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

[JamesN]

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.

It's a big deal because the "correctness" of the aspect ratio of previous home video releases has been a bone of contention among fans.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by JamesN

It's a big deal because the "correctness" of the aspect ratio of previous home video releases has been a bone of contention among fans.

From what I understand is that 35mm typically gives a 2.35:1 ratio, while 70mm typically gives a 2.20:1.

Is that really a big enough of a difference to have people concerned?

I've always been in favor of getting the most of the image that was physically filmed on screen (Directors intent or not. Sorry, but thats how I feel) as long as we don't end up seeing stuff that wasn't intended to be seen (e.g. microphones). Which is why I was so happy that we got Avatar in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio instead of 2.35:1 that many people felt "should" have been released. Josh Zyber was a guy who argued that it should have been released in 2.35:1 since the 1.78:1 ratio had a lot "unnecessary information". When I say the "more information the better."

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by merrick97

...Is that really a big enough of a difference to have people concerned?...

How long have you been hanging around this forum?

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by merrick97

From what I understand is that 35mm typically gives a 2.35:1 ratio, while 70mm typically gives a 2.20:1.

Is that really a big enough of a difference to have people concerned?

I've always been in favor of getting the most of the image that was physically filmed on screen (Directors intent or not. Sorry, but thats how I feel) as long as we don't end up seeing stuff that wasn't intended to be seen (e.g. microphones). Which is why I was so happy that we got Avatar in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio instead of 2.35:1 that many people felt "should" have been released. Josh Zyber was a guy who argued that it should have been released in 2.35:1 since the 1.78:1 ratio had a lot "unnecessary information". When I say the "more information the better."

The reality of 70mm, now with the advent of DTS timecode for theatrical and 8k scanning for digital image harvest, is that while one can use the generic 2.21:1, the harvested image is actually closer to 2.28. Our original scans of My Fair Lady took this wider (more open) aspect ratio into account for DVD.

RAH

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by JamesN

How long have you been hanging around this forum?

If its a 1.85:1 and a 2.35:1 difference I can understand. There is a lot of potential visual information that could be lost if framing is not done properly.

But at 2.20 and 2.35 I have a hard time believing that there is enough image being lost (or gained) to have people get concerned about.

How long before we start getting complaints about 1.85:1 getting cropped to 1.78:1?!!

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by JamesN

How long have you been hanging around this forum?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The reality of 70mm, now with the advent of DTS timecode for theatrical and 8k scanning for digital image harvest, is that while one can use the generic 2.21:1, the harvested image is actually closer to 2.28. Our original scans of My Fair Lady took this wider (more open) aspect ratio into account for DVD.

RAH

Robert please provide a short answer:
70mm is considered the best because it provides the highest amount of detail with the least amount of grain, right? If thats the case, why aren't all films done in 70mm? I asked a similar question some time ago, but it never got answered.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Robert please provide a short answer:
70mm is considered the best because it provides the highest amount of detail with the least amount of grain, right? If thats the case, why aren't all films done in 70mm? I asked a similar question some time ago, but it never got answered.

Not least amount of grain per square mm, but less of a enlargement in projection.

65mm origination is extremely expensive, and today, with the exception of epic sized productions that seek the ultimate in image quality, unnecessary.

If a quality 4k DCP projected via 2k on a large screen can carry quality, then there is little to be gained.

Remember that most 65mm origination was shot during the era of 5248, 50 and 51. These taking stocks were far more grainy than anything being shot today, with the possible exception of some of the fastest stocks out there.

Beyond that, 70mm allowed for 6 track stereo, which was unattainable outside of special venue VistaVision.

65mm meant more light, which meant more electrical power, heat and hardware. It meant reduction dailies and dupes.

Most digitally prepared productions over the past few years have been finalized as 2k, whether OCN were scanned at 4 or not.

You see where this is going.

RAH

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by merrick97

If its a 1.85:1 and a 2.35:1 difference I can understand. There is a lot of potential visual information that could be lost if framing is not done properly.

But at 2.20 and 2.35 I have a hard time believing that there is enough image being lost (or gained) to have people get concerned about.

How long before we start getting complaints about 1.85:1 getting cropped to 1.78:1?!!

This DVD Beaver link illustrates some of the framing differences between 2.35: and 2.00:1 versions of the same film.

I hope you realize my comment about your time on the forum was meant in jest. I only meant to imply that the issue is taken very seriously by some.

[Uxi]

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

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You see where this is going.

RAH

Not really.

But we will leave it at that.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Not really.

But we will leave it at that.

70mm is a beautiful format when derived from 65mm origination.

However, few theaters can still run it without destroying prints, costs are high, and digital should soon be able to replace it.

[42041]

Originally Posted by merrick97

70mm is considered the best because it provides the highest amount of detail with the least amount of grain, right? If thats the case, why aren't all films done in 70mm?

No sense in spending money on quality most viewers can't enjoy. If Inception is any indication, squeezing everything down to a 35mm print provides little perceivable quality gain with the way movies have been shown for the last few decades.
Personally I think with the increasing deployment of 4K digital projection in regular cinemas, it makes a lot of sense to start shooting 65mm again.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

If its a 1.85:1 and a 2.35:1 difference I can understand. There is a lot of potential visual information that could be lost if framing is not done properly.

