Jock Blakley

You know there's a third HOBBIT film coming out next year, right?

2D HFR is technically possible - after all, it's the same data rate as 3D at 24 fps - but due to the extraordinarily-bad press about HFR during the first release Warner Brothers cut the HFR release right back and are not permitting 2D HFR screenings. Which probably tells you something about how it looks.

I wish, but it's very very very unlikely. Bear in mind that since the picture was finished entirely by DI, there will be no conformed and timed master printing elements. Even assuming that the OCN is conformed to the final cut, a timed master interpositive will be needed, and then from that a printing internegative, and then prints. Plus a DTS 70 soundtrack negative. The costs add up very fast and would traditionally be amortised over many release prints, but in this case the fact that only a handful of prints might be struck doesn't diminish the upfront costs. Only advantage is that they wouldn't need multiple printing internegatives. That said, I recall hearing that new 70mm print of BARAKA ran at Telluride either this year or last, which would have involved the creation of a DTS 70 soundtrack neg as the original release was in Dolby Stereo magnetic and new mag prints are now impossible. I wouldn't have expected that to have happened, but there's a big gap in cost even between digging out an old timed internegative, cleaning it, making a new S/T neg, and striking a print verses starting right back before the DI.

A 4K DCP is downsampled to 2K in real-time when presented by a non-4K-capable server, just as a 4K-capable server will upscale a 2K DCP to 4K when presenting it to a 4K projector, so there's no question of not being able to present one at all. It would be interesting to find out how many 4K-capable-but-not-configured projectors are in service. It seems a waste of effort to me - if they wanted a big machine to cover a big screen they should have got a 4K big machine because the larger and higher-resolution DMDs give a less-noticeable pixel grid. Sub-4K acquisition is still a big bottle-neck on 4K content too, considering the popularity of the Alexa. I've run a low-generation original 70mm print of BARAKA against the Blu-Ray of the same, which was made from the new 8K scan they did a few years ago (unfortunately they didn't have any more money so the post-scan DI was at 2K). I knew it was an unfair comparison going in and... well, it was. The print blew it away. It wasn't even really a question of sharpness or detail, although the print did have more fine detail, but rather colour, contrast, and the sheer depth of the image. EXR Colour Print Film 5386 was such a gorgeous stock :( SAMSARA would have been the better comparison, given the 65mm origination and 8K scan / 4K DI and distribution, but unfortunately they spent so much money on the DI they couldn't afford any 70mm prints.

Ahh, this is the sad and sorry underbelly to the exhibition industry. It is indeed the case that the vast majority of prints, once first-run exhibition is over, are junked either by simply being sent to landfill or more commonly now by being recycled for their polyester bases. Previously acetate prints suffered all manner of fates depending on the distributor and their approach to cost management - some were thrown in the skip, others were compacted, yet others shredded or put through a bandsaw, and some even simply laid out for the attentions of a despatch staffer with an axe. It used to be that a handful of prints were selected, either based on inspection or knowledge of which prints were in the best condition, or randomly, to be kept for future repertory screenings, but that practice is (in Australia anyway) for all intents and purposes now dead. We're now also seeing older repertory prints that have survived until now being junked because distributors are unwilling to continue footing the storage bills. Just last night we ran RUSHMORE and THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS from original ex-distribution prints. RUSHMORE in particular looks stunning and has barely been run - but Walt Disney Pictures (Releasing) Australia are now telling us that they consider ALL of their 35mm prints to be "surplus to requirements" and that they'll be junking the lot of them soon. The owner of theatre I work actually started his own distribution and print despatch company in the late '90s to try to preserve whatever he could - the impetus was Columbia planning to junk the only Australian 70mm print of HAMLET (1996). He ended up with both the distribution rights and the print, but it took the personal intervention of Kenneth Branagh to do it. They also got hold of the MGM/UA portion of the UIP library when they ceased distributing in Australia, but in 2011 Park Circus took over the United Artists library and recalled all of the prints for all UA titles and all MGM titles post-1986. Between November 2011 and July 2012 all of those prints were junked, which included a print of the restoration of THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY, four new genuine B&W prints of RAGING BULL, a 2002 re-print of THE APARTMENT, prints of every James Bond film (including Technicolor IB prints of DR. NO, GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL, and a few others, and more than ten prints of GOLDENEYE), a '70s reprint of A BRIDGE TOO FAR, and on and on. Hundreds of prints. If you can't trust the distributors to preserve these literally priceless artefacts of cinema's history, who can you trust?

