Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[42041]

Originally Posted by Maggot

It's not strange at all and in fact it has been stated countless times on forums how bad 80's film stock looks. That's another problem, the natural, low lighting look doesn't look natural at all.....it looks dead and nothing remotely resembling reality. Clearly as you have stated, you are not a fan of classic Hollywood.

Well, if the fact that you physically could not capture poorly lit footage in 1960 is a credit to that film stock, then yes, I suppose thats an advantage By any sane metric (speed, grain, latitude, color fidelity, resolution), though, those negatives were awful in comparison, just like the negatives of the 80s are awful compared to modern ones. You can even see in a film like The Deer Hunter, shot on one negative, how the DP's approach to lighting and exposure affects the look. The early parts of the film are shot to get a thick, rich negative with rich colors, strong contrast, and fine grain (that's how it looks in 35mm anyway, the home video transfers don't quite capture the correct look). The later parts are deiberately pushed and underexposed for a thin, gritty, desaturated image for aesthetic effect.

[Illy Scorsese]

Oh look, another thread that veers into bashing Christopher Nolan for absolutely no reason...

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by 42041

Well, if the fact that you physically could not capture poorly lit footage in 1960 is a credit to that film stock, then yes, I suppose thats an advantage By any sane metric (speed, grain, latitude, color fidelity, resolution), though, those negatives were awful in comparison, just like the negatives of the 80s are awful compared to modern ones. You can even see in a film like The Deer Hunter, shot on one negative, how the DP's approach to lighting and exposure affects the look. The early parts of the film are shot to get a thick, rich negative with rich colors, strong contrast, and fine grain (that's how it looks in 35mm anyway, the home video transfers don't quite capture the correct look). The later parts are deiberately pushed and underexposed for a thin, gritty, desaturated image for aesthetic effect.

Technical achievements in speed, latitude and the like just don't compare when the trade off is the kind of film stock you get from the 70's onward. They lack any kind of splendor and don't look remotely like natural or real conditions. Too many films since the 70's are "dead as doornails" in their look. In fact, all you have to do is look at the digital color grading that goes on far, far too often to see just how dead-thinking Hollywood is these days. That's not aesthetic, that just plain....Hollywood....get yourself on anti-depression meds.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I realize Nolan has his fans and that I'm not one of them, but comparing Nolan to Kubrick is like comparing a dead asteroid to Earth.

No one's comparing Nolan to Kubrick here. Where did you get that from? All I said was that he was Nolan's biggest influence, and that didn't mean I compared the both of them. Kubrick has inspired countless of filmmakers (Scorsese, Coens, etc), which isn't surprising since he's the greatest filmmaker of all time. Besides, we all know that Paul Thomas Anderson is the new Kubrick. There Will Be Blood and The Master had that style of filmmaking Kubrick always employed.

[Trax-3]

By any sane metric (speed, grain, latitude, color fidelity, resolution), though, those negatives were awful in comparison, just like the negatives of the 80s are awful compared to modern ones.

I understand it intellectually, but going by heart I haven't seen any modern photo that looked even half as good as a 60 year old Kodachrome.

[CinemaScope]

I think some of you have got it wrong. In the seventies (& beyond) a lot of cheap print stocks were being used. I remember 3M looked pretty awful. Once film labs got the OK for grading & started to bulk print, then the cheap stuff was used, some of it looking muddy & grainy. With Blu-rays made from the interpos, or better still the original negatives, films looked far better on home video than they ever looked at the cinema back then. I think the reason some fifties & sixties films look better is that they took a lot of time lighting them then.

[Geoff D]

Sure, prints have pretty much always been the poor relation (IB Tech and stuff of that ilk aside) and even the very best DPs were perfectly aware that their timed answer print was probably the last time it'd look how they intended it to before audiences saw it (which is why Kubrick insisted on screening print reels for himself before they went out to the public, though most directors and DPs simply weren't afforded that luxury). But the actual negative stock being "cheap" and "crude" is one of those classics that will never die.

