Tarantino sick of the digital age and trying to resurrect analogue film with 70mm.

[smjpl]

Quentin Tarantino seems to be sick of the digital age of film making and is trying to resurrect the good ol' days by having his latest movie 'The Hateful Eight' shot in 70mm film. This means you won't get digital versions of the movie for IMAX cinemas for quite a while; a month or two weeks before it is released on 35mm film and then "eventually digital".

 

What is everyone's take on this? Do you care what film format it is? Digital vs 35mm film is an ongoing argument and it seems (at least to me) that it is somewhat comparable to the audiophile FLAC argument. It will be interesting to see the difference though with a 70mm film; which apparently has many benefits over 35mm film. Most of us will have never seen a 70mm film in the cinema and not many cinemas will be capable of projecting it. Would you bother trying to see it in its intended format or just wait for the digital release?

 

 

“If we do our jobs right by making this film a 70 mm event, we will remind people why this is something you can’t see on television and how this is an experience you can’t have when you watch movies in your apartment, your man cave or your iPhone or iPad,” Tarantino said. “You’ll see 24 frames per second play out, all these wonderfully painted pictures create the illusion of movement. I’m hoping it’s going to stop the momentum of the digital stuff, and that people will hopefully go, ‘Man, that is going to the movies, and that is worth saving, and we need to see more of that.”

 

 

“We’re doing this 70 mm, and we are trying to create an event,” he said. “I need to know from all of you if this can last a month in your territory in that format, or two weeks. Then we roll it out in 35 and eventually digital.

 

 

We’re not doing the usual 70 mm, where you shoot 35 mm and blow it up. We’re shooting 65 mm which, when you turn it into a print, is 70 mm. Panavision is not only behind this movie, they look at it as a legacy. They are inventing a lot of the stuff we need, and this is being supervised by my three-time Oscar-winning cinematographer Bob Richardson, who’s back with me after Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. I couldn’t do this if he wasn’t in my corner. He went to Panavision to check out lenses for this big Sherman Tank of a camera he’ll use. He goes into the warehouse room and sees all these big crazy lenses. He asks, ‘What are those?’ It was the ultra-Panavision lenses that haven’t been used since How The West Was Won, Mutiny On The Bounty, Battle Of The Bulge and It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World, which were all bigger than the normal 70 mm. If the normal scope is 235, this is 278, the widest frame possible on film. The projectors need a decoder, an adapter, to blow it out that way. That’s why Mad Mad World, Battle Of The Bulge and Ice Station Zebra look the way they do. The last movie to use these lenses was Khartoum with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier. We’re using those lenses for this movie. We’ve been testing them the last month and everything is A-OK. They look amazing. We are literally coming out with the biggest widescreen movie shot in the last 40 years.”

Source

 

I am looking forward to seeing a 70mm film. There is one cinema in Ireland capable of projecting 70mm film .

[werto165]

isn't 70mm equivalent to like 10K? 

[SeriouslyMikey]

I'd rather have the film shot with no CGI, or as little as possible than have it in 70mm film. 

[eLucid]

Who cares what he thinks. He's a fucking nutjob that talks with a lisp.

[Guest]

Who cares what he thinks. He's a fucking nutjob that talks with a lisp.

He's a fucking nutjob that talks with a lisp and has had a massive influence on films and popular culture.

That said, he's clinging onto an old technology out of sentimentality. There's no reason digital can't be everything that film can and more.

[Phillyphries]

Using 70mm format is extremely good for archival purposes too is it not? You can rescan the film and release an 8k version easily I bet.

 

Not sure what other advantages are, but it's definitely more expensive to shoot in that format instead of digital, due to the waste of film, etc.

[ObscureMammal]

He's a fucking nutjob that talks with a lisp and has had a massive influence on films and popular culture.

That said, he's clinging onto an old technology out of nostalgia.

Yeah, it seems like one of those "scared of change" kinda thing happening here

 

A quote from the article: "I’m hoping it’s going to stop the momentum of the digital stuff, and that people will hopefully go, ‘Man, that is going to the movies, and that is worth saving, and we need to see more of that."

