70mm Films transferred to Blu-ray

[KnucklesTwelve]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

More films need to be shot in 70mm. It is the increasing corporatization of Hollywood that has eliminated the gigantic epics that used to be filmed in 70mm. Instead of wasting money on 3-D, use a proven format like 70mm that looks great at the theater.

Agreed!

3D is overrated, IMO. I rather have the natural depth-of-field provided by film instead.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

More films need to be shot in 70mm. It is the increasing corporatization of Hollywood that has eliminated the gigantic epics that used to be filmed in 70mm. Instead of wasting money on 3-D, use a proven format like 70mm that looks great at the theater.

I absolutely agree!
3-D doesn't improve the quality of a feature in the slightest, whereas 70mm makes a film look stunning!

[KubrickFan]

Christopher Nolan shot some sequences in 70mm, and in VistaVision for Inception. I don't know whether these will be special effects sequences, but I do think they'll look great. Since shooting in IMAX is still cumbersome and expensive, 5 perf 70mm might seem the best alternative. Hopefully it will be used more.
And I'll take 70mm over 3D any day. It immerses yourself even more, I think.

[Harry Caul]

The following link is a list of movies that used a original 70mm camera negative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70mm_films
I think that pretty much covers it.
And for the oother great format, VistaVision, it would be this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VistaVision_films

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Christopher Nolan shot some sequences in 70mm, and in VistaVision for Inception. I don't know whether these will be special effects sequences, but I do think they'll look great. Since shooting in IMAX is still cumbersome and expensive, 5 perf 70mm might seem the best alternative. Hopefully it will be used more.
And I'll take 70mm over 3D any day. It immerses yourself even more, I think.

He's shooting in 65 mm and not 70 mm for some key scenes in Inception.

Here are some quotes from an interview he recently gave to collider.com.

We shot the film with a mixture of mostly the predominant bulk of the film is anamorphic 35mm, which is the best quality sort of practical format to shoot on by far. We shot key sequences on 65mm, 5 perf not 15 perf, and we shot VistaVision on certain other sequences. So we’ve got a negative - a set of negative - that’s of the highest possible quality except IMAX.

65 mm would still look great. But I really hope for more IMAX sequences in future films. The quality that Nolan achieved on The Dark Knight IMAX sequences is unimaginable.

[disrember]

The king and I was filmed on 55mm and that has been shown in HD on Sky in the UK and looked fab.

The sound of music, has also been shown in HD in the UK and dosn't look any different, I am assuming the blu-ray will be a new master.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

More films need to be shot in 70mm. It is the increasing corporatization of Hollywood that has eliminated the gigantic epics that used to be filmed in 70mm. Instead of wasting money on 3-D, use a proven format like 70mm that looks great at the theater.

Originally Posted by taggsmcgee

Agreed!

3D is overrated, IMO. I rather have the natural depth-of-field provided by film instead.

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

I absolutely agree!
3-D doesn't improve the quality of a feature in the slightest, whereas 70mm makes a film look stunning!

I agree my dear friends, 3D is a gimmick and I feel I'm being forced into accepting 3D through extortion. Its okay for some movies but not for all movies. And specially with this truly horrible up-converting from 2D to 3D that's now going on Hollywood. Clash Of The Titans was shot in 2D, was quickly and cheaply up-converted to 3D for a mere 5 million dollars and now some reviewers have said that the 3D is absolutely horrible, its extremely blurred and gives you a head-ache.
But my local theater is showing it only in 3D, so I will have to watch the really cheap and horrible up-converted 3D. Ditto Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, which has also been up-converted.

But why go to the extent of this cheap 3D when you can achieve astounding depth through 70 mm. These cheap looking movies make me wish back to those old classics which were filmed with such magnificent clarity, it really took your breath away.

Lawrence Of Arabia still remains the most visually stunning movie in the history of cinema. And guess what, there was no 3D, just old school lavish 70 mm photography.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I agree my dear friends, 3D is a gimmick and I feel I'm being forced into accepting 3D through extortion. Its okay for some movies but not for all movies. And specially with this truly horrible up-converting from 2D to 3D that's now going on Hollywood. Clash Of The Titans was shot in 2D, was quickly and cheaply up-converted to 3D for a mere 5 million dollars and now some reviewers have said that the 3D is absolutely horrible, its extremely blurred and gives you a head-ache.
But my local theater is showing it only in 3D, so I will have to watch the really cheap and horrible up-converted 3D. Ditto Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, which has also been up-converted.

But why go to the extent of this cheap 3D when you can achieve astounding depth through 70 mm. These cheap looking movies make me wish back to those old classics which were filmed with such magnificent clarity, it really took your breath away.

Lawrence Of Arabia still remains the most visually stunning movie in the history of cinema. And guess what, there was no 3D, just old school lavish 70 mm photography.

