70mm Films transferred to Blu-ray

[garyrc]

Who has seen the Blu-ray of Jacques Tati's Play Time? Have any of you seen it in 70 mm in a theater? I heard that, while the DVD was made from an inferior 35 mm print, they went back to a 65 MM internegative for the Blu.

• How does it look?
• It is 1.85 ... was the original 70 mm version that shape?
• How about the sound?

[garyrc]

Oh, Dubstar, for some reason your last paragraph (where you talk about Play Time) didn't show up on my screen the other day .... maybe I just didn't scroll down far enough.

Now I'm confused (see my last post) A review I read said they did go back to a 65 mm internegative (rather than a 35 or 70 print) ... but, obviously, the PQ was dissappointing to you. The same review said that the old DVD was struck from 35.

Was the "window-like" 70 mm print you saw in 1.85:1, 2.2:1, or what?

[42041]

Criterion's blurb: "This high-definition digital transfer has been created on a Spirit Datacine from a 35mm reduction internegative made from the restored 65mm interpositive."

And I believe the Spirit Datacine (without the 2k or 4k qualifier) scans at a less-than-2k resolution. So, probably not quite what you saw projected.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Who has seen the Blu-ray of Jacques Tati's Play Time? Have any of you seen it in 70 mm in a theater? I heard that, while the DVD was made from an inferior 35 mm print, they went back to a 65 MM internegative for the Blu.

• How does it look?
• It is 1.85 ... was the original 70 mm version that shape?
• How about the sound?

I haven't seen the Blu-ray but I've seen a HD TV broadcast (Sky Arts in the UK) and the picture quality was superb. Hopefully, having recently got a multi region Blu-ray player, I'll get the Criterion to compare.

The original 70mm showings were 1.85:1 (very unusual for a 70mm film).

[Robert Harris]

Before too many people get caught up in the concept of large format origination and how an image should or should not be harvested for use on Blu-ray, let me clear something up.

Whether a Blu-ray image of a large format production is harvested from a 65mm element or from a properly derived 35mm element, makes little difference. Once down to an HD master, it hardly matters.

RAH

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Before too many people get caught up in the concept of large format origination and how an image should or should not be harvested for use on Blu-ray, let me clear something up.

Whether a Blu-ray image of a large format production is harvested from a 65mm element or from a properly derived 35mm element, makes little difference. Once down to an HD master, it hardly matters.

RAH

Would this be partly because a properly derived 35 mm element could be made on very fine grain, high resolution modern film stock? Are "properly derived" 35mm elements all ones that have been made recently, or could an old one ('50s, '60s '70s '80s) qualify? Were the older prints or internegatives (what-have-you) sometimes superior to the resolution, etc, of modern HD mastering quality?

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Would this be partly because a properly derived 35 mm element could be made on very fine grain, high resolution modern film stock? Are "properly derived" 35mm elements all ones that have been made recently, or could an old one ('50s, '60s '70s '80s) qualify? Were the older prints or internegatives (what-have-you) sometimes superior to the resolution, etc, of modern HD mastering quality?

If produced for the specific purpose during the past 15 years, 35 elements should be fine. I believe the first was our My Fair Lady 35 IP, produced for us by Pacific Title. It had no use other than for transfer in 65mm aspect ratio.

RAH

[davidthenikonuser]

Tron should be out be the end of the year and was filmed in 70mm for the most part.

[lDlisturb3d]

Nice thread

[randian]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Terminator 2 and Spartacus Restored Director's Cut.

70mm was huge in the 80s and basically died instantly after 1993. I don't understand why, every 70mm release I went to was always sold out. Just to show how popular they were, I waited 2 hours in line in the middle of a work day to see Terminator 2.

One thing about 70mm: why is it considered expensive? Relative to the cost of actors and crew, the cost of film and cameras is surely an increasingly trivial portion of the overall cost of shooting a wide-release Hollywood movie.

[42041]

Originally Posted by randian

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Terminator 2

That would probably be because it was shot entirely on super 35

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by randian

70mm was huge in the 80s and basically died instantly after 1993. I don't understand why, every 70mm release I went to was always sold out. Just to show how popular they were, I waited 2 hours in line in the middle of a work day to see Terminator 2.

