|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Author
|
Topic: Inherent Vice 70mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](/ubbmembers/757d.jpg)
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 12-13-2014 01:06 PM
'Inherent Vice' Will Screen in 70mm in Select Theaters. But is Bigger Always Better?
quote:
'Inherent Vice' Will Screen in 70mm in Select Theaters. But is Bigger Always Better?
By Mike Celestino Indiewire December 4, 2014 at 12:24PM
The word is out that Paul Thomas Anderson's "Inherent Vice" will be screening in 70mm at select theaters. Below a Hollywood projectionist explains why films shot on smaller formats are occasionally blown up to 70mm.
"Bigger is better." Or at least that's how Thomas Hauerslev, chief editor of the passionately dedicated compendium website in70mm.com, responded when I asked him to describe the appeal of large-format filmmaking. "70mm has a very large negative area. Nearly 3.5 times as much compared to 35mm film… 70mm film is much sharper, which gives a wonderful illusion of reality."
My first experience with 70mm was seeing David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" at the Cinerama Dome in Los Angeles over a decade ago, and I can say without hyperbole that it was a glorious, life-changing experience. I had been going to the movies my whole life, but now it felt like I had finally seen a movie. And that played no small part in my pursuing a career as a projectionist.
Of course, "Lawrence of Arabia" was shot on 70mm (technically 65, as the extra five millimeters in width is accounted for by the space necessary to fit the soundtrack on the final print) and designed to be shown via the same medium. But what about movies that are shot on smaller formats, usually 35mm, and then blown up to 70 for exhibition? When I started hearing rumors that auteur filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson's new comedic detective caper "Inherent Vice" would be going through this process, I couldn't help but wonder why. In my head it didn't make sense, like copying a DVD to a Blu-ray. You aren't going to gain any resolution; it's not possible. So what is to be gained in transferring an existing, perfectly viable 35mm image to a larger, non-native format? And how did this tradition get its start?
Interestingly enough, the impetus was not a visual one, but aural. "The big advantage was offering 6-channel stereophonic sound," said John Sittig, former head of projection for Pacific Theatres. "This is the very reason that 70mm blow-ups were made beginning in 1963 [with "The Cardinal"] and going into the 1990s [with the last regular first-run release being James Cameron's "Titanic" in the winter of 1997]. Until the introduction of Dolby optical stereo Type A in 1974, most theatres played [35mm] film in monaural single channel sound."
As you might guess, it has always been easier and cheaper to shoot on 35, but blowing up to 70 for limited, roadshow-style releases did offer its advantages beyond the upgrade in audio format. Hauerslev said that 70mm also provided "much more light on the screen, vastly better colors, and improved sharpness," in addition to "less visible scratches and dust because the film needs less magnification on the screen compared to 35mm film" and "a very steady image [that] fools the human brain to think this is a ‘window to the world' and not a movie screen."
So what put an end to 70mm blow-up prints as a go-to source of big-event moviegoing? According to Sittig, the same thing that brought about its initial popularity: sound. "'Star Wars' in 1977 really put Dolby stereo on the map, but it was the introduction of Dolby Digital [in 1992 with 'Batman Returns'], DTS ['Jurassic Park,' 1993], and Sony SDDS ['Last Action Hero,' also 1993] with 5.1 stereo that put an end to 70mm blow-ups. Ron Howard photographed "Far and Away" in 70mm in the '90s and there was an occasional limited 70mm blow-up like "Titanic," but very infrequently. Even "Interstellar" [shot both on 35mm and the horizontal-running ultra-high-resolution 70mm IMAX format] is working with only ten 70mm prints. Today very few theatres are equipped with 70mm projectors and have even fewer qualified projectionists to run them."
Paul Thomas Anderson is in a very small group of A-list filmmakers (including the likes of Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan) who are currently digging in their heels in the tug-of-war battle against the digital revolution in movie production and distribution. His 2012 drama "The Master" was shot and released on 70mm film in the midst of an era when it seems like most directors and studios are all too willing to embrace a new, more convenient technology, and immediately abandon what they perceive as the obsolete and cumbersome old.