Did things change in terms of PQ (particularly in the mid '80s) as the speed of the film increased in accordance with the industry's wishes for faster stock to shoot in lower light? Yup, because greater speed means more grain and the push for verité realism (something spurred on by the Nouvelle Vague over the water) moved ever further away from the glossy, saturated style that dominated Hollywood for years. That stuff looked amazing (though I wouldn't call it "reality" because it's still heavily stylised in its own way) but the closed-shop nature of the business rendered a kind of sameyness to it all, with stage-bound stuff having that theatrical kind of high-key lighting. Makes me wonder whether it was drenched in light as a partial response to the slowness of film and lenses back in the day.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

SDDS doesn't work with 5-perf 70mm prints and 15/70 IMAX prints so it didn't make any sense to Nolan to use it only for 35mm prints.

In fact he released:

35mm: Dolby SRD 5.1
5/70: Datasat 5.1
IMAX 15/70: Uncompressed DTAC 5.1
Digital: PCM 5.1

magnet 5/70 is either 5.1 as 3-2-.1 or 3-1-.02 (baby boom) or 5-1.0 in regards to speaker allotment.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

magnet 5/70 is either 5.1 as 3-2-.1 or 3-1-.02 (baby boom) or 5-1.0 in regards to speaker allotment.

Datasat is the theatrical DTS name and it's digital not magnetic so I don't get your post

There's the timecode on the print but audio is burned on a CD-ROM (maybe DVD-ROM for Interstellar)

70mm prints with mag 6-track haven't been created in nearly 20 years

Datasat standard configuration is 5.1 (3-2-.1)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Datasat is the theatrical DTS name and it's digital not magnetic so I don't get your post

There's the timecode on the print but audio is burned on a CD-ROM (maybe DVD-ROM for Interstellar)

70mm prints with mag 6-track haven't been created in nearly 20 years

Datasat standard configuration is 5.1 (3-2-.1)

Too bad they had to downgrade from magnetic to lossy digital.


And theatrical Datasat is 5.0 (the LFE is encoded and then filtered off the surrounds).

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Too bad they had to downgrade from magnetic to lossy digital.


And theatrical Datasat is 5.0 (the LFE is encoded and then filtered off the surrounds).

That's correct, the .1 channel is recovered via low-pass filters in the theater.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Datasat is the theatrical DTS name and it's digital not magnetic so I don't get your post

There's the timecode on the print but audio is burned on a CD-ROM (maybe DVD-ROM for Interstellar)

70mm prints with mag 6-track haven't been created in nearly 20 years

Datasat standard configuration is 5.1

yes, Datasat standard config is 5.1 but that doesn't detail on how or where the those tracks are configured. I was talking about pre-Datasat (DTS) 70mm sound encoding.

Khartoum (70mm) was Datasat processed but with the five channel front spread - mono surrounds, as was West Side Story, the new restoration of My Fair Lady archives the sound with the five stage channels intact as well.

So yes while it's 'digital' - mag sound on 70mm prints is rare. I've seen recent 70mm presentations of 'Around the World in 80 Days' and 'Ryan's Daughter' that featured the sound in mag, and boy did they sound glorious.

I'm curious as to how Tarantino is planning on sound mixing The Hateful Eight I'm sure we could possibly see two mixes 5.1 (3-2-.01) and 5-2-.01 (which is achievable via DCI compliant sound processors).

[Poya]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Too bad they had to downgrade from magnetic to lossy digital.


And theatrical Datasat is 5.0 (the LFE is encoded and then filtered off the surrounds).

Is it still possible for a film to be presented in magnetic sound? There are modern 35mm projectors that still are capable of presenting that type of sound.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the configuration for magnetic 4-track sound is 4.0 (L-C-R-S)?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Too bad they had to downgrade from magnetic to lossy digital.


And theatrical Datasat is 5.0 (the LFE is encoded and then filtered off the surrounds).

couldn't Universal have benefited from encoding the magnetic sound to higher rez 96 kHz audio - as the bluray producers of 'My Fair Lady' have ??

