"

Brad,
Do you mean DTS reader or analog sound head? Its really quite easy to run a Simplex or Century head with out it being mounted or driven by an analog sound head. We stock the special mounting brackets to do this. All you would need is a 70mm head, 70mm DTS T.C. reader, and a vari speed drive system.

Joe,

You will not be allowed to run any 70mm...... ever! The stuffs just way to cool for you to be messin round with now....

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-08-2004, 11:04 AM:

I meant an optical soundhead. Got pictures of the setup without?

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 07-08-2004, 02:57 PM:

Is this thread about blow ups to 70mm or shooting 65mm. I am sorry if I mix up the technical terms.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-08-2004, 03:10 PM:

It sounds like New Line is scouting the possibilty of releasing something with 70mm prints. A new feature with 65mm production would be great, but it's more likely they are thinking about a blow-up from 35mm.

Of course, there have been a few IMAX DMR 70mm 15-perf prints of a few features lately, notably "Harry Potter 3" and now "Spiderman 2" later in July.

Interestingly, there are new 65mm/70mm labs coming on-line. FotoKem is now an active player in the 65mm/70mm market:

http://www.fotokem.com/site_index.php

quote:
Access information on their website, needs MacroMedia Flash Player 6

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-08-2004, 03:23 PM:

If New Line really cared that much, they would have released ROTK in 70mm. Now THAT is a title that theaters would have opted to convert for, or at least dust off the box of 70mm parts they have in a back storage closet somewhere.

We have 70mm capability. I wonder if they will send us a 70mm print when this supposed title hits sub-run. [thumbsup]

=TMP=

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-08-2004, 04:02 PM:

Hypothetical Crazy Scenario:

You're a typical modern multiplex, and you have 70mm capability in at least one house. But you haven't used it in years -- Maybe you've never used it. Certainly there's nobody currently on your staff who has any experience running 70mm.

New Line informs you that you're getting a 70mm print of, oh, let's say "Return Of The King".

What do you do to prepare?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-08-2004, 04:03 PM:

If IMAX blowups have been marketed successfully then there is every reason to think that conventional 70mm prints properly marketed will be successful too, especially if the blowup process can be improved using techniques like that used on the IMAX films. Obviously 65mm origination would be better but we'll start small. This could be combined with marketing gimicks like Marcus' "UltraScreen" which would therefore no longer be just a gimick.

I just hope a return of 70mm doesnt run into politics where the big chains who maybe arent running a 70mm print balk at the stack ads having a block of several 70mm shows at the top (in a large metro area).

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 07-08-2004, 04:27 PM:

Return Of The King is already on DVD at Target for $16.99 or whatever, and the kids these days don't even know what 70mm is, nor do they or would they care...

Posted by David M. Dorn (Member # 2298) on 07-08-2004, 04:30 PM:

While I would go to see any of the LOTR series in 70mm, what would be gained really...I understand it was shot in Super 35? All the cameras seen in the extra features are Arriflex 35mm. I understand they bought 30-35 at the beginning of fiming.

Would a blow up to 70mm really work? Seems to me grain would be a problem going from the Super 35.

By the way, I went to see Return of the King in an "Enhanced 35mm" presentation....a Kinoton 70 on a 75/80 foot screen and it sucked, BIG TIME!!!!! [bs]

The illumination as nowhere near the SMPTE minimum 12...more like 4-6 I would guess. When I left the so called theater in mid-afternoon and went outside, I felt like a blind man just given the gift of sight. To my mind this was "Film Done Wrong", way, way wrong. BTW it's the setup mentioned by Larry Shaw at the end of the Kinoton 2003 Show West Video. How much more light would 70mm put on he sceen?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2004, 07:07 PM:

The only advantage of blowing up or "DMR-ing" LOTR up to 70mm would be for playing it on oversized screens. 35mm sucks on really big screens. It is just too dim and too grainy.

