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

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

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.

As far as protection is concerned, if one is protected for 2.35, the same would hold true for 2.21 or .38.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

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.

I referring to high end projection in real 70mm houses. Think 50s - early '70s.

This is a good question, and one that I went over in detail with Freddie Young. The main difference between 35 and 65 is (was) resolution, not aspect ratio -- the ability of the film via proper projection to put highly resolved information on the screen.

Example:

Huge 70mm image of camels crossing a flat desert landscape, mountains in background -- camels half a mile away. And all identifiable.

vs.

35 - something akin to a visualization of the Lithuanian flag, with something possibly moving between the colors.

This, for Freddie and David, is where 70mm shined brightly. And in Freddie's trademark long distant shots, it enabled absolute clarity and detail.

In 70mm -- a 2 shot -- think interior of Feisal's tent shot with 51mm Panavision lens -- is a HUGE 2 shot.

In 35, the shot has a totally different texture and feel.

I believe earlier in this part of the thread the point was made referencing proper theatrical handling of 70mm. And that, also, does not come down to aspect ratio.

While I applaud those venues that save a bit of extra latitudinal space for 70, and match it with a more than apparent raising of the upper masking to create a highly visceral experience, I'm also happy to see just the upper masking raised to create the 70mm aspect ratio.

For 70, the more screen real estate, the better, as the larger the image, the more it is differentiated from 35.

Hopefully I'm making my point.

I'm not a huge fan of Lawrence (or most any properly shot 70mm films) in 35mm, and even less so on my iPhone.

RAH

[Doctorossi]

Thank you for the clarification, Robert, and I appreciate (and concur with) your take on the practices of the peak era of 70mm presentation. However, the production principally in question here (Apocalypse Now) was expected to be in theatres in the mid/late-'70's at the time of pre-production and, ultimately, didn't get there until the very late '70's. Somewhere along the line, Coppola's 70mm roadshow-revival presentation scheme was developed, so we know that blow-up prints were somewhere on their minds at some stage. I'm not suggesting that a variable composition with 35 and 70 in mind was a common strategy or practice; I just can't understand how the possibility of somebody having taken up this philosophy could be absolutely excluded, especially in light of the technical circumstances of this particular production.

[Bobby Henderson]

For whatever reason Apocalypse Now was shot on 35mm anamorphic rather than 65mm. As difficult as the shoot was, 65mm would have made the ordeal even worse.

65mm/70mm has some big strengths you don't get with 35mm or digital. The Todd AO 70mm format was a forerunner of IMAX and yet can bring some of the stuff that makes film-based IMAX so popular into traditional venues.

35mm and video often requires filmmakers to use a greater number of medium-close and close shots of actors to communicate their performances across to audiences. This dilutes the dramatic impact of the close-up and also speeds up the editing pace since other reverse and cover shots have to be added to the scene. With 65mm, you can have two or more people in the frame, see a good amount of scenery in the background and still see every little nuance in the actors' expressions without having to make many editing cuts/camera angle changes at all. The over-abundance of close-ups are not needed. You get to save those close-ups when you really want to make an impact. Lawrence of Arabia has a number of memorable, dramatic close-ups I can easily picture in my mind. That's not the case with most 35mm originated films.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

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

I have a difficult time imagining that 65mm 5perf shooting would present a problem of funds when we are talking about todays 150 to 250 million dollar megaproductions. Even if it would add 10 millions to the total costs (which I doubt) that would certainly be possible with directors that have the necessary cloud to say how they want to shoot (Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, Michael Bay etc.)

I still have an issue of TPV with your calculations for the added cost of shooting in 65mm for Nostromo and the costs at the time did not seem terribly high given the total cost of a big production and back then and probably also now Eastman Kodak was willing to give special pricing for the 65mm stock and I think they also did that for Far and Away.

I also looked up the costs of the last two movies that were shot in 70mm and according to imdb they cost 30.000.000$ (Far and Away 1992) and 18.000.000$ (Hamlet 1996), even then hardly what I would call a big budget production especially for Hamlet.

With regard to the matter of epic sized productions it seems that even with very big productions Super 35 is often preferred as the equipment is considered much easier and more flexible to handle and I have to agree with Christopher Nolan who in a recent interview said that filmmakers would be better off to make more of an effort to make their films look good, even if it means to work harder for that. He explicitly mentioned Lawrence of Arabia as an example for the added effort of hauling around those big 65mm making a big difference.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

TPV

RIP.

[Robert Harris]

There is a new number for Gladiator replacement discs:

(888) 889-9456

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I'm not a huge fan of Lawrence (or most any properly shot 70mm films) in 35mm, and even less so on my iPhone.

RAH

Hey, RAH just referenced a Jon Stewart-at-the-Oscars joke!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T482ipWnBM4

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

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

hey, look, a shift in colour grading!

[spartanstew]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There is a new number for Gladiator replacement discs:

(888) 889-9456

Just called and all they did was verify that I had the right disc to exchange (blu ray with white bar code), but they didn't document any of my information, so I don't think you even have to call.

Just mail Disc #1 (only Disc #1) in an envelope with your name, address, and phone number inside to:

PHE MKT
c/o Deluxe Media Management
PO Box 801464
Valencia, CA
91380-1464

expect to receive the replacement disc within 4 weeks of them receiving your disc.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

hey, look, a shift in colour grading!

