Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: QT's movie in Ultra Panavision 70??

This is topic QT's movie in Ultra Panavision 70?? 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=011741

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-10-2014, 07:48 PM:

You've heard that Tarantino plans to shoot The Hateful Eight in 65mm. Did you know he was planning to shoot Ultra Panavision 70? For those just joining us, UP70 combines 65/70mm with a slight (1.25X) anamorphic squeeze for some seriously wide imagery.

I love 70mm (65mm negative) but maybe someone needs to point out to him that many theatres will either crop the sides or have to letterbox the image to get it all on screen. Even back in the day, many theatres cropped the sides.

http://deadline.com/2014/11/quentin-tarantino-retirement-hateful-eight-international-release-1201280583/

The article speaks of how he really wants people to be blown away by 70mm compared to digital cinema which he refers to as TV. They go on to discuss how the movie is being sold territory by territory as wants knowledgeable people to know how long it can play EXCLUSIVELY in 70mm.

quote:
“We’re doing this 70 mm, and we are trying to create an event,” he said. “I need to know from all of you if this can last a month in your territory in that format, or two weeks. Then we roll it out in 35 and eventually digital.

But here is the kicker:

quote:
[DP cinematographer Bob Richardson] went to Panavision to check out lenses for this big Sherman Tank of a camera he’ll use. He goes into the warehouse room and sees all these big crazy lenses. He asks, what are those? It was the Ultra-Panavision lenses that haven’t been used since How The West Was Won, Mutiny On The Bounty, Battle Of The Bulge and It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World, which were all bigger than the normal 70 mm. If the normal scope is 235, this is 278, the widest frame possible on film. The projectors need a decoder, an adapter, to blow it out that way. That’s why Mad Mad World, Battle Of The Bulge and Ice Station Zebra look the way they do. The last movie to use these lenses was Khartoum with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier. We’re using those lenses for this movie. We’ve been testing them the last month and everything is A-ok. They look amazing. We are literally coming out with the biggest wide screen movie shot in the last 40 years.”

Holy smoke!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-10-2014, 08:50 PM:

I'm guessing nobody told them that there are not enough surviving UP70 projection lenses available for all of the theatres he wants to be in. Oh and the screens...not many of them are set up for the 2.75 ratio. So most theatres that run it will need to letterbox to some degree to avoid cropping...making the picture SMALLER...probably not their intent. Back when UP70 came out...they were going into Cinerama theatres...ultra-wide screens were not an issue then.

I'd back off of the UP70 stuff this go around. There is nothing wrong with the 2.20 ratio and it is definitely wide screen. It even works in DCP three different ways (as an F, S or even C container).

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-10-2014, 08:55 PM:

Hard to believe someone at Panavision didn't sit them down and discuss the realities. But if they are out there shooting tests...well...I don't know. Maybe the plan is to do UP70 at a few places otherwise a 2.2 reduction.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-10-2014, 09:21 PM:

Road Show?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2014, 09:26 PM:

We re-did the masking for Interstellar in 70mm, why not this? Besides it would be super easy to throw a 1.25 anamorphic lens in front of the Look setup, and I could certainly dupe that on the others (plus hopefully more screens).

The trick for this to work is Quentin is going to have to GUARANTEE the 70mm theaters a solid month advance run before any other format. I believe that was Nolan's original intent, but when he found out how few theaters could run 70mm he backed down and said "film". But even at that, a 2 day lead wasn't enough.

And no offense to the IMAX lovers out there, but I do hope Quentin holds his ground in terms of no IMAX screens. Watching a film, especially a scope (or wider) movie on an unmasked IMAX screen just sucks.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-11-2014, 03:14 AM:

quote: Steve
Did you know he was planning to shoot Ultra Panavision 70?

Yes, we knew it would be anamorphic 70mm. The original thread around here stated something like that. It might be 6 or 8 months old by now if not more. They didn't use the term Ultra Panavision but you could tell what he meant.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-11-2014, 05:45 AM:

He will blow it up to 3-strip Cinerama of course.

UP70 projection lenses will be like gold dust by now

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 11-11-2014, 10:33 AM:

His new process may be called ULTRA SINEMASCOPE® 70mm. The new FILM will probably be the most violent and sinister full movie ever to be filmed in the Ultra Panavision® 70 process. Bring on the roadshow wide screen version, open up the big screens wider, larger and curved.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-11-2014, 10:37 AM:

I thought Quentin Tarantino was just adding some extra retro marketing pizzazz with that "70mm Super CinemaScope" thing in the teaser trailer and early poster artwork. I didn't think it meant anything above normal 5/65mm production.

I suppose the "70mm Super CinemaScope" term would be kind of accurate if QT actually does follow through with shooting the movie in anamorphic 65mm. However, I would prefer the Ultra Panavision 70mm term be used if he's going to shoot with Panavision gear and those vintage UP lenses.

