Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70mm Prints for Phantom Thread

This is topic 70mm Prints for Phantom Thread 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=012239

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-16-2017, 03:35 PM:

In keeping with Paul Thomas Anderson's affinity for shooting and releasing on film, there is going to be a small 70mm print run for Phantom Thread. The film was shot on 35mm (flat), and as I understand it the 70mm prints will be a film out from a 4K DI.

Opening in 70mm on Christmas Day in New York and LA, with prints then going to Austin, Chicago and San Francisco to open January 12.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-17-2017, 12:22 AM:

I'll be seeing it the 25th! [Big Grin]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-19-2017, 12:02 AM:

Shot in 35mm and then pillar-boxed out to 70mm from a 4K DI? Doesn't sound like a 70mm print is going to bring much to the table, other than the trendy marketing hype of being able to claim it's being shown "on film" (the trendy new buzz word) and 70mm at that.

Why not do an optical blowup to 70mm and keep it end-to-end organic film -- image going from the camera lens to screen on film? There have been some great looking blowups from anamorphic 35mm negs -- CAMELOT comes to mind.

Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 12-19-2017, 01:48 AM:

Looking at the DCP trailer for "Phantom Thread" (and having seen INHERENT VICE) I guess it's going to be another "Looks like 16mm" experience on 70mm. Congratulations.

@Frank: AFAIR "INHERENT VICE" has been done the photochemical way, even the DCPs have been derived from a colortimed I.P. instead of doing an OCN Scan and D.I. process. No idea why they have chosen the D.I. route now.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2017, 10:40 AM:

I'm not in principal against using a digital intermediate as a source for creating a 70mm film print. But rendering the DI only in 4K? Gotta quote the ESPN Monday Night Football guys: C'mon man.

Baraka was scanned and cleaned up at FotoKem in 8K resolution damned near 10 years ago. Modern computing technology is far more powerful now than it was a decade ago. The Baraka project was daunting back then. An 8K project now would be would be a whole lot easier, at least in terms of the data crunching and render times.

I can almost give Murder on the Orient Express a pass for putting its 5/65mm imagery though a 4K DI resolution bottle-neck. There was a lot of CGI digital backlot stuff incorporated into the imagery and rendering all that stuff in 8K might be difficult. Models, texture maps and other effects have to be 4 times higher in resolution to be done in 8K; basically no one does this at all since there is no such thing as a digital projector higher than 4K resolution. Most CGI work is still done only in 2K.

The big HOWEVER for this is the movie's marketing: using 70MM to attract us film geeks. If a movie production is going to market its show as a 70mm movie then it needs to have real 70mm resolution imagery in the end product. 4K is just not good enough. True 70mm is better than that. If a 4K DI is going to be involved then there's really no point in shooting on 65mm, much less making 70mm prints of the end result. The output 70mm prints do little more than keep the film lab running and give projectionists something to practice their skills.

Judging by its trailer Phantom Thread doesn't appear to have all those CGI digital backlot rendering issues. It looks like it was shot on non-digital real sets and real locations. In the end the issue is what resolution to use for a straight forward scan and digital intermediate. A 4K scan of the 4/35mm negative might have been enough to capture the fundamental detail (fabric weave, hair, etc) in the image, but an 8K scan would have worked further to capture the film grain itself. 4K is good enough for mainstream d-cinema stuff (and far too many "deciders" believe 2K is still good enough). An 8K DI is going to be more costly and time consuming to produce. But it's still do-able, and a lot more practical to do than it was a decade ago.

There is a growing number of 6K and 8K d-cinema camera systems to go along with existing 5/65mm and 8/35mm camera systems. If the movie industry wants to market to us film geeks and differentiate itself from the 4K UHDTV sets at home then they need to get with it already and source these 70mm film prints they're showing from elements better than a 4K DI.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 12-19-2017, 05:10 PM:

I guess what remains to be seen is if a 4K restoration of a title such as "Lawrence of Arabia" and output to 70mm is still worthwhile enough to justify film presentation. Since the Egyptian is running it this week in a new 70mm print from a 4K DI, well, there you go.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-19-2017, 09:38 PM:

quote: Daniel Schulz
the 70mm prints will be a film out from a 4K DI.

