Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Tell me again why 70mm Film is better than Dragon or Arri images?

I think just about any filmmaker you meet would answer "Yes" to the following question.

"The budget allows us to shoot this picture in 65mm film and project it in 70mm, would you like to?"

Even if the genre doesn't call for it, etc, everyone would love to shoot at least one film in 65mm. The fact that stuff is still shot in 65mm on film is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Quality arguments aside I doubt anyone in this thread would politely decline to shoot 65mm.
 
David Battistella said:
I think just about any filmmaker you meet would answer "Yes" to the following question.

"The budget allows us to shoot this picture in 65mm film and project it in 70mm, would you like to?"

Even if the genre doesn't call for it, etc, everyone would love to shoot at least one film in 65mm. The fact that stuff is still shot in 65mm on film is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Quality arguments aside I doubt anyone in this thread would politely decline to shoot 65mm.
Click to expand...


I partially agree with you David..

But for many would only be to show off...

As for me?

NO THANKS!!

I know the workflow too well to deal with when I can have it as easy as grabbing an 8k Weapon... Then Print out on a 65mm Stock for 70mm Projection if that is what I want...

I say Weapon 8k because of the Sensor size which is what 65mm Film is all about, as we can otherwise already print out to 65mm today with Dragon 6k.
 
David Battistella said:
I think just about any filmmaker you meet would answer "Yes" to the following question.

"The budget allows us to shoot this picture in 65mm film and project it in 70mm, would you like to?"

Even if the genre doesn't call for it, etc, everyone would love to shoot at least one film in 65mm. The fact that stuff is still shot in 65mm on film is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Quality arguments aside I doubt anyone in this thread would politely decline to shoot 65mm.
Click to expand...

Call me crazy but if the budget were there I wouldn't shoot 65 and project in 70. I feel an obligation to the investors to be as prudent as possible with the expenses related to the film...and if I can save 100K or more because of this then I will. No problem putting old glass or old anamorphic to emulate the look, but I would rather go digital all the way through.

The vast majority of audiences don't care about the technical aspects -only that they are entertained. Do I like watching 35mm prints or greater? Yes of course. Does it matter to the film itself? Sorry. And I'm pretty sure guys like Ridley Scott who have the choice use Red.
 
David Battistella said:
I think just about any filmmaker you meet would answer "Yes" to the following question.

"The budget allows us to shoot this picture in 65mm film and project it in 70mm, would you like to?"

Even if the genre doesn't call for it, etc, everyone would love to shoot at least one film in 65mm. The fact that stuff is still shot in 65mm on film is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Quality arguments aside I doubt anyone in this thread would politely decline to shoot 65mm.
Click to expand...

My personal preference would be if I had the option to shoot and exhibit IMAX.
 
I heard about this early last week, but it appears the official press release has been made:

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/exclusive-the-weinstein-company-making-changes-to-the-hateful-eight-release-123

The Weinstein Company's goal was to have THE HATEFUL EIGHT in 100 theaters for Christmas Day helping to retrofit a number of venues to be able to project 70mm as Tarantino intended. However, they also insisted that the theaters pick up the cost of the 70mm prints, which is rather expensive. As a result, many prospective locations balked at showing the film, believing that they'd end up in the red once the film's run was done, unable to sell enough tickets in their moderately-sized houses to justify the cost. A number were still game to press on, but TWC's target was effectively cut in half, with 70mm showings being cut down to about 50 theaters.
Click to expand...
 
Jeremy Torrie said:
Call me crazy but if the budget were there I wouldn't shoot 65 and project in 70. I feel an obligation to the investors to be as prudent as possible with the expenses related to the film...and if I can save 100K or more because of this then I will.
Click to expand...
I have it on good authority that the additional expenses for this film for 65mm were closer to $5 million. I don't know if that includes the 100 projectors they had to find and refurbish or not.

I still think it's an incredibly impractical idea (to the point of being irrational), but I applaud and admire Tarantino and Richardson for even attempting it.
 
Jeremy Torrie said:
Call me crazy but if the budget were there I wouldn't shoot 65 and project in 70. I feel an obligation to the investors to be as prudent as possible with the expenses related to the film...and if I can save 100K .
Click to expand...


You'd save a shit load more the 100k...

A roll of 65mm Processed is $1200, how many rolls do you think they shot.
This does not included one light graded dailies either...
And the 70mm prints, well if a 35m Print for a feature is around 7 to 10k each, a 70mm would have to be double. How many cinemas is it being presented in 70mm?
 
I think the quote from Robert Altman was something like.

"the cheapest thing about making a film is the cost of the actual film."

Of course digital has changed that a little bit, but not in the high end. Films budgets are bigger now, even if they are shot on digital. So all this cost savings stuff is mostly crap unless you are dealing at the bottom of the barrel stuff. Films with a budget can still shoot film, you just might not film rehearsals or do as many takes.

Banal.