But PTA (as he's known to his fans) and his ilk also seem to get a visceral thrill out of going against the grain, even when it comes to utilizing the tools of filmmaking's past. "The Master" was shot in a 1.85:1 (or "flat") aspect ratio, which seems antithetical to the very idea of shooting on 70mm, the natural dimensions of which are a much wider 2.21:1. Anderson seemingly chose to shoot on a large format for the tremendous gain in resolution, but then opted to compose his frame by essentially cropping both sides of the image. This counterintuitive (and consequently, unique) practice is so rare that the only other example I could find was "Play Time," a 1967 film by the acclaimed French director Jacques Tati, which was shot on 70 at an aspect ratio of 1.70:1.
Whatever his intent, Paul Thomas Anderson apparently remains dedicated to prolonging the death throes of one of the 20th century's most popular and beloved forms of media. And hopefully, with the coming release of "Inherent Vice" on 70mm, as with "Interstellar," audiences will have an opportunity to reclaim and re-experience the feel of what Thomas Hauerslev refers to as "the Rolls Royce format of Cinema… it has to be seen to be understood."
A thorough list of all 70mm blow-up prints from 1963 to the present is available at http://www.in70mm.com/library/blow_up/index.htm . "Inherent Vice" will be released on 70mm in select theaters beginning Friday, December 12th.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Connor Wilson
Expert Film Handler
![](/ubbmembers/6088a.jpg)
Posts: 190
From: Sterling, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 12-13-2014 04:43 PM
The DCP for Inherent Vice happens to be 2K, according to this letter from Deluxe's D-Cinema portal.
There is at least one credit in IMDb for something to do with "digital intermediate", and that is "digital intermediate producer" for Jason Pelham. Is it confirmed that Inherent Vice was finished in DI, or photochemically? Will it have both a DI and analog IP for the digital and film prints respectively, like The Master?
It would be pointless to see a 2K digital intermediate in 70mm. And why wouldn't Warner or PTA let the DCP be in 4K?
Even though it was only shot in 35mm flat, the 70mm trailer for Inherent Vice at Ziegfeld (before Interstellar) looked great. Compared to the softer digital previews that preceded the trailer, the blacks were blacker and it was overall sharper, even with its grain, in film rather than DLP. I wouldn't mind seeing a 70mm blow-up of a movie like this, given the proper care of the projectionist.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/268e.gif)
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-14-2014 10:53 AM
As someone who has handled MANY MANY 70mm as 35mm (or DCPs for that matter) print that originated in 35mm. It is a VERY rare case (think Ghostbusters) where I wouldn't take the 70mm print over the 35mm print. The exception are "EK" 35mm prints...those are drop-dead gorgeous. However, when one is talking about a release print and the typical quality of film projectors, the 70mm show, even with a 35mm original is going to look substantially better on all but the tiniest of screens. The 70mm IN suffers from the optical enlargement but the 70mm contact release print will be a more faithful dupe of the IN than the 35mm IN to the 35mm Release print. With each generation, you lose a bit so once you get it into the larger format, you slow that down. Then in the projection process, you loose less as you are no longer magnifying the problems of your projection system as much.
So yeah, I'll take a 70mm blow up of a 35mm original over a 35mm release print, just about every time.
In 2014, using the 70mm release format also will keep most of the "me too" people away who really don't do film a film show very well. it isn't sufficient to merely have 35mm equipment and never was. Most 35mm equipment does a mediocre job of showing it. it was built for a price-point and reliability and later, features to minimize labor costs without regard as to how it would affect performance.
Some 70mm machines suffered in this respect too but again, those problems are not magnified as much in 70mm
It is a viable reason to continue to release in 70mm in the digital era. It has the best chance to make the film show worth while. Naturally, I'd hope more people would shoot in the 5/65 format to make the most of it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/534a.jpg)
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-14-2014 12:06 PM
I was chatting to someone who has seen one of the Arclight's prints last week. He wasn't very impressed with it, noting that there were multiple lab splices in the middle of reels, and that the color timing looked clearly off in many of the scenes and shots.
My guess would be that the recent "film is cool" revival has resulted in FotoKem being seriously overworked, given that they are now, to my knowledge, the only remaining lab making 35mm and 70mm release prints in the US (incidentally, I've also just heard that Gulliver Arane in Paris, which AFAIK was the last remaining lab in Europe that still did 65/70, has just gone bankrupt), and that as a result, QC issues are cropping up in their prints. We've had the reel 8A-B DTS/Datasat issue with Interstellar, and the 35mm print of IV we had for AFI had a number of glitches, notably cue dots scribed in the wrong position and SR-D dropouts, too.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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.
|