Now this is getting to be really stupid! Why even bother?

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 12-19-2017, 10:58 PM:

PTA is a lot more pragmatic about 70mm, resolution,cinema and people's opinion in general.

While we wait for more "Phantom Thread" details, here's Director Paul Thomas Anderson (transcribed from a YouTube video), at the time of the release of "The Master", about watching 70mm prints in the cinema:

Question: Your choice to film in 65mm, appropriate to the period, obviously. Does it matter if your audience doesn't see that, because presumably only a minority of the audience are going to see it in 70mmn

Paul Thomas Anderson: Yes, no, I mean, does it matter? If you are in that kind of thing, you'll probably love it. You know, you’ll be able to feel a slight difference if you know, but it's ultimately No. I mean, listen, I've loved movies I've watched on my phone, I hate to say, and I loved moves I've seen in theatres

I mean, it's a hard thing now a days, and hopefully, you know, the people that loved to go to movie theatres, loved to go movie theatres, and we kind of hopefully presented this option, that if you wanna dig it this way, it's there for you. I prefer it. I enjoy it. I think it's a more well balanced meal, just in terms of the way that it kinda comes through the projector and the light and umm, and things moving around, and..... I prefer it. But certainly does not mean you are not gonna like the movie if you have to see it in any other way. It also doesn’t mean you gonna like it any more.

Question: Can't imagine what “The Master” would be like on a phone

Paul Thomas Andersson: [Laughs] Actually no, hopefully not too bad. Shouldn't matter, I mean, I remember like seeing, like these guys, like hovered around in a garage watching "Saving Private Ryan" on this like little teeny black and white TV, and these guys were just loving the film in a parking garage in South America, and they were completely in to it. They didn’t need it on a big screen, they didn’t need whatever HiFi sound and all that. They are just digging the film

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-20-2017, 04:30 AM:

What what? You guys don't know the benefits of 70mm?

First off, the movie was shot 3 perf 35mm, which means you can't make prints without an optical. This means, to retain any quality they'd have to do a DI.

Second, 3 perf 35mm resolves around 5k, so scanning at 4k is perfectly acceptable. There isn't MUCH loss of quality and scanning any higher than 5k doesn't garnish a better image, only a more noisy one.

Third, 3 perf 35mm has a native aspect ratio of about 1.75:1 which means any 35mm prints would be matted top and bottom, meaning far less quality than an open gate 4 perf or anamorphic print.

Fourth, for a true 35mm photochemical distribution from a 3 perf negative, this is the workflow: Cut OCN>3 perf IP> 3 to 4 perf blowup IN> release prints. So you'd be dealing with 4th generation for theatrical prints on 35mm. Where with a DI, you scan the negative and you laser out DIRECTLY TO 70MM IN. So release prints are being struck off a 70mm IN which for all practical purposes is an identical replica of the 3 perf 35mm negative. So you're dealing with prints made from 2nd generation, instead of 4th generation with the optical printing process. YES one could do an optical blow up directly from the negative, but the cost to do every single print that way, is exorbitant, so it's really never done.

Fifth, 70mm is a 2.20:1 aspect ratio format. So yes, the sides will be lopped off, but unlike 35mm where the top and bottom are lopped off for a 1.85:1 presentation, you aren't losing any resolution like you are with a 35mm print.

Sixth, 70mm prints wear better and can be run for longer than 35mm prints whilst retaining decent quality.

So you guys are aware, there are 2 sync sound 65mm cameras in the world that are maintained and workable, both come out of Panavision Los Angeles. Both have been in constant use over the last year thanks to Dunkirk, Murder On the Orient, The Nutcracker and now Star Wars Episode IX. Even if PT wanted to shoot his movie in 65mm, it would have been impossible thanks to the camera schedules. Arri's 65mm solution comes out of Germany or the US and it's not very good. Everyone has issues with it and it slows down production tremendously. So PT was stuck using a more conventional 3 perf 35mm format.