We did the Australian premiere of THE MASTER in 70mm because we're the last venue left in Australia that combines the "holy trinity" (if you will) of big city, big house, and 70mm capability. There was quite an amount of judder and flicker in the image - not objectionable by any means, but noticeable all the same. It's not something that we see in our other 70mm presentations and the suggestion I saw somewhere was that the flicker came from a problem with the shutters in the Panaflex 65HSSM cameras. That is of course unsubstantiated - the only other 70mm print we have of System 65 material is HAMLET, which doesn't exhibit that same flicker but that was of course 17 years ago. I can't say I agreed with the choice of aspect ratio either but regardless the 65mm photography and 70mm exhibition gave it a very unique and intriguing look. It truly is a pity to see film acquisition and exhibition dying as a whole - let alone 65/70 - because film does have a depth that digital has never achieved, and I worry that it never will.

I happened to come across Fox "Classics" on cable showing BEN-HUR in 16:9. To really drive the point home, the opening titles were shown in about 2.3:1 letterbox (which is the safe area on the titles plus about a pixel) and then as soon as the titles ended CUT TO pan-scan. Ridiculous.

If your film is shorter than 45 mins and you use optical SR rather than Dolby Digital, I beleive you no longer need to pay for a Dolby licence. And of course, Dolby A-type (and it'c copies like Ultrastereo and DTS Stereo) and mono are also options depending on your lab (some will only create soundtrack negs from supplied masters, others will do the master for you).

Given the cost of film-out, would it be cheaper in the end - and give a better quality in the print - if you were to shoot four-perf, do an offline in SD, conform the neg, and then use that conformed neg for both HD transfer and to directly strike a print? Dependent of course on the amount of post work that you'll require. The look of a print struck directly from the OCN is incomparable.

In a lot of cases, as David hints at, the archival status of the production can skew its appearance in the present day. Forgive me for a British example, but the original series of DOCTOR WHO illustrates this very well. Colour transmission in the UK started in 1967, with most productions having transitioned quite cleanly by 1970 - 1971. Some transitioned earlier - ITC's STINGRAY and THUNDERBIRDS are notable - were photographed on colour film as early as 1964 in order to be sold in US markets while still being shown in monochrome in the UK, and it's those colour masters that support showings of those programmes today. Most programmes at the time though were photographed on various mixes of B&W film and tape format, or quite commonly presented live to air with the occasional telerecording (I believe kinescope is the American term) being made for reference. DOCTOR WHO switched to colour production in late 1969, with the four-part serial SPEARHEAD FROM SPACE first in line for broadcast in early 1970. At the time certain parts of the BBC's studio staff were on strike, so the serial ended up being photographed entirely on location on 16mm colour. After studio production resumed, 2" quad tape was used in the studio and location inserts were shot on 16mm. Due, however, to the enormous expense of colour videotape (more expensive than film at the time), it was common practice for 16mm telerecordings to be made instead, sometimes in colour and sometimes in B&W depending on archival merit or potential for overseas sale - particularly given that there existed no PAL vs NTSC format incompatibility for film! Unfortunately now, because of the BBC's very poor archive practices before 1978, there are many episodes for which 16mm B&W overseas sale telerecordings are the only extant versions. The same issue also affects many other BBC and ITV serials from the same time, including DAD'S ARMY. I'm interested to see how American studios' comparatively-later decision to switch to tape-based origination influenced colour production and also archiving.

