A few words about...™ Malcolm X -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Brian Husar]

Kind of a late post on this RAH, but I just found out on in70mm.com that a small number of 70mm prints were struck for the Canadian market. They even have an ad advertising it. Too bad it wasn't shown in 70mm in the USA.

 

[Allansfirebird]

I was glad to have gotten this one on Blu-Ray for my first-time viewing. Beautiful picture that does have a tendency a couple times to suffer from Spike Lee's views. I wish Ernest Dickerson would've been allowed to use 70 mm to film the movie originally. It would've been spectacular, but the final product still looks great.

 

[Robert Harris]

I was glad to have gotten this one on Blu-Ray for my first-time viewing. Beautiful picture that does have a tendency a couple times to suffer from Spike Lee's views. I wish Ernest Dickerson would've been allowed to use 70 mm to film the movie originally. It would've been spectacular, but the final product still looks great.

65mm origination would have created far more problems than it would have been worth. Mr. Dickerson's work is superlative in 35.
Going to 65 involves lighting, ie. more illumination and power generation, make-up, production design, and among other things, 35mm optical reduction dailies.
Cost? Don't go there.
RAH

 

[Brianruns10]

By all indications, P.T. Anderson's "The Master" is all 5/65 Panavision System 65. I'll be fascinated to learn more about the production (undoubtedly there'll be a writeup in American Cinematographer), and what it might mean for the 65mm format.
I've long said, as far as the big budget, crown jewel productions go, they're crazy NOT to shoot 65mm. When you're spending 150 or 200 million, the added cost of 65 become a smaller fraction of the whole (though IIRC, PT Anderson's film is a modest 25 or 30 mil so there's that).
And it is just such a wonderfully resilient format. Great for Imax blowup, 35mm reduction, 4K and blu-ray, and it's got plenty of resolution to remain viable as HDTV gives way to 4k, and then 4K to 12k or 16K.
Honestly, if I were a producer, and I was looking at all the technological upheaval going on around with cameras and editing and projection, I'd be hedging my bets by shooting on 65.
Or failing that, what about a return to VistaVision as an origination format?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10 /t/317922/a-few-words-about-malcolm-x-in-blu-ray#post_3949009
By all indications, P.T. Anderson's "The Master" is all 5/65 Panavision System 65. I'll be fascinated to learn more about the production (undoubtedly there'll be a writeup in American Cinematographer), and what it might mean for the 65mm format.
I've long said, as far as the big budget, crown jewel productions go, they're crazy NOT to shoot 65mm. When you're spending 150 or 200 million, the added cost of 65 become a smaller fraction of the whole (though IIRC, PT Anderson's film is a modest 25 or 30 mil so there's that).
And it is just such a wonderfully resilient format. Great for Imax blowup, 35mm reduction, 4K and blu-ray, and it's got plenty of resolution to remain viable as HDTV gives way to 4k, and then 4K to 12k or 16K.
Honestly, if I were a producer, and I was looking at all the technological upheaval going on around with cameras and editing and projection, I'd be hedging my bets by shooting on 65.
Or failing that, what about a return to VistaVision as an origination format?

While 65mm is, as you note, a crown jewel, Vista was actually easier to deal with in terms of processing.

As 35mm, your negative could be processed at any quality lab, anywhere in the world. Dailies in 4 perf could be a problem, but 65mm processing, was, and is today even more problematic. I'm aware of only two labs still functioning in Hollywood.

RAH