I know PT's dream is to shoot vistavision and when I see him, I'm going to discuss what it will take to get him a quiet vistavision camera for a future project, as it's something I've always wanted to do. This is partially why he shot The Master on 65mm but in 1.85:1 because he just loves that aspect ratio, but wants the field of view of 65mm vs 35mm. Unfortunately 3 perf 35mm doesn't give you the same look, but the right aspect ratio, as shooting 4 perf is just a waste of stock these days.

Yes I'm disappointed he shot The Phantom Thread in 35mm, but it is what it is. The scheduling and added cost of 65mm, can be huge setbacks even for an experienced filmmaker like PT. With that being said, we should be thankful for someone who gives two shits about projectionists and presenting movies on film. I'm so happy to be living in a time where normal movies are projected on 70mm, thanks to you guys! [Big Grin]

Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 12-20-2017, 10:54 AM:

Well whatever they did looks nice to my eyes. We ran a 70mm trailer for the film and it looks lovely. Very much looking forward to running the feature and very glad prints are being made in any format with any workflow.

BTW Tyler 70mm should wear no faster or slower than any other film format, all things being equal.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-20-2017, 03:57 PM:

So when should we start building vista vision projectors? [Wink]

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-20-2017, 04:04 PM:

quote: Tyler Purcell
First off, the movie was shot 3 perf 35mm, which means you can't make prints without an optical. This means, to retain any quality they'd have to do a DI.

Why on earth would you shoot Super 35 for a movie with a 1.85 aspect ratio?

Posted by Tony Magallanes (Member # 10196) on 12-20-2017, 05:40 PM:

We, at FotoKem, took the 35mm cut original and blew it up to 65mm. I must say, it looks fantastic!! There was NOT any 4K DIs made on Phantom Thread. We made blown up 65mm I.P.'s and then I.N.'s & 70mm Prints.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-21-2017, 01:30 AM:

quote: Tony Magallanes
We, at FotoKem, took the 35mm cut original and blew it up to 65mm. I must say, it looks fantastic!! There was NOT any 4K DIs made on Phantom Thread. We made blown up 65mm I.P.'s and then I.N.'s & 70mm Prints.

Thank you for clarifying, and my deepest apologies for the misinformation in the OP! Clearly I was given bad info. I take it the original negative is then a 4-perf/35mm neg?

Do you know if the DCPs are made from a 2K or a 4K scan of the print?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-21-2017, 07:53 AM:

quote: Daniel Schulz
Why on earth would you shoot Super 35 for a movie with a 1.85 aspect ratio?

I realize that this is irrelevant at this point in the thread, but, to answer this--probably because it gives a bit more image area for scanning (assuming a DI) and extra head and foot room for a nicer 4x3 version (if this is even still done).

Also, isn't there an issue with cutting negatives on 3-perf films? Something about how the splices end up in the image area, so 3-perf films need to be cut into A&B rolls, like with 16mm?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-21-2017, 09:42 AM:

Super-185 was and I guess IS a valid shooting format. I've set up for dailies on it. Like Super 35, it is a larger negative area. I suppose one could argue the benefit of the larger negative area versus the eventual optical reduction for printing.

In the digital world, it is more data to work with and for a 70mm blow up, then again, you are magnifying a bit less. As to why not shoot in 65mm...probably due to space and lighting and nimbleness of 35mm versus 65mm (including preferring the depth of field of 35mm format lenses versus 65mm.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-21-2017, 12:06 PM:

Well, I'm glad it's not done digitally. I'm really tired of every single 70mm release being digital because it really ruins the image in my opinion.

In terms of 70mm wearing differently than 35mm, well it just does. All things being equal, dust and scratches are generally a lot smaller on 70mm than 35mm prints.

In terms of super 35mm... well it's just the original 35mm format prior to the soundtrack being added. It's just, the format natively is 1.33:1 aspect ratio, of which nobody shoots in anymore. 3 perf 35mm reduces the amount of film running through the camera by 25% (huge cost savings) AND gives you a native aspect ratio of 1.75:1 which is very easy to crop down to 1.85:1 without losing much image.