I'm very fortunate to have both projected and watched an original 70mm print of this fantastic film. Unfortunately that particular print is now beginning to suffer from vinegar syndrome, a great pity indeed. The photography is breathtaking and complements the film wonderfully. Plus Bill Conti's fantastic score benefits greatly from being heard in six-track mag :D Interestingly, given the use of NASA 16mm footage in places, it's also one of the very few times you'll see 16 > 35 > 70mm blow-up.

The trick is in the Number Code, which is the first four digits of the batch number. 2201 decodes to ESTAR (polyester) base, camera-original film, and 01 for VISION2 50D. The production version of this film on the standard acetate base would be, as Dirk notes, 7201. Properly it should be 3201, as a 2 in the leading position is properly for 35/65/70mm ESTAR, but Kodak has been inconsistent with this in the past (I have a few cans of HAWKEYE Surveillance Film 2485 in 16mm when it should be 3485). You will also sometimes see a 0 as the first digit for a Special Order film - ESTAR versions of VISION2 500T were sold as SO-218 and coded 0218. It's important also to note the Specification Number (SP): 618 in this case, which refers to 16mm with 1R perf on Z-type (3-inch diameter) core in Winding A, not the standard Winding B.

I wish they'd done that for THE ARTIST instead of the rather-disappointing 1.37-inside-1.85 prints on 2383.

All of the DLP D-Cinema projectors are pretty much the same on-screen; the main differences are in how the manufacturer has built the interface I don't know what sort of tiny shoebox multiplexes Phil has been visiting but 1 - 2 kW is a bit on the small side, 3 kW lamps are more along the lines of what would be a standard lamp power. Of course theatre managers still have the ability to underpower them to extend their lives, leading to a dark picture on screen. Even more so with 3D - the target screen luminance for 35 and 70mm was 16 FL, but 3D D-Cinema can get away with a stygian 4.5 FL. We use a Barco DP4K-32B with a 6.5 kW lamp, but our screen is a touch larger than usual AND we light for 16 FL.

Technically awful, but I've always adored the final shot of the rocket motor at the end of KOYAANISQATSI. It started as 16mm NASA footage anyway, blow-up to 35mm and cropped to 1.85, then it cuts to an optical zoom-in, then a further zoom, and then they start to multiple-print frames until it's almost a freeze-frame. The end result is a snowstorm of grain juddering all over the screen which illustrates why it should never be done unless absolutely necessary, but naturally it's perfect in that film :P

Who am I kidding, my entire book would be as much of this film as I could get away with.

"STD" rather than "ST" would probably be a little bit less ambiguous - then Google it and the third result is a thread here with the answer :P Of course there is an additional challenge for people who don't have English as a first language and so would instinctively answer as 29,97 rather than 29.97.

Any processing you undertake with the film needs to account for the Remjet layer on the base - which is a quick way to ruin any machine process that's not expecting it, which includes all C-41 labs - and also that the ECN-2 process the film expects uses a different colour developer to the C-41 process. Unless you can find a lab or friend to do ECN-2 in short lengths, you're better off keeping it all for use as short ends or selling it as short ends.

5245 <3

That would be the venerable Astor Theatre, which is really the only place in Australia you'll see 5/70 any more. http://www.astortheatre.net.au/films/baraka

Oh yes I read that, but I meant as opposed to Kodak's using the second letter for the stock type and the numbers as part of the batch.

True 24 would be advisable should you ever wish to contact-print for projection, as rare as that is nowadays.

It's actually the emulsion you're seeing there - if you could see the base in the gate you'd be having problems. It's a normal thing though for the emulsion to change colour with exposure to light and heat. Some emulsions barely change or take a long time to do so, others are quite quick. Kodak Technical Pan would start off a bird's-egg blue and have turned brown barely a minute or two later.

Thanks Charles. Also interesting to note that Fuji just use a generic "FN" lettercode rather than specifying a different one for each emulsion. I suppose it's email-writing time.

So the DCPs I've seen of GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ and any other Academy Aperture films you care to mention should have been rejected by distributors?