Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fantastic Beasts in 5/70mm

This is topic Fantastic Beasts in 5/70mm 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=012059

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 09-21-2016, 09:47 AM:

The Grand Lake in Oakland CA, has a confirmed booking of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them in 5/70mm. It is from Warners and opens Nov. 18th. Anybody else?

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 09-22-2016, 12:38 AM:

Are you sure about that? It's shot with an Alexa XT so it's not even a 4k source. It would seem strange to strike 70mm prints for a movie not even shot on film, let alone high resolution like the Alexa 65 or something.

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 09-22-2016, 01:01 PM:

That is what my boss says. He says it is confirmed. Think Batman vs Superman. They made about 15 70mm prints of that. That was not shot on film either.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-22-2016, 01:08 PM:

The only benefit I can see of running that movie in 70mm is it would give projectionists some practice showing 70mm film. That's it.

Image quality will be just as good, if not actually better, watching that digital-sourced movie in a d-cinema theater. The film print would have at least one or more steps of generational loss in image quality. On top of that, there currently is no way to sync Dolby Atmos with 5/70mm. The Atmos mix of this movie would be exclusive to d-cinema theaters.

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 09-22-2016, 01:23 PM:

It is a marketing gimmick.

Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 09-22-2016, 02:49 PM:

BATMAN V SUPERMAN was shot on film (16, 35, 5/70, 15/70) and some digital. It looked great!

As for digital to film transfers, the two most recent ones I've seen (MAGIC MIKE XXL and MAD MAX: FURY ROAD) were both improvements over their DCP counterparts. Contrast and color were better, sharpness and detail were about the same, maybe even a little better. Things like fast panning shots, of which both these movies had several, looked a lot nicer and less jittery on 35.

Anyway, I'm glad to see more 70mm releases, regardless of shooting format (though obviously 65mm is preferred). I don't know if I'd call it a gimmick, at least not any more than Dolby Atmos.

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 09-22-2016, 03:10 PM:

It is a gimmick in the way 3D is just on a limited basis. As most of the theatres that can show 70mm with there own equipment these days are independents, it is good for them to get more customers through the door. That works for me where I work. In the San Francisco Bay Area it is the Grand Lake and the Castro that can do 5/70mm. You could add the California in San Jose but they are mostly a performing arts house.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-22-2016, 03:44 PM:

The risk of doing this, of course, is that customers will see the "70mm!!!" listing on the marquee or in the theatre's advertising, show up to the screening because of it, and then leave wondering what the big deal was.

I actually do think that video-originated material (even NTSC-level video) usually benefits from a film transfer (vs. video projection), but, if 70mm is to survive, it needs to be something really special and recognizably different from what most customers see in the average cinema. If customers can't see a big difference in quality, they will not go out of their way to see the 70mm presentation. Why would they?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-22-2016, 06:24 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The only benefit I can see of running that movie in 70mm is it would give projectionists some practice showing 70mm film. That's it.

It also keeps FotoKem's film division in business and viable, not to mention Kodak's 2383 production line.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-22-2016, 08:38 PM:

quote:
BATMAN V SUPERMAN was shot on film (16, 35, 5/70, 15/70) and some digital. It looked great!

That movie was heavily post processed via digital intermediate, in 2K resolution, then output to those film formats.

The film prints would have offered more of an advantage if the movie had used an enitrely film-based work flow. There would't be any 2K resolution bottle-neck or bottle-necks on color and contrast depth either. But nobody is using a 100% film-in/film-out process.

quote: Julian Antos
As for digital to film transfers, the two most recent ones I've seen (MAGIC MIKE XXL and MAD MAX: FURY ROAD) were both improvements over their DCP counterparts. Contrast and color were better, sharpness and detail were about the same, maybe even a little better. Things like fast panning shots, of which both these movies had several, looked a lot nicer and less jittery on 35.

You must be comparing a decent film setup with a bad d-cinema setup, especially if you're seeing more detail and better color on a film print that is generations removed from the movie's digital source. Soft focus and dim picture will make a d-cinema show look like crap compared to a Blu-ray played on a TV set.

quote: Julian Antos
I'm glad to see more 70mm releases, regardless of shooting format (though obviously 65mm is preferred). I don't know if I'd call it a gimmick, at least not any more than Dolby Atmos.

Dolby Atmos, when used effectively, is a lot more than just some gimmick. It can take surround sound to an entirely new complex level, blowing away conventional 5.1 and 7.1 audio.