The vast majority of non-anamorphic features have been shot with 3 perf or 2 perf cameras since the mid 2000's when the format really took off. The only downside is the finishing process, of which 3 perf to 4 perf opticals for release prints, is a very image-degrading process. This is why DI was so popular and why release prints from that era looked so crisp. There was recently a photochemically finished 2 perf movie with an anamorphic optical blow up and honestly, it didn't look good at all. The digital intermediate process on 3 perf and 2 perf in my opinion, is a requirement for making the image look good on the print side.

Obviously with any 4 perf process it's all 1:1, which is one of the major reasons anamorphic 35mm is still such a great format. Even when you go through the IP>IN>Release print phase, it still retains a good amount of quality.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 12-22-2017, 10:30 PM:

I once interviewed lens legend Joe Dunton about Super 35, and "Dance Craze"

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2011/dance_craze/index.htm

Posted by Kieran Hall (Member # 10268) on 12-23-2017, 04:43 AM:

It looks like the UK will be getting a 70mm print at Picturehouse Central.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 12-27-2017, 12:35 AM:

Just wanted to say, the movie is brilliant and well made. The print at Arclight was perfect, though in my particular theater, there was a slight jitter and the lamp wasn't very consistent either. It was fine across the way in the other theater which was also 70mm. So it was just that projector, which wasn't "bad" but noticeably not perfect. That theater use to have a Kinton in it, but it looks to have a JJ now. I think the theater shifted around projectors with all these 70mm screenings of recent.

Still the print was beautiful and for sure photochemically made.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 12-27-2017, 01:33 AM:

quote:
Just wanted to say, the movie is brilliant and well made.

Still the print was beautiful and for sure photochemically made.

Seconded.

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 12-27-2017, 11:13 AM:

We'll be running this in 70mm at the following Drafthouse locations:
- Ritz - Austin, TX (c/o)
- Mission - San Francisco, CA (c/o)
- Brooklyn, NY (platter)

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-28-2017, 03:39 PM:

As of today, we have the following locations playing Phantom Thread in 70mm now or in the future:

California
Hollywood ArcLight Hollywood
Los Angeles The Landmark
San Francisco Alamo Drafthouse Cinema - New Mission

Illinois
Chicago Music Box Theatre

Massachusetts
Brookline Coolidge Corner Theatre

New York
Brooklyn Alamo Drafthouse Cinema - Downtown Brooklyn
New York AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13

Texas
Austin Alamo Drafthouse Cinema - The Ritz

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-30-2017, 06:52 PM:

How have the changeover houses been receiving their prints? Reels or cores? If cores has this caused any issues?

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 12-30-2017, 07:01 PM:

I know the Castro in SF is getting it on cores but they have a 70mm splithub. They are doing an advance screening and the New Mission is sending reels over for the Castro to put it on.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-30-2017, 11:19 PM:

I'm fairly disappointed there are no Dallas-area shows of Phantom Thread. Austin gets a print but Dallas doesn't? What's going on here?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-31-2017, 10:12 AM:

Sean--I am told that the Coolidge got their print on cores.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-31-2017, 11:48 AM:

They did. We loaned them a 70mm split reel. That is how I found out about it being sent on cores. I am curious how this works out.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-31-2017, 02:16 PM:

Indeed, I have a feeling there will be a lot of winding damage during return shipping on cores. Here in the US historically theaters have not been well equipped to handle film on cores and most operators aren't all that knowledgeable on how to deal with it...most specifically the large size and weight of 70mm.

I've seen in the 35mm days where people used a trailer flange and tried to wind a 2000' roll of 35mm using that. The results were not ship-able without edge damage. I can't imagine what will happen with the 70mm prints.

Even the cores those are sent out on are the Kodak 3 inch cores, so there is no drive pin to use (required by many platters for breakdown since some of these are running on platters).

Are there even scribed cues on these prints on cores? If not that will certainly get interesting since 70mm cue scribers are hard to find.