 

Just because he likes to see a movie in a theater doesn't mean everybody does. With that said, he can do whatever he wants with his own films.

[techswede]

I'd rather see him try to murder 3D.. It's actually difficult to find a theater that shows non 3D movies.

20 minutes into On stranger tides i had a splitting headache. And that happens with every 3d movie

[DigitalHermit]

I say bring it back...

 

I'm also getting tired of digital... Yes it's cheaper, but it tends to water down or downplay the skills of the people making the movie...

 

I still use my 35mm SLR (when I have the money for film and processing) parallel to a borrowed DSLR for sample shots... Let's just say that once you get used to the 35mm, your skills will vastly improve...

 

Using 70mm format is extremely good for archival purposes too is it not? You can rescan the film and release an 8k version easily I bet.

 

Not sure what other advantages are, but it's definitely more expensive to shoot in that format instead of digital, due to the waste of film, etc.

^AND THIS^

[Phillyphries]

I'd rather see him try to murder 3D.. It's actually difficult to find a theater that shows non 3D movies.

20 minutes into On stranger tides i had a splitting headache. And that happens with every 3d movie

 

Then don't watch the 3D versions? Obviously if you don't like it, then don't spend more money for it and go watch the 2D version

[Syntaxvgm]

Well.....I'm sick of 24 fps. 

Boo hoo. 

[red_jelly]

Interstellar was shot in 70mm on iMax camera's. the debate about Film vs Digital is stupid. I'm a huge fan of Digital (Red Epic Dragon cameras) but we cant forget that Film has some qualities that Digital cannot recreate as of now. Tarantino is a morron, he is the ultimate fan boy of classic cinema.

 

Film is going to be used by the purests and the CineGeeks out there such as Tarantino, Nolan, and Scorsese.

Digital is going to be used by everyone else because its cheap and you can watch it right after shooting.

 

Film is getting expensive and it will cost a small fortune to produce, print and hard to work on

I say film is amazing when it can be shot on do it, but Digital is the way to go from now on look at the beauty of David Finchers film (Has my babies plz).

[techswede]

Then don't watch the 3D versions? Obviously if you don't like it, then don't spend more money for it and go watch the 2D version

 

I'd rather see him try to murder 3D.. It's actually difficult to find a theater that shows non 3D movies.

20 minutes into On stranger tides i had a splitting headache. And that happens with every 3d movie

[Phillyphries]

 

Oh sorry, I over read that part. I apologize. 

 

Here in Arizona there are always theatres (Harkins in particular) that always play both versions of the movie.

[techswede]

Oh sorry, I over read that part. I apologize. 

 

Here in Arizona there are always theatres (Harkins in particular) that always play both versions of the movie.

No worries^^ Around here they seem to have a massive boner for 3D.. Sometimes they won't even show the movies in 2D

 

[Trik'Stari]

I care more about a good storyline than I do about what medium it is filmed on. In my opinion, Tarantino's movies as of late haven't been that good, but I'm in the minority on that opinion.

[KemoKa]

Okay, here's my take on it, so just bear with me.

In terms of what he can do with the content in the future, and depending on how successful then next film is, it's a very smart move. Someday in the not-so-distant future, 8K televisions will be commonplace and 8K films will consist most of television. When that happens, all the upscaling that, say, 480p DVD films will have to go through will look absolutely dreadful. Not this guy's films, though. All he has to do is run the film through a film scanner attached to a computer with about 20 terabytes of SSD space and he'll have himself an 8K movie in about a day or two and it will be perfect. He could even up the ante if he wanted to, given the resolution on 70mm film.

Sure, go after him for being a tightwad legacy changephobe, but I think what he's making is a good investment for the future of his films. They will look terrific, whilst films like Avatar or Star Trek will look grainy. It's NOT futureproofing, but it's certainly a hell of a lot closer to it than anything else anyone has come up with. It's also a nice example, I think, of how redundant technology can still come in handy.