70mm prints (if confirmed on this 2K digital movie) would mostly be a waste and barely even qualify as a gimmick. The public would need to know what benefit 70mm would provide. In this case there really isn't any benefit.

quote: Scott Norwood
The risk of doing this, of course, is that customers will see the "70mm!!!" listing on the marquee or in the theatre's advertising, show up to the screening because of it, and then leave wondering what the big deal was.

Absolutely.

If the movie industry wants to revive 70mm print use they need to go about it correctly or risk ruining any remaining appeal of the format.

I think 70mm prints are a waste on any digital-sourced movie rendered at 2K resolution. 70mm use is even questionable on 4K originated and rendered material. The latest cameras from Arri and Red can shoot in 6K and 8K resolution respectively. Sony is working on a 8K CineAlta camera. If a movie production maintained that high resolution completely through post production and output it to film then a 70mm projection setup could have a clear advantage over digital systems limited to 4K. Right now no contemporary movies are being post processed at higher than 4K.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-22-2016, 10:54 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Right now no contemporary movies are being post processed at higher than 4K.

With the notable exception of those which use a completely photochemical postproduction process.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-23-2016, 01:31 AM:

I think we can all agree that it's far from ideal, but it's still film. Lets just be thankful for that. They could've not done it at all.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 09-23-2016, 01:51 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The film prints would have offered more of an advantage if the movie had used an enitrely film-based work flow. There would't be any 2K resolution bottle-neck or bottle-necks on color and contrast depth either. But nobody is using a 100% film-in/film-out process.

Well, nobody except Christopher Nolan. Dunkirk is shooting on film, and like his previous several films, the IMAX 15/70, 5/70 and 35mm prints will all be photochemical finishes.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 09-23-2016, 06:28 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
That movie was heavily post processed via digital intermediate, in 2K resolution, then output to those film formats.

According to this site only the non-IMAX VFX shots in Batman v Superman were in 2K.

"Everything was digitally shot in 4K or the original 35/70mm film negative was scanned in 4K and all the mastering/editing was done in 4K. Typically, if the film has VFX it was rendered in 2K."

quote: Daniel Schulz
Well, nobody except Christopher Nolan. Dunkirk is shooting on film, and like his previous several films, the IMAX 15/70, 5/70 and 35mm prints will all be photochemical finishes.

With Nolan having been executive producer on Batman v Superman I'd have expected at least some of the non-VFX scenes to have had a film-only workflow. Maybe not.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 09-23-2016, 04:27 PM:

The big problem is that the industry doesn't have a workflow for anything higher then 4k resolution, which is more or less equivalent to a first generation super 35mm resolution. Unfortunately, subsequent interpositive, internegative and distribution prints, bring that resolution down to a bit more then 2k, according to a Kodak study performed in the mid 2000's. Due to the cost and time associated with 4k finishing, most movies today are still being finished and distributed in 2k. So when you look at what has changed quality wise, we really haven't seen the dramatic bump in quality expected from this move to digital. Truthfully, all digital has done is put a lot of people out of work and reduced the amount of talent required to make and distribute a movie. During the film days, the whole workflow required a lot of skill and talent to make an acceptable image in post, but today with digital cinematography and digital finishing, you just don't need that much talent.

It's well known that an original camera negative 5/70 frame is around 8k and because we don't strike a lot of prints, the quality today of 5/70 is far superior to that of even 35mm prints of a few years ago. Batman V Superman was shot almost entirely on film and only some visual effects were 2k, mostly everything was 4k. Even though the content wasn't great, even though the very "digital" style of finishing wasn't great. The actual "presentation" of the 5/70 image, do I dare say, was excellent. Partly thanks to the modern 5/70 projector at Arclight and projectionist who did a great job. But also thanks to the filmmakers caring about making prints and making them look good.

Star Wars Episode 7 failed miserably in this department because the 35mm prints were atrocious and the digital release was 2k. For a movie released in 2015, you'd think they could do better, but in my eyes it was a complete "technological" failure. Episode 9 is rumored to be shot entirely on 5/65. In fact, there are THREE slated 5/65 movies to be shot in 2017!!! Do I dare say this whole thing MAY be taking off?

Where I agree the 70mm logo is great to have, I also find scanning a movie shot in less then 4k resolution to a high resolution format, is kind of a waste.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-28-2016, 10:18 AM:

quote: Tyler Purcell
So when you look at what has changed quality wise, we really haven't seen the dramatic bump in quality expected from this move to digital.