For instance, circuits like Cinemark commonly play 35mm films on their IMAX 3D screens. Any IMAX theater with a companion 35mm projector should have that projector converted to a 35mm/70mm dual format capable system. This especially goes for ALL IMAX theaters that are part of a regular multiplex site. If they would follow through on that then 5/70mm DTS blowups would be an easy thing to make and distribute in various areas across the country.

There's a good number of "giant sized" stadium seated theaters with very large, oversized screens that are badly in need of 70mm prints. In Dallas, two or three Cinemark sites as well as the UA Galaxy 9 have screens in their largest theaters that cannot be properly lit to that 12 to 16 foot lamberts level unless they do it with 5/70mm.

Of course, I'm still hoping for theatrical stuff shot in 5/65. But for now, nearly all 70mm stuff happens for the special venue.

quote: David M. Dorn
Would a blow up to 70mm really work? Seems to me grain would be a problem going from the Super 35.

There would not be much of a problem if the optical enlargement process to 70mm is handled the right way. 70mm prints I've seen for Super35 movies like "The Abyss" looked really good.

Super35 uses up the area normally reserved for optical track for gaining a larger image across the horizontal axis. In standard Super35 to 'scope 35 optical reduction, the image is squeezed a tiny bit horizontally along with being stretched vertically. If the full width is retained as it is blown up to 5/65mm interpositive the image will have less noticeable grain.

BUT! Keep in mind this principal would not apply at all to the Lord of the Rings movies. Since they were computer rendered via digital intermediate the advantage of Super35 to 70mm is lost. The 2K rendering is as good an image as you'll get. Well, that is unless you want to go back and completely re-render all the visual effects shots at 4K and re-scan and re-colorize all the live action plates at higher rez as well. No one is going to foot that bill. Certainly some one can try to IMAX DMR the thing, but I think the results are a bit of a mixed bag on that one. See my comments in the movie reviews section about "The Matrix Reloaded: The IMAX Experience."

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-08-2004, 07:55 PM:

"I meant an optical soundhead. Got pictures of the setup without? "

No, no photos but they are similar to the mount that Cinerama used. They did not utilize an optical sound head. It is a large cast alumnium mount that bolts to a standard Simplex hanger. The Picture head bolts on top and there is a place for a drive motor, or to bolt a bracket for a motor depending on the motor you use. A standard T.U arm bolts to the bottom. Not totally unlike a Shakeamecanica type mount but intended for the US standard bolt pattern. We have two in stock and I can have any number of new castings made to produce how ever many one would need. We have a really good foundry just a block from the shop and we have our own extensive machine shop. These were originally used to hang a Pro(?) 35 on a Simplex base without sound head in a museum loop setup.

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-08-2004, 10:37 PM:

Remember TITANIC was a super35 blowup and the 70mm prints looked better than the 35mm

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-08-2004, 11:54 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I've received inquires about this as well, as no one else seems to have even made an attempt at compiling a list of 70mm-capable venues.

Not true. As many of you know, Bill Kallay and I have compiled a number of lists and stats on the subject of 70mm films and equipped cinemas. And, in regard to the thread topic, we too have been contacted recently. But, unfortunately for the readers here at least for the time being, we've been asked (due to being members of the press) to not publicly discuss any specifics. Stay tuned....

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 07-09-2004, 12:02 AM:

Let's hope the chains don't have 70mm commericals struck. Finally a show without commericals!!

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-09-2004, 12:09 AM:

Nothing two ads and a few rolls of splicing tape can't fix.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-09-2004, 07:04 AM:

Of course you will use some of that tape to add a perf to each frame. Don't forget to slice 5mm off on account of the 65mm perforations of 70mm MP stock (whether you want to add 2.5 back down each side is optional).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-09-2004, 08:02 AM:

"Remember TITANIC was a super35 blowup and the 70mm prints looked better than the 35mm"

Ditto for "True Lies". It was one of the best looking super 35 films I've ever seen.

Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-09-2004, 08:53 AM:

Super-35 "done right" can certainly offer excellent image quality. 70mm prints offer superior quality on very large screens:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/dec98.shtml

quote:
In the Splendor of 70mm": For some, that phrase conjures up childhood memories of standing in a line that stretched around the downtown block. When the theatre doors opened, hundreds filed in, politely rushing for their favorite seat. As the curtains on the huge 60-foot screen opened, the screen filled with clouds and you heard the whistle of the wind around you as you flew through the passes of the Austrian Alps. Finally you came toward Maria, and the hills and the theatre are alive with The Sound of Music. Then as the family sang "Do-Re-Mi" in the car during the ride home, you wonder why that movie looked and sounded so much better than the films you usually saw at your neighborhood theatre. Somehow, "In the Splendor of 70mm" on the marquee usually meant something special, even if the movie was more to your mother's taste.

As you grew older, you sought out that special experience again and again, with movies like 2001-A Space Odyssey and Patton, then Star Wars and Apocalypse Now. You took your kids to E.T.: The Extraterrestrial and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, even if it meant driving across town to see the movie in 70mm....

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/march99.shtml

quote:
As good as theatres and movie sound are getting today, something is often missing. The "Roadshow" films of the '50s and '60s had it. The"event" films of the '70s and '80s had it. It isn't digital sound- although the premiere of Oklahoma! sounded very good with the six-channel analog magnetic sound and tube amplifiers of its day. It isn't a bigger screen-today's 75- and 80-foot wide screens even surpass the famed huge screen at Radio City Music Hall. It isn't a big lamp-today's 6000-watt xenon arc lamphouses produce more light than most of the carbon-eating monsters of the past. It isn't a lack of good movies-every era has its block-busters, and we've been fortunate to have a lot lately. In case you haven't guessed, what's often missing today is "The Splendor of 70mm."

Recent Trend to Larger Screens and Closer Viewing Distance
Recent trends in theatre design have emphasized larger wall-to-wall screens with the audience sitting closer to the screen, so it fills their field of view. Every new megaplex boasts one or more screens wider than 50 feet, with some over 70 feet wide! Wider screens and closer seating layouts mean that the distance from the projector to the screen is decreasing, requiring very short focal length projection lenses with very shallow depth of focus, magnifying any projector unsteadiness or focus problems....

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-09-2004, 02:55 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen was the last to post
Remember TITANIC was a super35 blowup and the 70mm prints looked better than the 35mm.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Ditto for "True Lies".

quote: John Pytlak
Super-35 "done right" can certainly offer excellent image quality. 70mm prints offer superior quality on very large screens

I agree.

There have been quite a number - more than some may realize - of Super 35 productions blown up to 70mm with most, in my opinion, looking superior to their 35mm counterpart.

http://www.in70mm.com/lists/blow_up/index.htm

Greystoke: The Legend Of Tarzan (1984)
Baby: Secret Of The Lost Legend* (1985)
A Chorus Line (1985)
Enemy Mine* (1985)
Revolution (1985)
Silverado (1985)
Absolute Beginners (1986)
Manhunter (1986)
Top Gun (1986)
Beverly Hills Cop II* (1987)
Cry Freedom (1987)
Alien Nation (1988)
Kansas* (1988)
Shoot To Kill (1988)
The Abyss (1989)
Black Rain (1989)
Air America (1990)
Backdraft (1991)
Bird On A Wire* (1990)
Point Break (1991)
Star Trek VI (1991)
Terminator 2 (1991)
Howards End (1992)
The Remains Of The Day (1993)
Short Cuts (1993)
True Lies (1994)
Independence Day** (1996)
Titanic (1997)
Godzilla** (1998)

*Unconfirmed 70mm release
**Not "released" in 70mm; 70mm special screenings only

And, arguably, the use of Super 35 can improve the look of 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 productions if blown up to 70mm. Some examples include:
Dance Craze (1981)
The Little Mermaid (1989)
The Bonfire Of The Vanities (1990)
Dick Tracy (1990)
The Godfather Part III (1990)
The Two Jakes (1990)
Beauty And The Beast (1991)
The Lion King (1994)
Pocahontas** (1995)
The Hunchback Of Notre Dame** (1996)
Mulan** (1998)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-09-2004, 05:39 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
And, arguably, the use of Super 35 can improve the look of 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 productions if blown up to 70mm.