I think Blade Runner is by far the most visually stunning movie. Shot on 35mm.

[that1guystudios]

When Sound of Music is released in December, it will be a day one purchase for me...should look phenomenal, especially the aerial shots at the beginning if they are properly restored.

King and I (which is 55mm) and already has a great restoration should look astounding....hopefully we will see it this year or next.

Oklahoma! is in dire need of a restoration for it's Todd-AO version which is 70mm/30fps. I'd love to see it presented a little better.

Cleopatra would also be great, but I'm sure that because of it's length, (over 4 hours if I remember right) it would take a couple of years to be restored.

The Music Man looks awesome...and I have a feeling that Disney's The Black Cauldron could yield some good results with a proper restoration, just as Sleeping Beauty did.

And I'm super excited for A Star is Born to be released in June, though it technically is just a 35mm release, it's still being restored with a super high resolution!

[Crimson King]

Would be great if Warner would put "This Is Cinerama" (in "Smilebox") on blu, I'd buy it! Sadly, it has NEVER been officially released on home video, not in even in the VHS days.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I'm sorry guys. I saw this movie a few years ago on TV and it thought it was a completely unfunny ridiculous movie. But I'll get it if the PQ is good. It was shot in 70 mm too afterall.

It was a lot of fun, but not too funny, in 70 mm on a curved screen at the time of its first release at the New Pacific in Hollywood. It didn't have the romp or the verve on TV.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by that1guypictures

The King and I (which is 55mm) and already has a great restoration should look astounding....hopefully we will see it this year or next.

Oklahoma! is in dire need of a restoration for it's Todd-AO version which is 70mm/30fps. I'd love to see it presented a little better.

The King and I had GREAT sound in its initial release; I think it got the Oscar for sound, over Around the World in 80 days (1956), which -- in 70 mm Todd-AO -- had the best sound I've ever heard to and including the present day. Note: the 35 mm prints released after Todd's death had a truly horrible optical soundtrack.

Oklahoma! would be well worth it, but fox made so many excuses last time that I don't have much hope.

And speaking of 80 Days (1956), how I wish they would go back to the 65 mm OCN on that one! With the exception of Space Odyssey, it was the most hypnotic film in 70 mm.

[MrJoeKalel]

Great thread, specially since it made me think of the 'epic feel' most movies (well, almost ALL) these days lack, and yes, I agree, I'd rather get that epic feel that a fake 3D effect.

[jj5206]

2001 looks amazing...

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Harry Caul

The following link is a list of movies that used a original 70mm camera negative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70mm_films
I think that pretty much covers it.
And for the oother great format, VistaVision, it would be this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VistaVision_films

Great list!

Wasn't Concert for Bangladesh in 70 mm? Or was it just blown up (to benefit from 6 channel sound??)..

[Rinzler]

One of my favorite musicals, really my favorite, White Christmas was the first movie to be filmed in VistaVision.

[in2video2]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

More films need to be shot in 70mm. It is the increasing corporatization of Hollywood that has eliminated the gigantic epics that used to be filmed in 70mm. Instead of wasting money on 3-D, use a proven format like 70mm that looks great at the theater.

Every single word is true. Add to that, that nothing beats a good story. We are missing the grand old fun of going to the movies. Movies used to be EPIC in nature and story-telling. And a film production in the grandeur of 70mm 6-Track Stereo was something to look forward to. Let's not forget that 3D has come and gone before... the early 1950s 3D Craze is now being recreated today - The technology may have matured somewhat, but the screenplays haven't. Let's not forget the movie that put an end to 3D in 1953 was THE ROBE - advertised as "3D Without the Glasses" filmed in the then revolutionary CinemaScope* which paved the way for the 55mm/65mm and 70mm film productions that followed. It's no mistake that 70mm movies of the 50s, 60s and 70s are now being chosen first to show off the qualities of Blu-Ray.

Keep your eyes on the look out for the following 70mm 6-Track wonders:

OKLAHOMA! - Todd-AO
EXODUS (1960) - Super Panavision 70
WEST SIDE STORY - (1961) - Super Panavision 70
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962) - Super Panavision 70
CLEOPATRA (1963) - Todd-AO
MY FAIR LADY (1964) - Super Panavision 70
THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY (1965) - Todd-AO
THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) - Todd-AO
THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES (1965) - Todd-AO
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) - Super Panavision 70/Cinerama
HELLO, DOLLY! (1969) - Todd-AO
AIRPORT (1970) - Todd-AO
RYAN'S DAUGHTER (1970) - Super Panavision 70

It is also interesting to note that some of the bigger players in Hollywood are utilizing the old scorned 70mm technologies to new adaptations with renewed interest. With IMAX being too expensive to produce full-length features, wide screen aspect ratios being by and large the preferred medium of choice for the HDTV market as well, and the noticable advantages in quality for Blu-Ray releases... we just might see a bright new future for 70mm after all.

