List of 70mm films on Bluray?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Well, "filmed" in 35mm doesn't tell the whole story. It was photographed onto Black and White VistaVision film (which is 35mm fed sideways through the camera) with an anamorphic lens and with each frame being shot three times through filters; once for blue, red, and and green. So while the negatives are technically 35mm, they're not anything that could be "watched" through a projector.



This was common until the early 90s. Before the wide acceptance of digital sound, 70mm was the only way to experience 6-channel sound (in either 4.2 or 5.1 channel configurations). DTS and Dolby Digital put an end to blowing up 35mm to 70mm.

I didn't think that sound was the necessary factor in that. Sure 70mm later had 5.1 sound with split surround tracks, but originally, 6-track sound was configured with five channels of sound from the screen plus one mono surround track - 8-channel Sony Dynamic Digital Sound recreated that aspect of original 70mm 6-track sound (five channels behind the screen + split surround + bass). As I understand it, 70mm blowups of 35mm films is similiar to what happens to films nowadays thare are DNR'd to IMAX specs, essentailly uprezzed to 70mm visual specs.

[Bobby Henderson]

The 70mm "blow-up" craze (transferring 35mm 'scope movies to 70mm) began in the 1960s. 6-track magnetic sound was part of the allure in doing blow-up releases, but during that time it had more to do with showing 35mm-sourced movies on giant sized screens with better results.

A 5-perf 70mm projector can throw a lot more light than a 4-perf 35mm projector. It also shows a much more steady image. Both are very important if you're showing a movie on a huge screen in a theater seating well over 1000 people. 35mm just doesn't do very good in those situations. That kind of projection just can't scale to those sizes without some consequences.

By the end of the 1960s, the whole 70mm movement was dying. After 1970 very few movies were filmed on 65mm negatives. Some early 1970s movies, like The Cowboys and The Poseidon Adventure had 70mm blow up prints created, but those were made for runs in big theaters like the RKO National Twin in Times Square. Companies like AMC started building multiplex movie theaters with fairly small auditoriums.

When Star Wars made surround sound popular that's when we started seeing a lot of ordinary sized theaters begin installing 70mm projectors and, later, THX certified sound systems.

There is still a few visual benefits with showing a mag-striped 70mm blow-up print in a standard sized auditorium, but not enough to outweigh the $10,000-$15,000 or higher cost per print versus making a 35mm release print for $1000-$3000. It was pretty easy for 5.1 digital sound on 35mm to virtually eliminate 70mm prints.

If a movie is actually produced in 65mm/70mm format, viewers will see a major difference in image quality regardless of the auditorium size. The problem is far too few movies are being photographed in that far superior format.

DTS at least did what it could to support 70mm since there is a very strong argument for using 70mm prints in theaters with very large screens (60' wide or larger).

Over the last decade quite a few stadium seated theaters in large cities have featured at least one or more auditoriums with screens too huge for 35mm to properly illuminate. These theaters really need 70mm-based projection and a steady supply of DTS time-coded 70mm blow up prints.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

given how much money Warner's made from The Dark Knight - fronting the budget to do a complete feature length film in IMAX is not out of the question. If not IMAX, at least bring back actual filming with 65mm cameras/film. With the success of the IMAX editions of TDK, Bay has filmed select scenes with IMAX cameras for Transformers 2. IMAX is traditionally much more expensive than 35mm, however the middle ground with 70mm cameras makes much more sense.

Not really going to happen. Adding 70mm filming process to standard movies adds a lot of money to the production budget, there is the complicated set ups, processing etc. In the Dark Knight, the production crew destroyed a $300,000 IMAX camera while making it.

Christopher Nolan's 70mm Batman stuff is a real one-off, the tremendous cost of producing and then simply making a film print in 70mm or IMAX is why it just won't happen.

It generally costs $25,000 for a 2D IMAX print and up to $45,000 for 3D print. Add in the cost of shipping, putting the film together etc, and it could take weeks to gross the money back.

I like the idea of IMAX 70mm but The Dark Knight Rises might the last we see of it.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Not really going to happen. Adding 70mm filming process to standard movies adds a lot of money to the production budget, there is the complicated set ups, processing etc. In the Dark Knight, the production crew destroyed a $300,000 IMAX camera while making it.

Christopher Nolan's 70mm Batman stuff is a real one-off, the tremendous cost of producing and then simply making a film print in 70mm or IMAX is why it just won't happen.

It generally costs $25,000 for a 2D IMAX print and up to $45,000 for 3D print. Add in the cost of shipping, putting the film together etc, and it could take weeks to gross the money back.

I like the idea of IMAX 70mm but The Dark Knight Rises might the last we see of it.

there is next year's Star Trek sequel that had select scenes shot in IMAX 15/70, as with some reported news that two major scenes from the upcoming "Hunger Games: Catching Fire' being shot in 15/70 IMAX

and considering that P.T. Anderson's latest film 'The Master' was completely shot in 65mm I'm surprised there hasn't been any announcements if the Weinstein's wont strike a dozen or so prints as such for distribution.