I remember the ads Clairmont Camera ran in American Cinematographer where they referred to the format at "Super 1.85".

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-09-2004, 08:39 PM:

deleted due to duplication below.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-09-2004, 08:39 PM:

quote: Paul Linfesty was the last to post
Let's hope the chains don't have 70mm commericals struck.

I remember seeing an L.A. Times ad in 70mm that showed before "My Fair Lady" at the C/O Century Plaza #2 back in the 90's.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-09-2004, 10:36 PM:

Let me get this straight....these guys were showing a 70mm engagement of MY FAIR LADY which had to be the roadshow version, and they ran an freakin ad before it? The swine. That's about as classy as a rest room without toilet paper.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-09-2004, 10:58 PM:

"even if it meant driving across town to see the movie in 70mm...."

My first 70mm experience was when my Dad took the family to the Michael Todd Theatre to see "Sound Of Music". It made such a HUGE impression on me back than that as a Jr. High school student I ocassionally traveled to downtown Chicago on the train with a friend to see Roadshow films shown in 70mm at the Cinestage, or Michael Todd Theatre, or at the UA Cinema 150. Krakatoa, 2001, Song Of Norway, Apocolypse Now, and many others.... I must have just about seen them all! The picture and sound quality never let me down. Later on in life and before I worked in this industry I would drive to where ever a 70mm film was playing around Chicago to see it. When I worked for Panasonic I drove home every night past a great 70mm theatre, the Oakbrook, that played Star Wars and I must have seen it there a dozen times on my way home. John is right that people want and deserve this quality and will go out of their way to get to it.

The biggest problem today is getting across to an entirely new generation exactly what 70mm is and what the difference is that they will see and whay they should see the film in that format and so on. This new generation has never experienced a big event film in 70mm before and it will be up to technical people and sharp marketing folk to get it across through proper ads if a 70mm comeback is to ever be sucessful.

Mark

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-10-2004, 12:12 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
these guys were showing a 70mm engagement of MY FAIR LADY which had to be the roadshow version

Well, everything else went wrong with this presentation. Act I ended, and the theatre's intermission music came on, but the curtains stayed open and the house lights remained off! After about 5 minutes, curtains closed and warmers and houselights came on. However, the curtains opened and warmers faded out at the beginning of the Entracte! House lights stayed on at full. When Act II faded in, the frameline was almost in the center of the image. House lights were still on full for about a minute. Apparently, their first priority was to get the lights off instead of quickly correcting the framing. They finally got the lights turned off after about a minute and THEN adjusted the framing! At least everything worked...UNTIL the last 10 minutes of the film, when the center speaker went out. Fortunately, the dialog was directional, so much of the time we could actually catch some of what was being said. And to get an idea how Act II ended, refer up to the ending of Act I

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 07-11-2004, 04:02 PM:

If new prints are released, modern 35mm stock blown up to 70mm as in 'Titanic' should look great. Scope shot films like look even better.
Any new 70mm prints would be great, and in turn it may make the studios realise that they could shoot on 65mm for the big budget films. Just imagine Moulin Rouge if shot on 65mm!

I say BRING IT ON~!!!!

I would make sure the staff get holdof som eold 70mm print to rehearse screening 70mm on though!