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

yes, Datasat standard config is 5.1 but that doesn't detail on how or where the those tracks are configured. I was talking about pre-Datasat (DTS) 70mm sound encoding.

Khartoum (70mm) was Datasat processed but with the five channel front spread - mono surrounds, as was West Side Story, the new restoration of My Fair Lady archives the sound with the five stage channels intact as well.

So yes while it's 'digital' - mag sound on 70mm prints is rare. I've seen recent 70mm presentations of 'Around the World in 80 Days' and 'Ryan's Daughter' that featured the sound in mag, and boy did they sound glorious.

I'm curious as to how Tarantino is planning on sound mixing The Hateful Eight I'm sure we could possibly see two mixes 5.1 (3-2-.01) and 5-2-.01 (which is achievable via DCI compliant sound processors).

There was a misunderstanding : you quoted my post that was about Interstellar and the different sound formats it was released. So mag 70mm was not in discussion because 5/70 prints used Datasat.

I know that classic movies/restorations are still released with mag sound sometimes or with the original channel configuration intact, but NEW releases like Interstellar and Inherent Vice are shown in 70mm only with 5.1 Datasat sound. I think it's gonna be the same for the Hateful Eight

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Poya

Is it still possible for a film to be presented in magnetic sound? There are modern 35mm projectors that still are capable of presenting that type of sound.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the configuration for magnetic 4-track sound is 4.0 (L-C-R-S)?

We were talking about 70mm magnetic here, that is/was 6-track. 35mm mag didn't make any sense after Dolby Stereo was invented in 1975

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

There was a misunderstanding : you quoted my post that was about Interstellar and the different sound formats it was released. So mag 70mm was not in discussion because 5/70 prints used Datasat.

I know that classic movies/restorations are still released with mag sound sometimes or with the original channel configuration intact, but NEW releases like Interstellar and Inherent Vice are shown in 70mm only with 5.1 Datasat sound. I think it's gonna be the same for the Hateful Eight

I think so too, I just would have thought if Tarantino is intent on shooting and displaying the image as wide as possible (at 2.76:1) making the sound equally wide sounding would be a consideration. For those who have had the chance to hear pre-1977 70mm mag prints, 8-SDDS movies and current Atmos mixes (with theaters that have five speakers allocated behind the screen - Arclight Bethesda conforms to Dolby's specs in this respect) the more sound sourcing behind the screen creates a truly fuller sound experience.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

There was a misunderstanding : you quoted my post that was about Interstellar and the different sound formats it was released. So mag 70mm was not in discussion because 5/70 prints used Datasat.

I know that classic movies/restorations are still released with mag sound sometimes or with the original channel configuration intact, but NEW releases like Interstellar and Inherent Vice are shown in 70mm only with 5.1 Datasat sound. I think it's gonna be the same for the Hateful Eight

I'm unaware of any mag audio currently being applied to prints. Last print I produced was a single 70mm magnetic print of Vertigo in 1996. All others had time code.

The latest 70mm prints of Spartacus and My Fair Lady, produced for archival purposes, also run time code.

RAH

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I'm unaware of any mag audio currently being applied to prints. Last print I produced was a single 70mm magnetic print of Vertigo in 1996. All others had time code.

The latest 70mm prints of Spartacus and My Fair Lady, produced for archival purposes, also run time code.

RAH

but as I understand it - the archival soundmix for the latter replicates and is encoded on the 70mm prints AND the new DCP with the five front channels as heard in it's original 70mm theatrical engagements - is 'Spartacus' also done the same way?

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I'm unaware of any mag audio currently being applied to prints. Last print I produced was a single 70mm magnetic print of Vertigo in 1996. All others had time code.

The latest 70mm prints of Spartacus and My Fair Lady, produced for archival purposes, also run time code.

RAH

Maybe the 2001 70mm re-release in.... 2001?

I'm not sure, I saw it a few months ago here in Italy (dubbed in italian) and it had the original channel configuration but I don't know if it was Datasat or Mag