I have to say, I like the top one better, color wise. Maybe Coppola will undo that one too, along with the altered framing .

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

I have to say, I like the top one better, color wise. Maybe Coppola will undo that one too, along with the altered framing .

I dunno, all this drama about this, but I'm personally just sickened by talk of "natural" colours, as if cinematography aesthetics are merely judged on verisimilitude, and no recognition that when films are shot over many days (or years) with changing weather conditions that there's a process of timing whereby two shots that cut together are made to look a certain way, adjusting to the tastes of the filmmaker how they want it to look. Hell, if naturalism was the only goal, all black and white films ever made would be useless, let alone the likes of surreal palates such as the "redux" above!

If anything, I'd expect the bottom pic to be what AN will look like - out of context, it's a far more moody and dramatic shot, with a clearly intentional push to the reds. It is, after all, meant to be a late evening shot (the watter buffalo bbq scene comes right after, does it not?)

ps. No, "kubrickfan", I wasn't talking about you, but talking in general about the adjectives used by some when describing certain imagery... I reread the above, and thought it might have sounded like I was challenging your conclusion, which I wasn't meaning to be...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

as if cinematography aesthetics are merely judged on verisimilitude

*etc.*

Thank you, Shark!

Imagine how boring cinema would be if filmmakers were only out to please the folks who just want skin tones to look "natural" (under some sort of unspoken Jungian shared lighting conditions) and film frames to look like family photographs from Disneyland, with no regard to light and color's relationship to the story being told.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

*etc.*

Thank you, Shark!

Imagine how boring cinema would be if filmmakers were only out to please the folks who just want skin tones to look "natural" (under some sort of unspoken Jungian shared lighting conditions) and film frames to look like family photographs from Disneyland, with no regard to light and color's relationship to the story being told.

And when the movie comes to Blu-Ray it is criticized for unnatural colors, not enough shadow detail, soft focus, shaky camera etc.

We can be happy that most cinematographers do not seem to be impressed much with that kind of criticism or all our movies would look boringly identical.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

And when the movie comes to Blu-Ray it is criticized for unnatural colors, not enough shadow detail, soft focus, shaky camera etc.

Here here! Unnatural colors is why I go to the movies.

[Bill Hunt]

Hey Guys - just a quick heads-up...

Make sure you contact Paramount and get a reply from them before you start mailing in your old Gladiator Blu-rays. If something were to happen and the disc got lost in the mail, you'll want some kind of record of contact with Paramount customer service. More importantly, you'll want THEM to have some kind of record of contact with YOU.

Can't hurt to be cautious, as it sounds as if Paramount CS is pretty swamped right now with people wanting to get their hands on the new disc.

[Bill Hunt]

Also, it may interest some of you to know that I've just confirmed with Sony that Bridge on the River Kwai is coming to Blu-ray before the end of the year. What details are available can be found here in my most recent post on The Bits:

http://thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

[spartanstew]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Hey Guys - just a quick heads-up...

Make sure you contact Paramount and get a reply from them before you start mailing in your old Gladiator Blu-rays. If something were to happen and the disc got lost in the mail, you'll want some kind of record of contact with Paramount customer service. More importantly, you'll want THEM to have some kind of record of contact with YOU.

Can't hurt to be cautious, as it sounds as if Paramount CS is pretty swamped right now with people wanting to get their hands on the new disc.

When I called they did not ask for any information that would leave a record that I had contacted them. They merely asked if my copy had a white or yellow bar code and then gave me the address to send it in.

The only record of my call is my saying that I did.

[Bill Hunt]

With luck it shouldn't be a problem then.

[MerrickG]

Bill and Jeff,

Its been a while and I feel that we need to remind both of you every so often how greatful we are that you post here with us to pass our messages onto the studios.

THANKS!!!

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

I dunno, all this drama about this, but I'm personally just sickened by talk of "natural" colours, as if cinematography aesthetics are merely judged on verisimilitude, and no recognition that when films are shot over many days (or years) with changing weather conditions that there's a process of timing whereby two shots that cut together are made to look a certain way, adjusting to the tastes of the filmmaker how they want it to look. Hell, if naturalism was the only goal, all black and white films ever made would be useless, let alone the likes of surreal palates such as the "redux" above!

If anything, I'd expect the bottom pic to be what AN will look like - out of context, it's a far more moody and dramatic shot, with a clearly intentional push to the reds. It is, after all, meant to be a late evening shot (the watter buffalo bbq scene comes right after, does it not?)

ps. No, "kubrickfan", I wasn't talking about you, but talking in general about the adjectives used by some when describing certain imagery... I reread the above, and thought it might have sounded like I was challenging your conclusion, which I wasn't meaning to be...

The problem I have is that I often can't decide what stance I should take. Should I go for 'theatrical look always' or 'director's intent always'? There are examples of both that look great, and both that look awful. For the record, the 'purist' in me wants the upper picture, and the other the bottom one. Another part just wants to enjoy the damn movie, and doesn't want to nitpick every detail. Apocalypse Now looked absolutely beautiful on DVD (apart from the alter aspect ratio), even though the color scheme was altered from its original version. I'm wondering if it's worth going through the trouble of complaining that it's not the original version, when it still looks gorgeous? Anyway, I think judging every movie separately might be the best answer. Anyway, forgive my rant .