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

[smjpl]

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. 

 

Check out the scene from the matrix reloaded (the bike scene). At 1:35 there is a part where the camera goes through the truck. This has to be CGI but I think that it looks okay. I think my main issue with CGI is when they get physics completely wrong. There was race scenes in the film Rush where it just looks fake. Car crashes or anything like that always look terrible. 

 

 

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

 

They are actually really old lenses. That last film they were used on was the Battle Of The Bulge which was filmed in 1965. 

 

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.

 

[geforceftw]

isn't 70mm equivalent to like 10K? 

Ive read that its around 10-16k

[geforceftw]

I love movies on film.  I cant wait until i can see Interstellar on 70mm IMAX...

[Sammael]

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.

 

 

As opposed to digital where you have a perfect copy.

 

 

film is dying, and should die.

 

digital is here to stay, he needs to suck it up and get with the times or be left behind.  Christopher Nolan has the same issues.

 

70mm imax projectors are better than anything currently on the market in theaters, but that is about to change FAST.  Barco is releasing laser projection systems that provide superior contrast and color to standard film.  Currently digital projection has inferior contrast to film but that will quickly go away.  There is far less cost of distribution of copies of films to theaters, you don't have to produce a multi thousand dollar film print of 70mm features for show, you just let the theaters download a digital copy for storage on their systems and you are done.

 

EVERYTHING about both distribution and eventually projection is superior to what film can bring.  

 

 

On the camera side, I'm not sure if digital has caught up enough, but if not yet, it will definitely get there.  There is no future in film, get over it quinton, get over it nolan.

[Art Vandelay]

isn't 70mm equivalent to like 10K? 

Film doesn't really correlate to pixel density. Mostly about the lens and camera itself.

[red_jelly]

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

 

 

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 am with you on this one too.

 

 

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.

 

The ulitmate difference is the type of film and camera being used. Yes the lenses are different, they need to be able to cover the sensor which is 2x's as large.