Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » QT's movie in Ultra Panavision 70?? (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: QT's movie in Ultra Panavision 70??
Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

- posted 11-10-2014 07:48 PM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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!

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 11-10-2014 08:50 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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).

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

- posted 11-10-2014 08:55 PM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged
Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 11-10-2014 09:21 PM      Profile for Martin McCaffery   Author's Homepage   Email Martin McCaffery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Road Show?

 |  IP: Logged
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

- posted 11-10-2014 09:26 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

- posted 11-11-2014 03:14 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged
Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000

- posted 11-11-2014 05:45 AM      Profile for Thomas Hauerslev   Author's Homepage   Email Thomas Hauerslev   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
He will blow it up to 3-strip Cinerama of course.

UP70 projection lenses will be like gold dust by now

 |  IP: Logged
Terry Monohan
Master Film Handler

Posts: 379
From: San Francisco CA USA
Registered: May 2014

- posted 11-11-2014 10:33 AM      Profile for Terry Monohan   Email Terry Monohan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 11-11-2014 10:37 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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]

 |  IP: Logged
Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 11-11-2014 10:50 AM      Profile for Martin McCaffery   Author's Homepage   Email Martin McCaffery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

- posted 11-11-2014 07:13 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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.

 |  IP: Logged
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

- posted 11-11-2014 08:39 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
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]

 |  IP: Logged
Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003

- posted 11-12-2014 12:45 AM      Profile for Daniel Schulz   Author's Homepage   Email Daniel Schulz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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...

 |  IP: Logged
Jason Whyte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 132
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Registered: Sep 2002

- posted 11-12-2014 12:57 AM      Profile for Jason Whyte   Author's Homepage   Email Jason Whyte   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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?

 |  IP: Logged
Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000

- posted 11-12-2014 01:02 AM      Profile for Thomas Hauerslev   Author's Homepage   Email Thomas Hauerslev   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The late Rick Mitchell's story about Ultra Panavision 70: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2005/ultra_panavision_70/index.htm

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.