Merrick, the reason Apocalypse Now's framing is a hot issue is not the (admittedly minor) distinction between 2.20:1 and 2.35:1. People are only raising the question about which of these ratios would be 'proper' because previous video releases have been framed at 2:1. Being the first time the movie is 'being done right', people want to be sure that they truly understand just what 'right' is.

I recall Coppola commenting that the roadshow 70mm prints are his preferred presentation and, had he his druthers and recouping costs was no object, would be the only game in town. However, my memories about technical details of this film (and quotes thereto) seem to have proven a bit unreliable of late, so make of that what you will.

[MerrickG]

Here is something I don't understand and I just want a short answer:

How can their be both a 70mm print and a 35mm print of a film when a camera can only contain one film roll? Can a film camera have both 70 and 35mm rolls inside. I know they aren't going to shoot a scene in 35mm and then reshoot in 70mm.

For example, I see comments all the time along the lines of: I went a special theater and saw a 70mm presentation of such and such film, but also saw a 35mm presentation of the same film. Im just a little confused as to how both could exist.

i am very sure the answer is not short, nor is it clear cut and dry but someone please give me the dumbed down short version.

[42041]

Originally Posted by merrick97

i am very sure the answer is not short

sure it is. obviously the camera would only be shooting one format, 35mm in the case of apocalypse now. Then the 35mm footage would be blown up to 70mm in the lab.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by 42041

sure it is. obviously the camera would only be shooting one format, 35mm in the case of apocalypse now. Then the 35mm footage would be blown up to 70mm in the lab.

So what is the point of making a 70mm print if you are going to be limited to 35mm resolution? It has no benefits

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by merrick97

So what is the point of making a 70mm print if you are going to be limited to 35mm resolution? It has no benefits

6-track audio, as well as a more stable and brighter image on large screens.

[42041]

Originally Posted by merrick97

So what is the point of making a 70mm print if you are going to be limited to 35mm resolution? It has no benefits

ask the droves of people who went to see Avatar (shot with 1080p cameras) in 70mm IMAX

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Merrick, the reason Apocalypse Now's framing is a hot issue is not the (admittedly minor) distinction between 2.20:1 and 2.35:1. People are only raising the question about which of these ratios would be 'proper' because previous video releases have been framed at 2:1.

Yeah, the real issue is the 2:1 aspect ratio Vittorio Storaro has been forcing on his older, 2.39:1 super-wide ratio movies.

Storaro was able to get movie studios to play along with the 2:1 thing back when DVD was in its early days. The vast majority of viewers had 4:3 ratio standard definition television sets. Using 2:1 framing the letter-boxing isn't so severe looking on a 4:3 TV set. You're seeing more image detail, which is important for seeing nuances like subtle expressions on actors faces, etc. But you're losing a significant amount of detail at the ends of the image.

The 2:1 ratio does not look like 'scope. The 2:1 ratio is much closer to the "American Widescreen" flat 1.85:1 ratio and because of that the 2:1 ratio has a flat ratio appearance.

With Blu-ray and 1080p HDTV monitors the limitations of showing 'scope movies properly on a TV set are GONE. Even ultra-wide ratio movies (2.55:1, 2.7:1) work well on 1.77:1 HDTV sets. There really isn't any good reason why this 2:1 ratio nonsense has to carry over into Blu-ray and HDTV in general.

I certainly want to see Apocalpse Now presented in 2.35:1 ratio on Blu-ray. Same goes for The Last Emperor and Tucker: The Man & His Dream.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

However, few theaters can still run it without destroying prints, costs are high, and digital should soon be able to replace it.

We're not there yet.

Last weekend I watched Inception at the Warren Theaters 14-plex in Moore, Oklahoma. This is a very nice movie theater (opulent decor, all-THX, all Dolby Digital Cinema, militant no cell phone use policy). Its largest two houses feature screens roughly 80' in width -at least that's what the ads claimed.

2K Dolby Digital Cinema doesn't work all that well on a screen that big. The image quality of Inception was noticeably dim and wanting in detail. I haven't seen the newest 4K projectors from Sony, but I've heard plenty of complaints about brightness issues. AFAIK, the 4K DLP chip Texas Instruments has been working on is still in development. Either way 2K digital intermediates are still the de-facto standard in post. So even if you have a 4K projector you're still probably only going to be feeding it native 2K movies most of the time.

Originally Posted by merrick97

So what is the point of making a 70mm print if you are going to be limited to 35mm resolution? It has no benefits

To add more on what Robert Harris said, 35mm and 2K digital have severe limits when being blasted up on a giant sized screen. Dozens of theaters around the country have at least 1 more houses boasting huge screens that severely challenge 35mm and 2K.

A 35mm projector can put out only so much light. A 70mm gate has a hole 2.5 times larger and thus can throw out a lot more light. Additionally, the 70mm image is being magnified less. This lessens the apperance of film image movement (bouncing, side-weave, picketing, etc.). When 35mm is blown up to a huge screen any tiny problems with the projector will be greatly amplified visually when shown on a 60', 70' or even 80' wide screen.

70mm is still really the only projection format that is worthy of large/giant screen use. 35mm doesn't cut it. Neither does digital.

[al cos.]

(Cliff's notes:Yeah, the Apocalypse Now thing is just the simple fact that it has ALWAYS had the sides cut off on home video. Until now. 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)