From the 5 sites I have that can and do run 70mm, its the young staff that want to run 70mm, the old folk think of the weight of the print and can't be arsed at times!
THey even moan at DLP because its all a bit modern! (and can be a major hassle)

Darren

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-13-2004, 10:41 AM:

A recent movie I was thinking of that would have looked stunning in 70mm would have been Kill Bill. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of this was shot with true anamorphic, and it shows! Near the end of the first film, where Uma Thurman is hacking apart "The Crazy 88s" before she goes after Lucy Lu -- the sharpness and detail is incredible, and sometimes the color looked borderline IB-Tech. (before and after the B/W scenes, of course) When they did an overhead shot of the floor with all the bloodied bodies, you could see the faces of each one of the actors. Incredible!!

Anyway, I wonder what New Line is cooking up. I even thought of the fact that Warners owns almost all the old MGM titles, so maybe they're looking to reprint some of the classic 70mm releases? Or are they just blowing smoke up our ass?

Would be funny if they asked all these theaters if they can run 70, and end up sending everyone a DMR print. [Razz]

=TMP=

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-13-2004, 10:49 AM:

When I was living in Los Angeles in the early 70's we ran the L.A. Times ad regardless if we had other trailers or not. It was part of the co-op deal for ad space in the newspaper.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-13-2004, 12:36 PM:

Edwards Theatres used to run those LA Times co-op ads. The ads were usually low-key, often involving some interesting piece of Southern California history. I don't recall ever seeing one run in 70mm at the Edwards Big Newport though.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-13-2004, 12:51 PM:

quote:
A recent movie I was thinking of that would have looked stunning in 70mm would have been Kill Bill. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of this was shot with true anamorphic, and it shows!

Kill Bill was shot in (3-perf) Super 35 and went through a digital intermediate.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-13-2004, 01:32 PM:

"Super-35" can be "Film Done Right". But generally, "Size Does Matter", and the larger the image area on the negative, the better.

For 2.39:1 "scope" release:

Image Area for anamorphic: 0.825 x 0.690 inches (0.569 sq in)

Image Area for "Super-35": 0.945 x 0.394 inches (0.372 sq in)

But for 1.85:1 "flat" release:

Image area: 0.825 x 0.446 inches (0.368 sq in)

Image Area for "Super-35": 0.945 x 0.511 inches (0.482 sq in)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-13-2004, 05:17 PM:

"Kill Bill" also did not reveal any of the tell tale signs of anamorphic lens use. If a movie is shot with anamorphic lenses you can almost always spot the various optical artifacts of the process.

Incidentally, I was watching "In Cold Blood" on the Turner Classic Movies channel last night. I wondered how a well photographed black and white 'scope movie would look transferred to 70mm prints (or something shot black and white on 65mm).

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-13-2004, 06:19 PM:

...like (most of) Tron.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-13-2004, 06:27 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I was watching "In Cold Blood" on the Turner Classic Movies channel last night. I wondered how a well photographed black and white 'scope movie would look transferred to 70mm prints.

In Cold Blood had 70mm blow-up prints...but apparently not in the U.S. Ditto for The Longest Day ('69 D-Day anniversary re-release). I've seen neither, so I cannot comment on their visual quality.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-13-2004, 07:53 PM:

"I wondered how a well photographed black and white 'scope movie would look transferred to 70mm prints (or something shot black and white on 65mm)."

I saw In Harms Way in 70mm when it came out originally. There is still a 70mm print of it available through Sony Classics.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2004, 01:58 PM:

I was aware of "Tron" being shot on 65mm black and white stock (and then transferred to giant Kodaliths). But "Tron" is not quite the same thing. The live action plates in "Tron" were shot in a manner to flatten out as much of the shadows as possible. That was part of the process in getting the costumes the actors wore to work properly in the glowing visual effects process.

