my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » "Breathe" in 70mm in US ?

Author Topic: "Breathe" in 70mm in US ? Per Hauberg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 883 From: Malling, Denmark Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-09-2018 12:15 PM                        My digital transfer of "Breathe" has just begun. Title line says format "S 276". Does this mean, this relatively "small" film has been shown in 70mm at Your end of the world ? Greetings from sunny (and audience-free) Denmark Per  |  IP: Logged Sascha F. Roll Expert Film Handler Posts: 140 From: Berlin, Berlin / Germany Registered: Sep 2015 posted 05-09-2018 03:52 PM                     Shot on Alexa 65 with a 1.25 anamorphic lens, „digital Ultra Panavision“ if you want.  |  IP: Logged Per Hauberg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 883 From: Malling, Denmark Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-09-2018 04:09 PM                        Yeah - so I see. -But why, if not meant for 70mm ? How many cinemas can make a decent U-PAN picture (digital or analog) - it does not fit in.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-09-2018 05:52 PM                     Whereas most cinemas are not using masking, what difference does it make how much you letterbox the picture?  |  IP: Logged Martin Brooks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 900 From: Forest Hills, NY, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 05-11-2018 12:08 PM                        It "fits" but at reduced height (unfortunately). That's how "The Hateful Eight" played in 70mm, but luckily I saw it at a theater that had a 60-foot or so screen. But if you think about it, if it had been filmed at 2.4:1, the image would have been larger (taller). So which was more impressive and it's not like Tarantino used that width to display vast vistas, since most of the film took place in a single room. But even back in the day, many theaters were setup for a 70mm 2.2:1 presentation and anything in Ultra-Pan would have also played at the same width and reduced height. As much as I like widescreen films, in this age of common width screens, Ultra-Pan probably no longer makes sense other than bragging rights. Having said that, I'm amazed at how many TV commercials I see at ratios wider than 2.35/2.4. I see a fair number of TV commercials at 2.75 or thereabouts.  |  IP: Logged Stephan Shelley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 854 From: castro valley, CA, usa Registered: Nov 2014 posted 05-11-2018 01:41 PM                     While the screens at the Grand Lake that H8 showed on are close to 40' are normal 2.2 70mm is full width. We did reaim the projector and added masking at the bottom. When it showed downstairs reaimed the projector down and I have top masking that can be lowered when needed. Usually we are a fixed height and have motorized side masking.We tried the best we could to do it right. Downstairs the screen goes right to the edge of the proscenium. Upstairs that is all the screen there is.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-12-2018 11:09 PM                     quote: Sascha F. Roll Shot on Alexa 65 with a 1.25 anamorphic lens, „digital Ultra Panavision“ if you want. Sounds to me more like Rogue One style baloney. In the case of Rogue One the movie's live action footage was shot mostly with the Arri Alexa 65. 1.25x anamorphic lenses were used to give the photography CinemaScope style bokeh. But the aspect ratio was the usual 2.39:1. The 2.76:1 imagery falling outside the 2.39:1 limits was discarded. Yet the damned movie used the "filmed in Ultra Panavision 70" logo in its end credits, despite having zero UP70mm film prints (or any 65mm film negative either). The latest Avengers movie has pulled the same crap, but with even more confusing/contradictory terminology. The end credits have claims of the movie being filmed with IMAX cameras. But then an Ultra Panavision 70 logo is included in the same mashup of brands/logos. I seem to recall seeing a new blurb a couple years ago that the Infinity War saga was going to be shot with a modified Arri Alexa 65 setup, but with anamorphic lenses compressing a taller image onto the rectangular sensor. Obviously the movie did not go that route, otherwise the 'scope-like bokeh would have been rotated 90 degrees. There's hardly any IMAX with Laser movie theaters in North America. So maybe they pulled the plug on that idea of a taller image early in the pre-production phase. Anyway, I don't like the dishonest use of that UP70 logo. The Hateful Eight is the only recent movie to technically fill the bill on being produced and exhibited in that film format, even though many of the venues showing it were seriously compromised (I'm referring to the 2.76:1 image being very letter-boxed on AMC multiplex common width screens).  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.