Finally are these being sent out as AB rolls or separate A and B rolls? If so then halfway through each reel there is going to be an unnecessary and likely visible tape splice instead of doing it properly with an ultrasonic weld.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-01-2018, 02:01 PM:

I understand that a different company with unknown (at least to me) experience in 70mm is handling this one. I think the A and B rolls were joined but I don't know if it was done ultrasonic. I know when we did it for H8 and Dunkirk we used ultrasonic splices to join the A's and B's

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-01-2018, 07:07 PM:

well sorry USA most of the world gets prints on cores if you want to play it have equipment and staff that can handle it end of rant [Smile]

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-01-2018, 08:18 PM:

I don't necessarily disagree Gordon except that the reality today is that there is not the skill and tools to handle 70mm on cores. If one is being hired to do a service I believe you should do everything in your power to make it as successful as possible. Providing the rolls joined and mounted on reels lessens the chance for film damage and helps to make the projectionist able to focus on the presentation. I wonder if someone will attempt to run on or off of a split reel?

I am also interested to see if the changeover cues are in the picture area or the matte which again advising the client on best practices on these types of things should be part of the value you get when hiring a company to do a 70mm release in commercial theatres today.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2018, 06:33 AM:

70mm split reels are still available new so this shouldn't be an issue. If the skill of your projectionist is that of a film-threader, you really are in a precarious position if ANYTHING out of the norm crops up.

Handling film on cores should not be a big issue.

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 01-02-2018, 07:49 AM:

Cores are an issue with 70mm. Reels are much safer. Less film handling, less chance of damage, less chance of dropping a core. Yes booths should have 70mm split reels if screening 70mm but reels are safer. The weight of a 2000ft 70mm reel is a lot to handle for the operator and the rewind table. Plus some people are doubling up reels onto 6000ft 70mm reels. Another format that sucks on cores is Super 8! try dropping a core on that small gauge.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2018, 08:28 AM:

I wasn't speaking of showing the movie off of cores. Merely transporting the film on cores. Naturally, I'd recommend transferring the film to house-reels for presentation. About the only time I run off of cores are for 1-shots where I take up on cores (if the equipment so permits).

As for doubling up, I'm not in favor of it. Too heavy and it makes the chance of cinch marks on rewind vastly higher as the speed differential increases and the torque changes (unless you have a rewind table that keeps the torque constant). Changeovers just shouldn't be that big a deal.

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 01-03-2018, 01:21 PM:

I have been told that the cue marks are properly scribed in the frame area on Phantom Thread

On the cores issue - for us it wasn't as much about having to deal with 70mm on cores, we just found out that this was going to be the case in early December, at that point we didn't have enough time to source the 70mm split reels from Goldberg and had to ship the couple we had internally around to the other locations. Just would have been nice to have a little more of a heads up.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-03-2018, 08:50 PM:

You can always call us Jason we would have been happy to help you guys out.

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 01-04-2018, 03:21 PM:

Thanks Sean, I actually did reach out to Chapin and he offered to send some over. We ended up being able to ship one from Austin for them to use for now but I do always appreciate how willing y'all are to help us out.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 01-06-2018, 11:35 AM:

Great! I am glad to hear that! We never forget the Alamo 😉

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-07-2018, 05:07 PM:

[Big Grin]

Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 01-15-2018, 02:17 PM:

Question to all those who already saw PT in 70mm:
How does it look, compared to the 4k DCP? Sharpness, Grain, Color Grading, Image Steadiness...

Unfortunately no german cinema is playing this title in 70mm.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 01-16-2018, 04:18 PM:

Do you guys know if they're expanding the 70mm release on the 19th? It seems like they're retracting the prints... but it's hard to know.

Posted by Julian Antos (Member # 5497) on 01-19-2018, 12:11 PM:

I haven't had a chance to view the DCP yet. But I have to say the 70mm print Music Box is running in Chicago is one of the finest prints I've ever seen in any format. Good enough to eat.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-19-2018, 02:19 PM:

We show just eight locations playing Phantom Thread in 70mm:

http://www.bigscreen.com/advsearch/70mm.php

California
Hollywood ArcLight Hollywood
Los Angeles The Landmark
San Francisco Alamo Drafthouse Cinema - New Mission

Massachusetts
Brookline Coolidge Corner Theatre

Maryland
Silver Spring AFI Silver Theatre and Cultural Center

New York
Brooklyn Alamo Drafthouse Cinema - Downtown Brooklyn
New York AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13

Texas
Austin Alamo Drafthouse Cinema - The Ritz

We don't have the Music Box in Chicago listed, as they didn't submit their new showtimes yet.