Jump to content
Brian Rose

Shutter Island 65mm

Recommended Posts

All,

I read over at www.in70mm.com that Scorsese was using 65mm to shoot "Shutter Island." The news blurb does not say to what extent, or if it's just for process/special effects that require larger negative. Does anyone know anything more concrete?

 

Whatever the case may be, this is awfully exciting. Dark Knight with Imax scenes, Samsara in 65 and now Scorsese? I wonder if there is a mini-resurgence? Now if we could just get theatres equipped for it!

 

Brian R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Said to the tone of the police officers in the "Miss Stevenson & Ike" Southpark Episode)

 

nicee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nolan and Pfister are at it again as well. They are testing 5perf 65mm for their new flick. I know this cause I saw the reels at technicolor last night and this morning. I would love to see a new film shot 65mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of things are they shooting in 65mm? If its something besides VFX plates, what is the benefit?

 

 

 

watch the film Baraka. That is benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What benefit?

 

How about having practically no grain?

 

 

Even scope can look kinda grainy if you are shooting the 500T stocks and there are lots of highlights or even tones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What benefit?

 

How about having practically no grain?

 

 

Even scope can look kinda grainy if you are shooting the 500T stocks and there are lots of highlights or even tones.

 

So I assume that benefit stays even when going down to 35mm? Would going to 35mm via DI be better than reducing it optically? Are there certain kinds of shots they're using 65mm on that would benefit more?

 

If 4K projection is going to become the norm, do you think we'll more of these kinds of films that at least use 65mm for some scenes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw the trailer in the theatre the other day, and none of the shots in it said "65" to me.

 

 

Eh, with 2K DLP and 2K DIs being ubiquitous in the theatres, and IMAX :-/ there is almost no point to shooting 65mm in the near-term. Only film projection can resolve 4K unless you are in one of the handful of facilities with Sony 4K projectors in the world.

 

 

Of course, I guess I could be pleasantly surprised because "Shutter Island" has opted for a 4K DI and only the trailer was done in 2K. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theatre chains like AMC are in the process of installing thousands of 4K digital projectors. Once these projectors are installed the theatre owners are going to be screaming for the 4K content that only 65mm film origination can deliver. 35mm film might be good enough for 2K digital projection or Blu-Ray but it will not be good enough to really take advantage of the splendor of 4K digital projection. Of course a lot of film makers will try to uprezz their 35mm footage with a 4K digital scan and hope that nobody can tell the difference but this really defeats the purpose of 4K which is to showcase 65mm Cinematography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMC here still has slide projectors.

 

 

AMC, Regal, and Cinemark were supposed to be all digital by June of this year. Whoops!

 

If you are reading any press releases regarding digital projection that were made before Fall 2008, best to throw them out; they were made before the economy collapsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Murphy
the 4K content that only 65mm film origination can deliver. 35mm film might be good enough for 2K digital projection or Blu-Ray but it will not be good enough to really take advantage of the splendor of 4K digital projection.

 

Are you on crack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but, better question: Doesn't he have his own personal off-topic thread?

 

 

As usual, he is off topic. Oh, hey, BTW, Thomas, looks like nuclear explosions, on or off the ground, got banned the other day by our nation's president. I voted for the a$$h0le and he wants us to launch more probes, and didn't get his key agenda, public healthcare accomplished.

 

So maybe next time I am in town, I will take a hit with you. :-/

Edited by Karl Borowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that one would have to be a narrow minded individual to think that I am off topic but rather I think that you are merely disagreeing with what I say and trying to come up with excuses. The fact is that whenever 4K digital projection is showcased in comparison with 2K footage, movies made with 65mm film origination are always used so the differences in picture quality are made more readily apparant in order to justify to the theatre owner the reason why he should invest in a 4K system. However we had the same problem with IMAX when theatre owners invested heavily in the construction of IMAX theatres and then were left holding the bag when they had to wait 20 years for the first IMAX movie to be produced. For this reason 5 perf 65mm film is a much more practical format because it is much better quality than 35mm film yet it does not break the bank like 15 perf IMAX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the economy collapsing doesn't it make much more economic sense to go with digital projection rather than having to keep buying 35mm prints?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at $80,000 a digital projector. Even with digital print fees, that is a lot of lost ground that a theatre doesn't otherwise have to pay.

