Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[blueshadow | Kosty]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Any idea on what the proportion of PS3 to standalone Blu-ray players is right now? Just curious

Don't know that answer, but based on 2 million standalone players sold in the first half of 2010, for the first time ever more of those were sold than PS3s in a given period. I think there was a projection that 18% of the 112 USA households will have standalone Blu-ray players by the end of the year up from 11% now, so if they are not more in households now, there probably will be by the end of the year. Hardware sales also always surge in the last few months of the year during the holiday shopping season.

http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/07/...-through-june/

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by al cos.

And about 70mm-when they blow up 35mm to 70mm, the theater screen can open up wider and taller. Which is nice. (at some theaters, the curtains literally pull back wider and the screen gains height when they run a 70mm as opposed to a 35)

That's not accurate.

I've been to a lot of theaters that show both 4-perf 35mm and 5-perf 70mm. Either format can fill an entire 'scope ratio movie screen (with very minor differences).

5-perf 70mm projection will project the same image (even if it was originated on 35mm) brighter and more uniformly so along with a greater level of steadiness. Add to this the fact 70mm prints are typically produced with a greater level of care and precision than cheaper 35mm high speed prints. The 6-track mag sound was the main justification for 70mm blow up prints in the 1970's and 1980's. Nevertheless, there are major optical benefits of using 70mm blow up prints as well. Dozens of theaters around the country need to be using 70mm prints but are not.

[MerrickG]

Thanks for answering the questions.

Ok, so the long and short of it is this:

Its still worthwhile to blow up a 35mm film to 70mm since 70mm displays better on big screen theaters. Got it!

However are there any advantages to making a bluray master from 70mm print of a film that was filmed in 35mm rather than just using the original 35mm print?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

However are there any advantages to making a bluray master from 70mm print of a film that was filmed in 35mm rather than just using the original 35mm print?

No.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

If the movie was shot in 65mm, then 2.2:1 of the 70mm prints would be OAR, not the slightly top/bottom cropped 2.4:1 ratio of the 35mm prints. Conversely, if the movie shot in 35mm anamorphic then blown up and cropped to 2.2:1 70mm (i.e., APOCALYPSE NOW), then the 35mm anamorphic ratio should be considered the "original" aspect ratio.
Vincent

Couldn't there be one more factor? If the director visualized the movie in 2.2:1, predicting that the initial release would be in 70 mm, but, thanks to improved negative film (over 1955 levels when 70 mm was introduced), decided to film in 35 mm for economy and portability's sake, but if the director, DP, or operators composed within 2.2:1 scribed or unscribed-and-imagined viewfinder markings for maximum graphic effectiveness in the 70 mm release (which usually lasted many months in Metro areas, and the major critics would probably see it that way, to say nothing of film buffs who would drive in from another city to catch the movie right away, and in 70), then wouldn't approximately 2.20:1 would be "original" in terms of intention at the time of original photography? The filmmakers would have realized that they could still get the 70 mm benefits of the 6 track mag sound, added projection brightness, and larger size (in some, but not all 70 mm theaters) in the blow-up. All I am saying is living directors should be asked which AR they had in mind when they shot the film, and if they still think that AR is the best one to use for the BD. To me, there is a big difference in the look of 2.2:1, 2.35:1, and, especially 2.39:1 v.s. 2.2:1, and using the unintended one might make a significant difference in the composition depending on the film.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

..... I could swear I read something about Coppola having mixed in some 65 cameras for second unit, here and there over the shoot. I seem to recall that a number of 65 cameras were involved in some of the multi-camera set-pieces like the Kilgore sequence. Maybe none of that footage made the cut? Or maybe they were only talking about planning to do that, but abandoned the idea. I wish I could remember where I read/saw that.

Were the 65 mm cameras mentioned in Elenore Coppola's Notes, or shown in Hearts of Darkness?

Originally Posted by merrick97

Can someone please enlighten me as to why all this 35mm and 70mm talk about Apocalypse Now is such a big deal? Bluray is going to bring out the best PQ regardless.
I am certainly aware of Apocalypse Now and some of it's history, but I have never actually seen it.