How do those vintage Ultra Panavision lenses compare in terms of optical quality to the newest 65mm camera lenses? I know modern film stocks are better, but so is modern glass. What short of hit on image quality will this production take by using those old lenses?

If QT or anyone else really wants to revive 70mm they gotta shoot movies in such a manner where 70mm can look its best. 70mm has an amazing capacity for sharp detail, making tiny objects on a huge screen clearly visible -like camels far in the distance in Lawrence of Arabia.

Christopher Nolan didn't shoot much of Interstellar to make 70mm look its best. Far too much of it was shot with really low depth of field on both 35mm and IMAX, not to mention he really muted down the color palette.

I'm hoping QT doesn't do the same things in The Hateful Eight. Unfortunately the plot involves 8 bad-ass principal characters being stuck in some building during a blizzard in the Rocky Mountains. I imagine those interior scenes are not going to be bright. If too much of the movie is spent in some dimly lit interior with characters jaw-jacking endlessly (like they did in Death Proof) the movie is going to suck and that glorious 70mm format will be wasted.

QT will do 70mm more favors by packing his movie with more action and shooting it brightly lit with deep depth of field. The Rocky Mountains provide one hell of a landscape for 70mm. QT better use it.

Aside from all that, I agree with Steve's comments. The choice of Ultra Panavision 70 denies a lot of realities with movie theaters today. Very few have any means of setting up a screen where the 2.7:1 image will be bigger than anything else. Most common height theaters can't go any wider than 2.4:1. They'll have to mask/letterbox into the screen, making a smaller image. All those wall to wall, common width theater screens will have to severely letterbox the image or just cut off the ends. Of course QT could seriously penalize those theaters by composing the titles and key pieces of imagery in the movie off to either end of the screen.
[evil]

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-11-2014, 10:50 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The Rocky Mountains provide one hell of a landscape for 70mm. QT better use it.

Given his propensity to, let us say, "borrow" from other movies, I imagine he will replicate the opening shot of Sound of Music;> Which could be quite hilarious if it ends with Julie Andrews getting gunned down in the mountains.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-11-2014, 07:13 PM:

In digital cinema this would look hilarious. 759 pixels tall, not much more than the 720p broadcast by FOX. If I were Quentin I'd book the film version at the best theaters and then the digital version at the worst theaters who are all underlit, have bad sound, have GDC servers, Sony projectors, small screens, etc. That'd really make the comparison like night and day and even those who usually can't tell the difference in such things might notice something. But then again I'm just the kind of asshole who'd do that.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-11-2014, 08:39 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Which could be quite hilarious if it ends with Julie Andrews getting gunned down in the mountains.

Its been done. Wish I could've found a clip on youtube, but I remember it as part of a demonstration on sound editing at an older Academy Awards show.

Quentin's version would be more bloody though. [evil]

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 11-12-2014, 12:45 AM:

I wonder if we can talk QT into doing a 5-screen channel mix for the 70mm prints? Ultra wide screens deserve an ultra wide soundstage...

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 11-12-2014, 12:57 AM:

Either that or Quentin will find a way to get magnetic sound back or release in Dolby Format 41, although I would prefer Datasat on this. [Smile]

Aside from Brad's potential theaters and the three remaining Cineramas, what other theaters could pull off a 2.76 ratio today? I know BEN HUR had a recent 4k DCP and how was it played in larger venues? Letterboxed/masked scope or can other theaters play wider?

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-12-2014, 01:02 AM:

The late Rick Mitchell's story about Ultra Panavision 70: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2005/ultra_panavision_70/index.htm

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-12-2014, 01:04 AM:

Any theater with movable masking on at least three sides and a backing prime of the right focal distance (to go behind the UP70 lens) could theoretically do it. As others have pointed out, though, the image could end up being pretty small.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-12-2014, 06:06 AM:

Holy smokes, resurrecting an old, obscure format back from the 60s to do what exactly?

This seems to be driven more by QT and team to pull off something weird than a real motivation to bring 70mm back as a premium exhibition format, unfortunately...

The number of theaters left on this planet that could show this to its *full* potential must be all but extinct. Maybe a few of those surviving Cinerama locations? But that's probably about it. Even those locations with proper scope sized screens and movable side maskings will not be able to show this movie without letterboxing it on screen...

If we want a sustained 70mm revival movement, a bit of standardization might just help to keep this thing from falling apart due to exploding costs and limited added value for paying customers. No exhibitor is waiting for yet another auditorium refurbishment, just because Fancy Ass Director X just pulled another oddball format from the graveyard. So why not just stick to 2.20? Isn't that already sufficiently wide?