[Phillyphries]

No worries^^ Around here they seem to have a massive boner for 3D.. Sometimes they won't even show the movies in 2D

 

 

Man, that's crazy inconsiderate, especially since there's a lot of people like you (that get sick from 3D films).

 

Wonder why exactly that is the way it is where you live? There's kind of an incentive to watch 2D versions sometimes because they are a few dollars cheaper per ticket

[KemoKa]

Man, that's crazy inconsiderate, especially since there's a lot of people like you (that get sick from 3D films).

 

Wonder why exactly that is the way it is where you live? There's kind of an incentive to watch 2D versions sometimes because they are a few dollars cheaper per ticket

--this is assuming techswede lives in sweden--

I would have thought that would be a huge incentive...

[techswede]

Man, that's crazy inconsiderate, especially since there's a lot of people like you (that get sick from 3D films).

 

Wonder why exactly that is the way it is where you live? There's kind of an incentive to watch 2D versions sometimes because they are a few dollars cheaper per ticket

Nobody seems to care about the price  

It seems to have calmed down a bit now. But the whole 3D craze lasted quite a while here. 

There is one theater near here that plays 2D only but there is really no point going there. Their equipment has lagged and even bluescreened before + The speaker placement and volume are unbearable.

And to completely ruin the feel of watching a movie in a theater there is a guy that walks in right in front of everyone and turns the movie on with a fucking remote...

[smjpl]

isn't 70mm equivalent to like 10K? 

 

I think that is part of the film vs digital argument. Film will say 'no' while digital will say 'yes'.

 

I'd rather have the film shot with no CGI, or as little as possible than have it in 70mm film. 

 

I am with you on that one. I don't think there will be any CGI in this movie. While I do think CGI can be done tastefully, over use if it is just terrible

 

 

I'd rather see him try to murder 3D.. It's actually difficult to find a theater that shows non 3D movies.

20 minutes into On stranger tides i had a splitting headache. And that happens with every 3d movie

 

I am with you on this one too.

 

Interstellar was shot in 70mm on iMax camera's. the debate about Film vs Digital is stupid. I'm a huge fan of Digital (Red Epic Dragon cameras) but we cant forget that Film has some qualities that Digital cannot recreate as of now. Tarantino is a morron, he is the ultimate fan boy of classic cinema.

 

Film is going to be used by the purests and the CineGeeks out there such as Tarantino, Nolan, and Scorsese.

Digital is going to be used by everyone else because its cheap and you can watch it right after shooting.

 

Film is getting expensive and it will cost a small fortune to produce, print and hard to work on

I say film is amazing when it can be shot on do it, but Digital is the way to go from now on look at the beauty of David Finchers film (Has my babies plz).

 

So what is the difference between 70mm iMax and 70mm film? Or is the only difference between these two films the size of the lenses being used.

 

 

We’re using those lenses for this movie. We’ve been testing them the last month and everything is A-OK. They look amazing. We are literally coming out with the biggest widescreen movie shot in the last 40 years.”

[DigitalHermit]

I forgot to reply to this

 

isn't 70mm equivalent to like 10K? 

 

Depends on the grain of the film and the lenses used...

[SeriouslyMikey]

 

 

 

I am with you on that one. I don't think there will be any CGI in this movie. While I do think CGI can be done tastefully, over use if it is just terrible

 

 

I have always and probably will always believe that before the changes, Star Wars had the best balance between CGI and props. It wasn't over the top and the props, especially the Tan-Tans looked realistic from up close. Then the computer generated things, like the Lightsabers and Blaster shots looks good and subtle. 

[smjpl]

I forgot to reply to this

 

 

Depends on the grain of the film and the lenses used...

 

So is it the lenses he used the reason why he said "We are literally coming out with the biggest widescreen movie shot in the last 40 years"?

 

So what is the difference between 70mm iMax and 70mm film? Or is the only difference between these two films the size of the lenses being used.

[DigitalHermit]

So is it the lenses he used the reason why he said "We are literally coming out with the biggest widescreen movie shot in the last 40 years"?

 

Probably... Or he's using some really high quality film since lenses haven't really changed that much in the past years...