The salient thing here is probably shape (AR), rather than PQ. As to PQ of Blurays, some, like Spartacus, did not have the best PQ brought out. I hope you enjoy the movie, and find it thought provoking. The fans argue about which of the three versions works best. I vastly prefer Apocalypse Now Redux, and recommend that you view that version first.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Couldn't there be one more factor? If the director visualized the movie in 2.2:1, predicting that the initial release would be in 70 mm, but, thanks to improved negative film (over 1955 levels when 70 mm was introduced), decided to film in 35 mm for economy and portability's sake, but if the director, DP, or operators composed within 2.2:1 scribed or unscribed-and-imagined viewfinder markings for maximum graphic effectiveness in the 70 mm release (which usually lasted many months in Metro areas, and the major critics would probably see it that way, to say nothing of film buffs who would drive in from another city to catch the movie right away, and in 70), then wouldn't approximately 2.20:1 would be "original" in terms of intention at the time of original photography? The filmmakers would have realized that they could still get the 70 mm benefits of the 6 track mag sound, added projection brightness, and larger size (in some, but not all 70 mm theaters) in the blow-up. All I am saying is living directors should be asked which AR they had in mind when they shot the film, and if they still think that AR is the best one to use for the BD. To me, there is a big difference in the look of 2.2:1, 2.35:1, and, especially 2.39:1 v.s. 2.2:1, and using the unintended one might make a significant difference in the composition depending on the film.

No.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Were the 65 mm cameras mentioned in Elenore Coppola's Notes, or shown in Hearts of Darkness?

I don't think so, but some memory is now kicking in that it may have been in one of Walter Murch's books. I'm gonna check my bookshelf tonight.

Originally Posted by garyrc

I vastly prefer Apocalypse Now Redux, and recommend that you view that version first.

And I vastly prefer the cut released on video as the "Theatrical" version and even more highly recommend that you view that version first.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

No.

So you're saying that Gary's hypothetical scenario is actually not possible? It seems perfectly feasible to me.

Kindly explain.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

So you're saying that Gary's hypothetical scenario is actually not possible? It seems perfectly feasible to me.

Kindly explain.

If you watch Hearts of Darkness you might think 70MM exhibition was the furthest thing from Coppola's mind.

[Paul H]

How to Train Your Dragon (Paramount)
Released on October 15, 2010

Found this link @ High-Def Digest: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/3346...ourdragon.html

Wonder if someone here can find out if Paramount is going to release the 3D version at the same time.

Hope it's not going to be an exclusive specific TV brand release.

IMO, this should be the time to get the 3D titles out to the general public.

Paul

[Maxwell Everett]

For those interested, here is a comparison of the original framing of Apocalypse Now and the 2.00:1 cropping:

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by al cos.

.... And about 70mm-when they blow up 35mm to 70mm, the theater screen can open up wider and taller. Which is nice. (at some theaters, the curtains literally pull back wider and the screen gains height when they run a 70mm as opposed to a 35)

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

That's not accurate.

I've been to a lot of theaters that show both 4-perf 35mm and 5-perf 70mm. Either format can fill an entire 'scope ratio movie screen (with very minor differences)....
.

In 70 mm theaters, at least in the past in the SF Bay Area, there were three possibilities -- I witnessed all three:

• In a few theaters my friends and I hated, and avoided when possible, driving to another city to do so, the 5 perf 70 mm image was no larger than a 35 mm 'scope image, in fact was a bit less wide (due to its 2.2:1 AR), and the same height (the 70 mm PQ was generally marvelous, though).
• In other theaters, the 70 mm image was taller than 35 mm scope (due to the AR), but both used the full width of the screen.
• In my favorite 70 mm equipped theaters, the 70 mm image was both taller and wider than 35 'scope -- just as al cos said -- with the black masks expanding the image in both directions, and the curtains pulling back to a wider opening .. not by much, but the rapid sweeping movement of the curtains was dramatic nonetheless. I measured the apparent added height with a DIY modified viewfinder I sometimes took to theaters, and I estimated the added height to be about 25%, depending on the set-up. The width was proportionally wider (i.e., the resulting 25% higher image had a width about 2.2 times its height). The first time I saw this happen was in 1959, at the Coronet theater in San Francisco: Disney's Grand Canyon (a short set to Grofe's music) was presented in CinemaScope on the same bill as Sleeping Beauty. SB was presented in 70 mm 2.2:1 (not the wider AR of the BD). When SB started, during the Buena Vista logo, and the Walt Disney Presents logo, the image was the same size as Grand Canyon. Then the "whoosh" of the masks moving could be heard through the music, the curtains pulled back a little, and the image got distinctly taller and wider. I believe I was told they had Phillips 70mm/35mm projectors.

[MerrickG]

Jeff,

What happened to the so called Quantum of Solace definitive edition?