The lighting technique of "Tron" is pretty much the exact opposite of what you want to do when filming a movie that is going to be shown in black and white. IMHO, "In Cold Blood" is a really great looking black and white movie. Conrad Hall did an excellent job of lighting and photographing that one. The shadow detail is particularly strong. As I watched it on TCM, I got to thinking that movie would look really good on a giant screen with a newly struck 70mm print. The highlights would be very bright and blacks very deep, not grey.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-14-2004, 02:23 PM:

We ran a print of "In Harm's Way" in 70MM, a few years ago at the Fairfax Theatre in Los Angeles. We had to watch the focus on it. By the way the print of "In Harm's Way" came from Paramount Pictures.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-14-2004, 04:14 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
Kill Bill was shot in (3-perf) Super 35 and went through a digital intermediate.

Hmmm. My mistake. I thought I read an article where Tarantino was pissed off at Super35 because of the results of Casino and Reservoir Dogs and insisted on using Anamorphic for Bill -- but it went on to say they ended up doing what you said (the digital intermediate) despite what he wanted.

The media distorts the facts! [eyes]

=TMP=

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-14-2004, 05:28 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I was aware of "Tron" being shot on 65mm black and white stock

All the 65mm shot material was done with color stock. The monochrome material (inside the video game) was shot using the 35mm Technirama format.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-14-2004, 07:13 PM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
All the 65mm shot material was done with color stock. The monochrome material (inside the video game) was shot using the 35mm Technirama format.

According to what source(s)???

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-14-2004, 08:01 PM:

From Thomas Hauerslev's In 70mm site, a quotation from Rob Hummel, who was lab coordinator and post-production supervisor for TRON:

quote:
"Tron" was shot 65mm 2.2:1 aspect ratio for all scenes. 65mm color for all the "real world material," and 65mm Black and White for all the material that was later composited into the "electronic world". All of the material was composited into VistaVision before being blown up to a 65mm IP which was intercut with the IP struck from the cut 65mm EK negative. All of the CGI material from MAGI and Triple I was recorded out to VistaVision and was intercut with all of the other composited material. "The Making of Tron" book has a very accurate flow chart of how the film was all put together. While there were a couple of anamorphic shots, and a couple of full aperture ("Super 35" before it was called that) cuts, the entire film, for all intents and purposes, was originated on 65mm film.

Has anyone any new information on the possible New Line 70mm release? My money's still on a short run of ROTK or some combination of LOTR.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-14-2004, 08:16 PM:

65mm Double-X Black & White
Source: Cinefex #8

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-14-2004, 09:34 PM:

Kodak will make you anything if you order enough of it.

Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-14-2004, 10:04 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Kodak will make you anything if you order enough of it.

Within reason. [Cool]

Posted by Will Currie (Member # 2550) on 07-14-2004, 10:12 PM:

I remember reading that IMAX did a test of LOTR DMR. Peter Jackson said that it was how he envisioned his film being shown (or something like that). Wonder if they will use DMR to make 70mm prints. Sounds like a more cost effective alternative to releasing solely to IMAX theaters.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 07-15-2004, 03:54 AM:

I´ve understood it´s Terrence Malick´s new project "The New World" they talk about.

Posted by Will Currie (Member # 2550) on 07-15-2004, 09:42 AM:

Sounds interesting...
I love the New Line description of itself at the end of the press release...

"New Line Cinema is the oldest and most successful independent film company in the world..." and then it goes on to say "... Together with its subsidiary, Fine Line Features, New Line is a unit of Time Warner."

What is the definition of independent these days? Being part of a major conglomerate?

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-15-2004, 10:37 AM:

Malick's DAYS OF HEAVEN is one of the most beautiful films ever (too bad the story didn't live up to the cinematography). I regret never having seen a 70mm print of it.

Hope it works out. I've driven many miles for 70mm before, and I'll be very happy to do it again.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-15-2004, 07:31 PM:

I regret never having seen a 70mm print of it.

Now you have. (I just noticed that this photo, taken by me, submitted by Mark G., is mislabeled in the photo warehouse as 2001 but it's Days.) Full complement of pictures here.