 

Oh, and, BTW, 2K projectors are already obsolete and digital projectors still cost a metric $h it-tonne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually dual 2K projectors will give the 2K format additional life and may be a compelling alternative to 4K if theatre owners are worried about tough economic times yet wan't the best quality they can afford. Since dual 2K projector systems will bear the IMAX name I think theatre owners are going to expect something better than 4 perf 35mm film origination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I assume that benefit stays even when going down to 35mm? Would going to 35mm via DI be better than reducing it optically? Are there certain kinds of shots they're using 65mm on that would benefit more?

I saw "The International" last year in a really good 35mm projection. They used 65mm and VistaVision (with a 4k DI) for some shots, with the majority of the film being Super 35 (2k DI). 65mm was mostly used for wide cityscapes, where the extra detail and lack of grain really was a huge benefit.

 

Then again, I've seen some 65->35mm stuff (both photochemical and 4k DI) that didn't really look any sharper than straight 35mm. The blame was either on poor print quality or projection quality; perhaps both.

 

The trailer for "Shutter Island" that I saw looked pretty bad. Then again, trailer prints often do, and this one was letterboxed inside a 1.85:1 frame to make things worse... Generally, I don't think you should ever take the trailer as any sort of indication of the actual image quality of a film.

 

If 4K projection is going to become the norm, do you think we'll more of these kinds of films that at least use 65mm for some scenes?

One sure hopes so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a kid 65mm was a mainstream format at least for Epic films. Nowadays you are considered off the wall and overkill for even suggesting that a movie should be filmed using 65mm. I hope with the advent of 4K digital projection that 65mm film aquisition will one day again become the mainstream format. The problem is that most Cinematographers feel that they are elitists just because they prefer film over video but I think it takes a lot more effort to be a true elitist. If any format is overkill it is the IMAX format which I think caused a lot of Cinematographers to become so discouraged by the costs that they just gave up on trying to shoot with 65mm film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am just an ignoramus, but with 2K projection, what would doubling up give you, apart from more light, and convergence issues? Wouldn't it still look like the same flat garbage it looks like now in a theatre?

 

....I can't get over the line about the, what was it, "Splendor" of 4K theatre projection, and how it would take 65/70mm film to 'do justice' to it....thank you for the biggest belly laugh I've had in a while.

 

 

Claus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been claimed that IMAX's double 2K system can reach a bit more resolution than 2K, provided that the presentation is 2D. Apparently this is achieved by carefully overlapping the two images by a sub-pixel amount, if that makes sense. Believe it or not, but the convergence is pretty much perfect.

 

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not a fan of LieMAX. Too bright for starters (which could be good for 3D though; I've only seen LieMAX in 2D).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the exception of 35mm flat-to-scope blowups, the quality of movies has taken a drastic hit in dynamic range, resolution, and colorspace since 2K DIs came out.

 

4K would only solve one of these three problems.

 

 

And with a film printing chain would only represent marginal improvement.

 

BTW, according to Kodak specs, 35mm print stock can resolve 4K (~12MP) of information in a 4-perf. area.

 

 

 

I saw a print of "It's Complicated" last night, which a skilled union projectionist friend of mine personally framed and focused for me, as the only audience member, and, shot as an open-aperture flat film, the wide shots looked SOFT, incredibly soft.

 

Why anyone would put FOUR PERF. open aperture flat material through a 2K DI is totally beyond me in a movie like this. No SFX, only controlled lighting environments, few characters, almost no stunts.

 

Yet, they didn't clean up the extra perf of space. They paid X to the umpteenth extra dollars to burn 4 perfs instead of ~3 back onto film with boom mikes and wires and other junk. Totally mind boggling every time I see this sort of waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Ritter Battery



    Wooden Camera



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    CineLab



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Tai Audio



    Glidecam



    Paralinx LLC



    Metropolis Post



    Serious Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Visual Products



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Just Cinema Gear



    FJS International



    G-Force Grips



    Abel Cine


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...