*Fox originated CinemaScope as 35mm and later experimented briefly with 55mm, by which time the development of rival versions including Todd-AO and Super Panavision successfully created the 65mm/70mm format which eventually took off. CinemaScope, an Academy Award winning process, eventually returned to its roots as a 35mm process; whilst 70mm created its own unique experience and in spite of the technological advances of IMAX and Real 3D has in my opinion not been beaten.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by slumcat

But why go to the extent of this cheap 3D when you can achieve astounding depth through 70 mm. These cheap looking movies make me wish back to those old classics which were filmed with such magnificent clarity, it really took your breath away.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

More films need to be shot in 70mm. It is the increasing corporatization of Hollywood that has eliminated the gigantic epics that used to be filmed in 70mm. Instead of wasting money on 3-D, use a proven format like 70mm that looks great at the theater.

I agree:

• 70 mm is more convincing. Ideally presented in a good theater (or a truly good Home Theater with a very large front projection screen) people can virtually forget they are seeing a movie. Instead of the "willing suspension of disbelief" talked about in theater and film aesthetics, the high involvement one can get in 70 mm almost achieves "unwilling and automatic suspension of disbelief."
• 3D, on the other hand, tends to call attention to itself whenever there is a particularly spectacular effect, and that reduces involvement in the story and the experience as a whole. Even the usually subtle use of 3D in Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder broke the spell, and not just during the scissors scene .. sometimes when actors were framed through other objects (bottles, in one case), they would seem suspended unnaturally, and one would be joltingly reminded "Oh, yeah this is in 3D."
• People seem to forget (or never experienced) the sense of depth one can get in 70 mm, perhaps because almost all of the screens are smaller now, relative to the seating locations, than they were in the Golden Age of 70 mm. The curving screen, the nearly grainless texture (in most 70 mm films) the use of wider angle shooting lenses (on the average) than with 35 mm, and the brightness all contributed to a sense of depth.
• Brightness is an often overlooked factor. Everything else being held equal, more light got through the larger 70 mm "hole.' And everything else was not equal. The great carbon arc lamps provided more light even in 35 mm in those days, and it could be extraordinary in 70 mm, without being washed out at all --perhaps due to the greater number of dye particles per unit of image size in 70 mm. The color ranged from very, very natural in Oklahoma! and 80 Days, to marvelously intense in Sleeping Beauty. Here is a comment from the 1959 book The Liveliest Art by Arthur Knight, related to brightness: "[70 mm] Todd-AO fills the widest of wide screens with a clean, sparkling picture that is far brighter and better defined than anything possible in the 35 mm anamorphic systems. In this sense it is a milestone in the field."
• Some argue that 70 mm is no longer needed because film emulsions and digital media have improved so much. Well, improve they have, but this arguement fails to take into account the brightness factor .... and I've never seen a digital or modern flim based movie that had that look --- like one could just walk into it, or reach out and touch objects on screen -- that most 70 mm films had. Few modern still photographers would argue that small format (35mm) or digital shooting provide as high resolution and acutance as do 2 /14 negatives.
• Concerning restorations of classic films ... even if films could be restored perfectly, 70 mm films would still likely look better than their 35 mm cohorts. Arthur Knight again in '59 [italics mine]: "... most studio technicians are convinced that it is only a matter of time until one -- or more -- of the new sizes replaces the standard 35 mm film which has proved inadequate for big screen production."

[BaronVH]

This thread makes me sad. In my town of Little Rock, Arkansas, stood one of the few 70mm theaters, the Cinema 150. It was a huge 800 seat one screen dome made for 70mm film. United Artists owned it and subsidized its operation. Then UA went under and was bought by Regal who quickly shut it down. Since then I have seen one film at a Regal theater and did so under protest. 70mm had the best picture and the sound was way ahead of its time with the quadraphonic sound. I have nothing against IMAX or 3D, but seeing Lawrence of Arabia on a 70mm screen is something to behold.

I do think 3D was a fad before, and it may be a fad now. Avatar was neat to see in really good 3D, but I have no doubt that had it been filmed and released in 70mm, it would have been just as impressive or even more so. There are very few of these theaters left. I know the Paramount in Austin, Texas, is still around, and I hope to see something there in 70mm at some point. There was a 70mm theater near the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., but I am not certain that it is still in operation. The decline of 70mm just shows you that the best does not always survive.

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Wasn't Concert for Bangladesh in 70 mm? Or was it just blown up (to benefit from 6 channel sound??)..

The source format for "Concert for Bangladesh" was 16mm (1.37 Academy). So, yes it was a 70mm blow up purely for magnetic six track audio.

AJ