We have seen an end to horrendously scratched and dirty 35mm prints playing at your typical mall multiplex. I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but I think the evidence is there that for your typical movie theater patron, who does not have access to the prestige, first run houses or art/rep places that are making a long term commitment to doing film right, the 35mm to DCP conversion has achieved an overall improvement in the viewing experience. And as you point out, the photographic quality of the last Star Wars 35mm release fell way below what the medium is capable of.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-28-2016, 11:02 AM:

I am as pro-film as anyone, and I completely agree with Leo that the average mini-mall type of theatre never had good film presentations (between lousy operators, decades-old equipment that had been poorly maintained, and low-quality prints). D-cinema at least forced these places to install new equipment and do some maintenance, as well as largely taking operators and prints out of the pool of potential problems.

For the average moviegoer, this has been a net improvement.

The unfortunate side effect is that it basically rewarded incompetence and punished those who actually were putting on a good presentation with film (and who are now forced to own and maintain two separate projection systems).

Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 09-28-2016, 03:43 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
We have seen an end to horrendously scratched and dirty 35mm prints playing at your typical mall multiplex. I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but I think the evidence is there that for your typical movie theater patron, who does not have access to the prestige, first run houses or art/rep places that are making a long term commitment to doing film right, the 35mm to DCP conversion has achieved an overall improvement in the viewing experience.

I still love film (35 mm, 70 mm, IMAX 70 mm) but I agree with Leo too. Most part of the time, the level of quality used to be dramatically low at the typical mall multiplex. So, even with 2K projectors, going digital was a big noticeable improvement.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 09-28-2016, 05:06 PM:

I have to agree with Leo too. Presentation quality is overall better at the sub run level. But the technical issues I read about are infinitely more complex at all levels.

The digital change reminds me of the change to digital networks in the telephone industry. Yes, technical issues were more complex but they were eventually solved. Believe it or not, today's digital fiber networks are actually easier to maintain than what existed in the near past.

I believe the same will happen in the exhibition industry as the technology matures.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 09-29-2016, 02:24 AM:

Here is the problem... digital's "improvement" only exists because it takes the labor out of a once labor intensive position. Digital in of itself isn't magically better then film, it just requires less user interface, which means less room for error. With film, everything needs to be perfect and for quite a long time, it was that way. As I always say, if one theater projecting film can be good, there is no excuse for the rest to be bad.

Unfortunately, digital doesn't offer the audience anything they can't get at home. With home theater displays/projectors and sources. sometimes better resolution then theatrically released material, I'm amazed anyone goes to the theater. I use to see 2 - 4 movies a month and now I see around 5 movies a year in the theater. Why? Because I have an excellent home theater and why waste money on 2k distribution when I can see it exactly the same at home.

The move from film to digital is the first nail in the coffin for cinemas. Cinemas no longer offer a special/unique experience. It will take a few more years, but once day and date releasing happens online, cinemas will fold very quickly. Only the profit centers will remain and probably eventually close thanks to super high pricing as a consequence. The theater experience will be reserved for special movie rides like what's happening in Asia today. People go to "experience" a movie, rather then simply watch it.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-19-2016, 12:38 PM:

quote: Frederick Lanoy
I still love film (35 mm, 70 mm, IMAX 70 mm) but I agree with Leo too. Most part of the time, the level of quality used to be dramatically low at the typical mall multiplex. So, even with 2K projectors, going digital was a big noticeable improvement.

Not just the mall. Even back in the day in NYC, there were only a few theaters that did 70mm really well post the reserved seat era: the Ziegfeld, the Loews Orpheum and the Loews Astor Plaza.

There were a fair number of other 70mm theatres, such as the Gramercy, Bay Cinema, New Paramount/Columbus Circle, New Fine Arts, Baronet, Coronet, National, Embassy I II III, Angelica 57, 86th St East Twin, Movieland, Chelsea, Regency, 1st and 62nd, Beekman, Park & 86th, 34th St. Showplace, Guild 50th, Criterion, Worldwide 6, Loews NY Twin, Murray Hill 4, Sutton, and the East 85th (+ theaters in the outer boroughs), but most were "just okay" at best.

The presentation quality of digital struck home when I was in Cape Cod a few summers ago and went to a digitally-equipped local movie house. Before digital, they usually would have gotten some scratched and dirty hand-me-down print. With a DCP, the presentation quality was every bit as good as a NYC theater and the theater itself was beautiful.

I've found most of the presentations at the Dolby Vision/Atmos screen at the AMC Empire 25 to be quite incredible. I brought my brother, who lives in Sweden and afterwards he said he didn't think he could see a movie in a "regular" movie house ever again.