I think that Brad Bird came across as completely stupid for not letting Paramount or us the consumer in not choosing a bluray edition of 'Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol' with the IMAX shot scenes in semi-full 1.78 framing - what's the point of shooting something in IMAX and not try to replicate it on home theater to it's best potential ??

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

there is next year's Star Trek sequel that had select scenes shot in IMAX 15/70, as with some reported news that two major scenes from the upcoming "Hunger Games: Catching Fire' being shot in 15/70 IMAX

and considering that P.T. Anderson's latest film 'The Master' was completely shot in 65mm I'm surprised there hasn't been any announcements if the Weinstein's wont strike a dozen or so prints as such for distribution.

I think that Brad Bird came across as completely stupid for not letting Paramount or us the consumer in not choosing a bluray edition of 'Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol' with the IMAX shot scenes in semi-full 1.78 framing - what's the point of shooting something in IMAX and not try to replicate it on home theater to it's best potential ??

What I mean was that the days of projecting 70mm in the theatres are going to very numbered after the The Dark Knight Rises. They will probably use the cameras for filming for a while but Hunger Games or Star Trek won't get a release of 80+ 70mm IMAX venues, up until just recently, there have been a number of theatres that have been getting 15/70 IMAX print regularly, many of these have changed over to digital.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

What I mean was that the days of projecting 70mm in the theatres are going to very numbered after the The Dark Knight Rises. They will probably use the cameras for filming for a while but Hunger Games or Star Trek won't get a release of 80+ 70mm IMAX venues, up until just recently, there have been a number of theatres that have been getting 15/70 IMAX print regularly, many of these have changed over to digital.

and reframing the screens? that's not smart and a bit premature if you ask me. There's been no specs or mention that when Barco's laser technology comes out in mid to late 2013 that the original 4:3 framing will be retained - so all those 15/70 screens that are converting to digital now are essentially losing a lot of its original screens as a result of converting to digital.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

and reframing the screens? that's not smart and a bit premature if you ask me. There's been no specs or mention that when Barco's laser technology comes out in mid to late 2013 that the original 4:3 framing will be retained - so all those 15/70 screens that are converting now or losing a lot of original screen as a result of converting to digital.

Yes, most are probably losing some of the screen size.

I think the best case would be what they have done for the The Dark Knight Rises in Canada with Cineplex Odeon, most of the IMAX venues were converted for digital when Titanic was released, however, those venues kept the option of playing a 15/70 when available such as the Dark Knight, so today the Cineplex Imax former 15/70 theatres are still playing Dark Knight on film, that would be the case IMO.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Yes, most are probably losing some of the screen size.

I think the best case would be what they have done for the The Dark Knight Rises in Canada with Cineplex Odeon, most of the IMAX venues were converted for digital when Titanic was released, however, those venues kept the option of playing a 15/70 when available such as the Dark Knight, so today the Cineplex Imax former 15/70 theatres are still playing Dark Knight on film, that would be the case IMO.

unless they are retaining the 4:3 screen and further windowboxing 1.78 / 2.35 movies -

[42041]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

and reframing the screens? that's not smart and a bit premature if you ask me. There's been no specs or mention that when Barco's laser technology comes out in mid to late 2013 that the original 4:3 framing will be retained - so all those 15/70 screens that are converting to digital now are essentially losing a lot of its original screens as a result of converting to digital.

Since IMAX is now mainly in the blow-up business I doubt they'd want to keep the original aspect ratio when they switch over to laser projection.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by 42041

Since IMAX is now mainly in the blow-up business I doubt they'd want to keep the original aspect ratio when they switch over to laser projection.

what? IMAX film shot documentaries aren't going away just because IMAX-Digital 1.78 screens are becoming more prevailent. I really hope that laser projection doesn't make 4:3 screens obsolete - they are going to have to figure out a way to retain and keep the huge box like screens that are featured as such at the Museums, Science Centers, et al.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

there is next year's Star Trek sequel that had select scenes shot in IMAX 15/70, as with some reported news that two major scenes from the upcoming "Hunger Games: Catching Fire' being shot in 15/70 IMAX

and considering that P.T. Anderson's latest film 'The Master' was completely shot in 65mm I'm surprised there hasn't been any announcements if the Weinstein's wont strike a dozen or so prints as such for distribution.

