The Master - Arriflex 765

[Joseph Arch]

Bringing sexy back?

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/technical

[John Holland]

Strange that Arri Media havent said anything about it .

[John Sprung]

Maybe not so strange. The date given is 2013, and the Arri guys tend to be careful about making sure it's real before they say anything.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Joseph Arch]

Paul Thomas Anderson is directing it. I am sure they won't get something like that wrong.

[John Sprung]

You never know -- sometimes the plug gets pulled even on really big projects.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Joseph Arch]

Don't jinx it :ph34r:

[Vincent Sweeney]

Now this technology I'd pay extra for, assuming a 4K projector is used or IMAX. Definitely preferable to 3D so far.

[Marcus Joseph]

Now this is strange, the cinematographer's previous credits are Youth without Youth and Tetro, being digitally shot Copolla. It seems as though he has gone the opposite way, maybe an appreciation for a chance to shoot some film?

[Keith Walters]

Bringing sexy back?

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/technical

The Epic Slayer :rolleyes:

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Maybe Marcus it has more to do with the Director Cinematographer agreeing the given format fits the given wanted aesthetic within the confines of the budget and shooting style.

I mean we all have preferences, but in the end we need to do what is best for the film (which means for the director and very very often for the budget).

[Ignacio Aguilar]

This project is mysterious.

 

First, this is the first time Anderson choses other DP rather than Robert Elswit, who won the Academy Award for their last film together, "There Will Be Blood". Second, Anderson, as Elswit told AC at the time that film was released, is some kind of a purist, who went as far as neglecting his DP the use of the 85 filter when using tungsten balanced film in daylight as he wanted the film to look as clean and crisp as possible, plus insisted in avoiding high-speed stocks (Elswit used 200T and high-speed anamorphics instead) with a photochemical finish. And fourth, he hires a DP whose major credits are digital (and spherical) films.

Now if he's really using 65mm film it won't strange me that much, but then he'll have to go through a digital step or a regular DI, so the film could get a general 35mm release and 2K and 4K digital prints.

[Stephen Williams]

The Epic Slayer :rolleyes:

 

Where is Tom?

[K Borowski]

This project is mysterious.

 

First, this is the first time Anderson choses other DP rather than Robert Elswit, who won the Academy Award for their last film together, "There Will Be Blood". Second, Anderson, as Elswit told AC at the time that film was released, is some kind of a purist, who went as far as neglecting his DP the use of the 85 filter when using tungsten balanced film in daylight as he wanted the film to look as clean and crisp as possible, plus insisted in avoiding high-speed stocks (Elswit used 200T and high-speed anamorphics instead) with a photochemical finish. And fourth, he hires a DP whose major credits are digital (and spherical) films.

Now if he's really using 65mm film it won't strange me that much, but then he'll have to go through a digital step or a regular DI, so the film could get a general 35mm release and 2K and 4K digital prints.

 

Optical printer instead? I know S35 looks better through a DI, but that is blowing a smaller format up. Generally you lose about 1/2 of the resolution whenever you go through a lens. 65mm 5-perf. might still come out the winner in that situation.

 

I wouldn't be comfortable going through just a 4K with 70 unless I wanted to sacrifice the resolution I went through all that trouble, extra money for.

 

6.4 or 8K is probably adequate for this format.

[K Borowski]

Optical printer instead? I know S35 looks better through a DI, but that is blowing a smaller format up. Generally you lose about 1/2 of the resolution whenever you go through a lens. 65mm 5-perf. might still come out the winner in that situation.

 

I wouldn't be comfortable going through just a 4K with 70 unless I wanted to sacrifice the resolution I went through all that trouble, extra money for.

 

6.4 or 8K is probably adequate for this format.

 

 

 

Even with DLP becoming ubiquitous, I assume you can still show up with a timed interpositive or the master positive and say "Here, your problem now, this is timed perfectly."

 

David Mullen said that there are still some variances in a finish, timed, master positive, but *most* of the look can be locked in photochemically. And, it's funny, they managed to use master positives or teleprints just fine on all of these "obsolescent, grainy" pre-DI movies. BTW, the compression algorithms are a hell of a lot more bothersome to everyone, not just me, on HDTV than grain :-D

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I just can't see anyone going through all the trouble of shooting 65mm these days to end up releasing the picture in a bunch of optically reduced 35mm prints.

Even Christopher Nolan -who in the past has positioned himself against DIs- scanned the 65mm and VistaVision segments of "Inception" for the general release.

[John Sprung]

Any picture that shoots 65 would normally release both 70mm contact prints and 35mm reductions.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Of course, but the roadshow era died more than 40 years ago. Plus distribution and marketing were very different back in those days (less prints that lasted longer in 70mm large theaters). Nowadays your options to release a picture shot in 65mm are 35mm prints (optically reduced or scanned), IMAX's blow-ups and digital projection (2K or 4K). Chances of shooting 65mm and contact print to 70mm are very unlikely.

 

If you're a photochemical die hard supporter, as P.T. Anderson has been in the past, regular 35mm (1.85:1) and 35mm anamorphic are the only formats that can avoid scanning or optical steps.

 

Perhaps he has changed his mind over the years. Before he hired his new DP and the 65mm rumour spread out, there was also some buzz about him testing HD cameras for this project.

[John Sprung]

"Titanic" released in 70mm -- digital sound only, because the mag stripe made the film thick enough that a show that long wouldn't fit on a platter.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Marcus Joseph]

Maybe Marcus it has more to do with the Director Cinematographer agreeing the given format fits the given wanted aesthetic within the confines of the budget and shooting style.

I mean we all have preferences, but in the end we need to do what is best for the film (which means for the director and very very often for the budget).

I meant it is strange in the sense that he has chosen a DP who has shot mostly digital and not a lot of what you'd consider big films to helm a 65mm film project. But perhaps him being on the project had more to do with Elswit's recommendations than his work (which I do think is good). I find what Igancio is saying about There Will Be Blood surprising, I didn't know PTA was that adament about quality pictures, but then again that movie certainly was quality.

 

I think if this does go ahead as is, it'll definitely be something worth watching.

[Mitch Gross]

So why is this under Arriflex 765 when the link says Panavision System 65?

[Joseph Arch]

It has been changed again. Now it's Arriflex 16 S. Since I started this thread, the technical information has changed. Twice. Someone in this forum is playing games.

[Marcus Joseph]

http://cigsandredvines.blogspot.com/2011/06/master-shooting-entirely-in-65mm.html

 

It seems as though it's both 35 and 65. Doesn't seem like 16mm and I don't think anyone from this forum would be bothered to mess around with the imdb tech page.

[Stuart Brereton]

So why is this under Arriflex 765 when the link says Panavision System 65?

 

As of 8pm 7/27, the link says that it's being shot on 16mm with an Arri S.

 

Someone is fooling around with imdb perhaps....?

[Brad Grimmett]

I think "B" camera is a CP16.

[Adam Hunt]

So why is this under Arriflex 765 when the link says Panavision System 65?

 

That particular 70mm format was pioneered by Panavision. The 765 shoots the same format, however due to trademark issues (I assume), Arri usually calls it something else. But really it's the same format so it's not uncommon to see things on IMDb listed as Arri 765 and "Panavision System 65" as the cinematographic process.