One thing about 70mm: why is it considered expensive? Relative to the cost of actors and crew, the cost of film and cameras is surely an increasingly trivial portion of the overall cost of shooting a wide-release Hollywood movie.

There were lines around a very long block for the San Francisco 70 mm showings of Star Warsin 1977 and almost that long for Close Encounters. The early 70 mm films (in the 1950s) were reserved seat only, so there was no line around the block, but a pretty long one leading to the various box offices all over the Bay Area that sold tickets. Around the World in 80 Days (Todd-AO and the best sound ever; 1956) played well into its second year in 70 mm at the Coronet theater in S.F., and when we tried to buy tickets (soon after they went on sale) for Ben-Hur in 70 mm, premiering before Christmas 1959, we found that they had sold out every seat in the house until after Easter 1960.

RE: 80 Days there was a joke going around: Someone noticed an empty seat in the otherwise full theater. The woman in the next seat had to repeatedly explain why it was empty. "That's my husband's seat -- he couldn't make it." "Oh, that's too bad ... you don't have a friend who wanted to see 80 Days?" The reply: "They're all at his funeral."

The audience for 2001 grew and grew, then slacked off a bit, but was still more popular than most first run movies of the time. Many of us were set to go back and see it a 3rd, or 4th, ... or 10th time when the theater said they had to kick it out because of a commitment to another film's booked opening date. I think it was Ice Station Zebra.

Incidentally, and not surprisingly, none of the above films are nearly as effective on disk as they were in 70 mm, especially 80 Days, and 2001 which both lost their hypnotic quality.

[randian]

Originally Posted by 42041

That would probably be because it was shot entirely on super 35

I am certain I saw it in 70mm in the theater, and several 70mm film lists contain it. What's up?

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by garyrc

Incidentally, and not surprisingly, none of the above films are nearly as effective on disk as they were in 70 mm, especially 80 Days, and 2001 which both lost their hypnotic quality.

Blu-ray for all its quality, when compared to 70mm film, is a paperback Xerox version of the original. One is talking raisins and grapefruits.

As an aside, the major draw for most 70mm releases into the late '70s was audio, not necessarily image. While the image quality was cleaner and brighter, the format enabled 6 track stereo. This ended with Dolby SVA, followed by other formats, especially digital.

RAH

[BaronVH]

Just about every day I wish my 70mm theater was not closed. The one I am really, really waiting to get is Lawrence of Arabia. Please be soon.

[42041]

Originally Posted by randian

I am certain I saw it in 70mm in the theater, and several 70mm film lists contain it. What's up?

70mm blow-up prints were made, they did that for quite a few movies, just like they put blockbusters in IMAX theaters now. But it was definitely a 35mm production.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

Just about every day I wish my 70mm theater was not closed. The one I am really, really waiting to get is Lawrence of Arabia. Please be soon.

As I said earlier, that's the one I'm waiting for too. Like I said earlier in the thread, its the most spectacular film ever made.

[BaronVH]

Originally Posted by slumcat

As I said earlier, that's the one I'm waiting for too. Like I said earlier in the thread, its the most spectacular film ever made.

I have never had the opportunity to tell a person that what they posted on the internet is 100% correct until now.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by randian

I am certain I saw it in 70mm in the theater, and several 70mm film lists contain it. What's up?

If the negative was shot on very fine grain 35 mm film with great optics, it would look very good in a 70 mm print. In the later years of 70mm, the biggest single benefit (IMO) was in the projection, in that much more light got through the larger hole, everything else being held equal. This was especially important after most theaters switched to cheapskate dim projection lamps. New 35 mm camera film emulsions have now equaled the old 70 mm (65 mm in the camera) in some ways, such as resolution and apparent grainlessness. IMO, they still haven't equaled the potential for high color saturation, the occasional use of the very wide angle taking lenses designed for 65 mm, and the "etched look." The old 70 mm films often had a sense of depth that I haven't seen lately (except in 3D, where it sometimes is distracting). Think what a gifted director and D.P. could do with modern 65 mm film stock!

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Having seen 2001 over 20 times in the theater, and owning all versions except the Criterion laserdisc, I will say that the BD is the best version that I have seen, and the special effects stand the test of time, probably because they were NOT computer generated.

Amen!