I think that Brad Bird came across as completely stupid for not letting Paramount or us the consumer in not choosing a bluray edition of 'Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol' with the IMAX shot scenes in semi-full 1.78 framing - what's the point of shooting something in IMAX and not try to replicate it on home theater to it's best potential ??

its a supposed rumor over at in70mm.com, but I found this little tidbit:

"The classic Village Theatre, in the Westwood Village/west Los Angeles area of L.A. is reported to be in view as a site for a 70mm run of the new film from Paul Thomas Anderson (PT Anderson), "The Master". Although the Village hasn't run a 70mm print for many years, a 70mm conversion kit for their venerable Norelco/Philips DP70 has been tracked down, and, pending final decisions and arrangements, it seems likely that L.A. will have its first commercial engagement of a new movie, presented "in the splendor of 70mm" in many years (last known previous one was "Hamlet", back in December 1996)."

(oh please send it our way to the AFI Silver)

[I KEEL YOU]

You can add Michael Jordan to the Max to the list.

BTW, these are really the only movies which would truly benefit from a 4K format because you can clearly see how the detail starts disappearing when you zoom in on a well made 35mm transfer that was scanned in 4K versus a 70mm transfer which wasn't even scanned in 4K:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ss=1#vergleich

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ss=1#vergleich

[pagemaster]

unless they are retaining the 4:3 screen and further windowboxing 1.78 / 2.35 movies -

I don't think IMAX will be getting out of 4.3 screen ratio.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

what? IMAX film shot documentaries aren't going away just because IMAX-Digital 1.78 screens are becoming more prevailent. .

That will slowly change if you are talking about IMAX digital vs film, the last movie "Born to Be Wild" was shot with combination 70mm and IMAX 4K digital. Shooting the picture is not the issue with 70mm, its the cost of distribution which makes it very costly.

Originally Posted by 42041

Since IMAX is now mainly in the blow-up business I doubt they'd want to keep the original aspect ratio when they switch over to laser projection.

Why not? What IMAX needs to do is install masking on the IMAX screens.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

I don't think IMAX will be getting out of 4.3 screen ratio.



That will slowly change if you are talking about IMAX digital vs film, the last movie "Born to Be Wild" was shot with combination 70mm and IMAX 4K digital. Shooting the picture is not the issue with 70mm, its the cost of distribution which makes it very costly.



Why not? What IMAX needs to do is install masking on the IMAX screens.

IMAX and IMAX-Digital cameras are shot with 4:3 in mind - for the former there is no masking to 1.78 (as it's common place for the blurays to be full screen 1.78)

when and if IMAX starts masking to 1.78 I'll stop going.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

IMAX and IMAX-Digital cameras are shot with 4:3 in mind - for the former there is no masking to 1.78 (as it's common place for the blurays to be full screen 1.78)

when and if IMAX starts masking to 1.78 I'll stop going.

Masking is needed for the DMR widescreen scope blowup prints. They should still be able to open up to 4.3 if needed. You would still not go?

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

its a supposed rumor over at in70mm.com, but I found this little tidbit:

"The classic Village Theatre, in the Westwood Village/west Los Angeles area of L.A. is reported to be in view as a site for a 70mm run of the new film from Paul Thomas Anderson (PT Anderson), "The Master". Although the Village hasn't run a 70mm print for many years, a 70mm conversion kit for their venerable Norelco/Philips DP70 has been tracked down, and, pending final decisions and arrangements, it seems likely that L.A. will have its first commercial engagement of a new movie, presented "in the splendor of 70mm" in many years (last known previous one was "Hamlet", back in December 1996)."

(oh please send it our way to the AFI Silver)

I do wish Paul Anderson good luck. I don't thing the guy has had a movie that grossed more than $50million at the domestic box office. What is most telling is that the movie is not being released by a major studio, when I see Spielberg, Cameron or Peter Jackson talking up 70mm, then we will have a good business case.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Most of the special 5-perf 70mm prints created over the last decade for classic movies have been 70mm DTS.
.

Its too bad because some people like myself would like to hear 70mm using magnetic tracks.

[in2video2]

Got to wondering about details from in70mm.com regarding the recent success of Samsara (2012) - the followup movie to Baraka. in70mm.com indicates Samsara was originally filmed in Super Panavision 70mm (now called Panavision Super 65 I believe) as source material and later exhibited not by a regular print but digitally by disc at cinemas making the whole process a whole lot cheaper, competitive to regular 35mm IMAX presentations "blown up" to 70mm. Audiences are being "blown away" by the clarity of image and surround sound - all digital from 70mm source material. Hopefully this may be the start of a new trend and that Hollywood directors may become interested once more in filming in 70mm - Todd-AO, Super Panavision 70 or Dimension 150.

[eddievanhalen]

Ice Station Zebra was shot in 70mm, and it looks wonderful on Blu ray.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063121/technical

[DarknessBDJM]

Studios can't even be bothered to shoot in anamorphic these days (a huge contrast to the 70's and 80's), never mind 70mm, so it's always nice when a filmmaker like Nolan uses both.
Another nice positive from the 70mm blow up days would be the more minimal loss of film quality from the negative to the theatrical print.