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Jeff,

What happened to the so called Quantum of Solace definitive edition?

I believe that was people jumping the gun based on a retailer in my country (Australia) listing a Quantum of Solace Definitive Edition on DVD for release last week. Here in Australia Fox generally releases the 2-disc special editions when films are first released (sometimes coupled with a single disc release), then phases out the 2-disc release going to a single disc bare bones release, then later on comes out with the "Definitive Edition". The Definitive Edition generally has the same content as the original 2-disc, though I believe that the transfer used for the film can vary. I've seen ones where the first disc definitely has different PQ characteristics than the original release. Maybe that's a result of either a new transfer (or a "tweaked" one) being created for release on Blu-ray and used on the Definitive Edition also?

In any case, Fox only released a 1 disc version of QOS on DVD here when it first came out so the Definitive Edition release was simply including content that was on the Blu-ray but not available on DVD previously. I've seen the new one in stores and it's DVD only.

It seems people simply got a little too excited on this one. Someone else may be able to shed more light on an eventual release of QOS that differs from the current one, but the "Definitive Edition" tagline was for DVD only at this point in time and is now in stores.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

So you're saying that Gary's hypothetical scenario is actually not possible? It seems perfectly feasible to me.

Kindly explain.

One either composes for 65mm or 35. The blow-up if going from 65 is totally mechanical, with slight cropping of the edges. Please keep in mind that in most large old houses, the actual image shape being projected was normally trapezoidal.

Also, there are huge conceptual differences between 35 and 65. This is far more involved that a simple change of aspect ratio.

RAH

[thebluemax]

Hope this is not a repetitive question, but do you know when the Remastered "Gladiator" will be available to buy from Amazon or anywhere else??

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

One either composes for 65mm or 35.

And this authoritative statement is based upon... ?

Surely, most directors of films ultimately screened in both 35 and 70 formats would be aware of that likely fate of their products. I've seen examples of 'shoot-and-protect' framing philosophies employed in every other kind of multi-format deliveries I can think of. I can't imagine what would exempt 35/70-screened productions from this line of thinking, across the board.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Also, there are huge conceptual differences between 35 and 65. This is far more involved that a simple change of aspect ratio.

What kind of conceptual differences are you talking about? Lighting/exposure demands? The different focal-length requirements (and consequent physical spatial impact) of 35 and 65 production? If so, I really don't see the significant bearing of any of those issues on the multi-aspect composition question, especially in light of the haphazard state of the exhibition industry in the later era of 70mm blow-ups and 35mm reductions. The 70 houses tended to be better, of course, but everyone was acutely aware that a lot of smaller theatres were just vaguely centering everything on a 2.0:1 screen, anyway. It wouldn't surprise me to learn of that being a ratio many were really protecting for, regardless of the format they were shooting.

[Bobby Henderson]

4-perf 35mm 'scope and 5-perf 65mm are very different "animals" with their own specific idiosyncrasies. Conventions in composition may be somewhat similar, but that's where the similarities end.

A 5/65 frame is 2.5 times larger than a full 4/35 film frame and close to 5 times larger than the final cropped area of a Super35 frame. That bigger negative has much bigger demands for light to get exposure speeds and/or depth of field comparable to what one would have with 'scope 35mm and Super35.

Difficult creative choices sometimes must be made when shooting 5/65mm or 15/65mm. Often that means having a greater number of shots with really narrow depth of field. Sometimes very narrow depth of field is a desirable look (which is one reason why the Canon EOS 5D Mark II and lenses with huge apertures are very popular for some digital video shooting). That issue can also be a huge pain in the butt. An actor's close-up that's easy to shoot in 35mm may be very difficult in 65mm because you can't get both the actor's eyes in focus without flooding in a lot more light to get a tighter aperture. That's real narrow DOF.

Super35, anamorphic 35mm and 5/65mm all have different creative strengths and limitations that greatly influence the look of a movie. Those strengths and limits even make an impact on the production design because the camera systems all have their own space requirements on the set. I think one of the reasons why Super35 is so popular and "digital" is gaining ground is because those systems are much easier to use. 'Scope 35mm has more difficult demands. And 65mm, well, that's the strong man format.

[blueshadow | Kosty]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

No.

Someone may misquote you here.

[Doctorossi]

Bobby, the factors you describe are exactly what I was talking about. And, as I said, I don't see how any of it precludes a director and/or DP bearing a small safe area in mind, to compose simultaneously for both aspect ratios, regardless of the other considerations each taking format would impose on a production.