David
 
Mark Toia said:
A roll of 65mm Processed is $1200, how many rolls do you think they shot.
Click to expand...
From whom? When I worked for Technicolor, you'd be lucky to get 1000' of 35mm negative (11 minutes) plus processing for $1000. It's about $860 just for the film alone from Kodak:

http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/

http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/up...cts_Price_Catalog_US_Prices_April_2015_V4.pdf

The 65mm stock costs about double that of 35mm, roughly about $1500 a roll. And again, that's without processing and dailies. Hateful 8 reportedly used 2000' camera loads in order to allow longer takes, so that would be $3000 per 2000' roll, roughly 22 minutes.

David Battistella said:
I think the quote from Robert Altman was something like.
"the cheapest thing about making a film is the cost of the actual film."
Click to expand...
I think David has it right. If you're shooting a union studio picture like Hateful 8 for $40,000,000, then the film stock is only going to be about a million bucks, then camera rental and lens rental another $20,000 a week or so. If it's 12 weeks of principle photography, then that's $240K -- and I would bet Panavision made them a very attractive deal. The real expense would be scanning dailies, logging everything, archiving everything to digital, and then the cost of striking work prints and color timing final release prints photochemically and then doing it all over again in digital. I would be very surprised if all that could be done for less than $500K in 70mm.

Then you add in the cost of rounding up all those projectors, prepping 100 prints, etc. ... I think $5 million might be on the low side when you factor that all in. But for a $40M movie, another $5M is not the end of the world. For a regular production shooting 35mm, I doubt that it would add $500K to the entire budget. And just the catering and craft services for a movie in this budget range (crew of 100, 72 days) could easily be $250K.
 
Hateful 8 has already spent more on P.R. and promo - and they haven't even cranked up the promo machine to full tilt yet - than all of the budgets of all of the indy movies made by REDUser forum members in the last 5 years...

Shooting film isn't a real budget concern.
 
This is obviously Mr. Tarantino's reaction to the world going digital, or like he calls it, "TV in public". It's a filmmaker's whim, and he is one of the few people in the world whose whims producers and audiences would actually buy into.

We could cite a hundred logical reasons against shooting on 65mm negative with ancient anamorphic lenses, exhibited at 70mm projections, but it matters not. Quentin likes this better.
 
I'm sure The 8 looks as glorious as they planned.

I only hope the 70mm showings will run several days because I won't be leaving my young kids on Christmas in order to see it. Missing this would be lamentable.
 
And I guess that's kinda the point. Maybe you can get 70mm quality with digital images but who cares, people still will shoot 65mm film and project 70mm because they can and most people can't.

The stock or sensor or camera don't make the film, so much has to happen to complete a film.

I do agree with Marks initial post in so much as its is really nice to have a 6k sensor that makes amazing images that rival 35mm and is pushing at 65mm but I'd still definitely not pass on shooting 65mm if I was in that stratosphere.
 
Last edited:
Glen Powell said:
Hateful 8 has already spent more on P.R. and promo - and they haven't even cranked up the promo machine to full tilt yet - than all of the budgets of all of the indy movies made by REDUser forum members in the last 5 years...

Shooting film isn't a real budget concern.
Click to expand...

Glen I think you underestimate the level of quality of people who actually contribute on this forum on a daily basis. But we are get the point you're trying to make...however the P&A spend is not huge yet -Harvey is more likely to spend on the Oscar and Golden Glove campaign than anything else.
 
I may be committing blasphemy here (bring it...) but I agree with Mark. I saw the film today, well half of it, on 70, dual projector with old fashioned change-over (for those who remember what that is). I left at intermission... Projector 2 was so soft, and had so much jump and weave (thanks to the chapter titles that pop up throughout) that I couldn't discern from the ridiculous focus pulls what was mean to be in focus and what to watch on the screen. Once back on projector 1 on reel 3, I could really see the detail in the shots, but I agree that the lighting was so horrendous in the interior scenes and the dust, smoke and snow "effects" so laughable that I put my head down and groaned. (Umm, I think there were some folks in the back row behind me that had something to do with the DP as they all cheered the "Panavison 70" and "Robert Richardson" titles at the beginning. Also, he was supposed to be there for a Q&A but as I couldn't take it any longer I left at intermission. Did I mention that already?)
Again, it may be blasphemous to say, but I'll withhold any further judgement until I can see it in a proper theater with digital projection. Hopefully they'll make a 4K DCP and I'll search that out...
 
Jeremy Torrie said:
Glen I think you underestimate the level of quality of people who actually contribute on this forum on a daily basis. But we are get the point you're trying to make...however the P&A spend is not huge yet -Harvey is more likely to spend on the Oscar and Golden Glove campaign than anything else.
Click to expand...


I'm very aware of the calibre of the people who contribute here -it was an over exaggeration to make a point... The cost of film stock / process on a project like this is fairly small, in the grand scheme of things. But thank you for jumping to the rescue of everyone!

I also did say that they haven't yet ramped up the P.R. machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top