What's new

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
15,548
Real Name
Robert Harris
The CGI for some of the sequences at the beginning when they first arrive in Egypt and when they we see the exterior shots of the Nile long distance when they are celebrating the wedding aren’t quite as impressive as I would have hoped but, given this is a throw back to older styled mysteries and the period setting, I thought of it like the old use of matte paintings. It doesn’t ruin it by any means but I can see how some folks will be critical of that portion. In fact, it makes it rather quaint like the period setting. The ironic is that there’s a lot of CGi work that was done on this movie that was ’invisible’ to most folks and they’ll never know. I can only image whst they looked like in 70mm. It is always a challenge to render visuals in a higher resolution format and pull it off.
Looks wonderful on a huge screen
 

marshman1138

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
116
I used to know why movies filmed in 65mm were shown with 70mm release prints, but I lost track(s) of that information.
Because the magnetic stripping had to be put somewhere so it was added to the sides at 2.5mm each.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9119.JPG
    IMG_9119.JPG
    1.5 MB · Views: 10

marshman1138

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
116
My question is why, if shot on 65mm film, was it not presented in the 2.21:1 aspect ratio? The only thing I can think of is the the area commonly used inside the sprocket holes for mag stripping was exposed as image, resulting in a slightly wider frame.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
23,202
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I think they opted to slightly crop it to 2.40:1 during the DI process because there is no DCP standard for 2.20:1 presentation. Most commercial theaters wouldn’t be able to properly display it.
 

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
4,558
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
I think they opted to slightly crop it to 2.40:1 during the DI process because there is no DCP standard for 2.20:1 presentation. Most commercial theaters wouldn’t be able to properly display it.
Most cinemas these days just letterbox 'scope films anyway, so I don't think it would have been much of a problem. There are a lot of non-standard aspect ratios, from Jurassic World's 2:1 to Jackie's 1.66:1, to The Lighthouse's 1.19:1, that are letterboxed or pillarboxed without issue.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
23,202
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Most cinemas these days just letterbox 'scope films anyway, so I don't think it would have been much of a problem. There are a lot of non-standard aspect ratios, from Jurassic World's 2:1 to Jackie's 1.66:1, to The Lighthouse's 1.19:1, that are letterboxed or pillarboxed without issue.

True, but for whatever reason, I think they just opted to standardize it within one of the standard DCP options. Unfortunately my American Cinematographer subscription is no longer active so I can’t say for sure.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
15,548
Real Name
Robert Harris
My question is why, if shot on 65mm film, was it not presented in the 2.21:1 aspect ratio? The only thing I can think of is the the area commonly used inside the sprocket holes for mag stripping was exposed as image, resulting in a slightly wider frame.
The area was protected for detritus. Early prints were 65mm, running with dubbers.
 

sbjork

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
304
Real Name
Stephen
So to clarify, the 70mm prints for Nile were definitely not 2.20:1? I'm not hep to all the ins and outs of 70mm exhibition, so if was 2.39:1, how is that handled on the film and when projected? Essentially letterboxed on the film strip and matted for projection?
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
15,548
Real Name
Robert Harris
So to clarify, the 70mm prints for Nile were definitely not 2.20:1? I'm not hep to all the ins and outs of 70mm exhibition, so if was 2.39:1, how is that handled on the film and when projected? Essentially letterboxed on the film strip and matted for projection?
Photographed on 65mm negative. Scanned in 8k. Recorded back to film.
 

sbjork

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
304
Real Name
Stephen
Photographed on 65mm negative. Scanned in 8k. Recorded back to film.
Thanks, but I knew that part. My question was regarding what aspect ratio that the 70mm prints used, and if it wasn't 2.20:1, then how 2.39:1 is handled with 70mm projection.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
23,202
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Didn’t see Nile, but I assume same as Orient Express - 2.40:1 slightly letterboxed within a 2.20:1 frame.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,043
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
Thanks, but I knew that part. My question was regarding what aspect ratio that the 70mm prints used, and if it wasn't 2.20:1, then how 2.39:1 is handled with 70mm projection.
Given that recent 70mm prints of 65mm originated films are likely not mag striped [since they're likely using DATASAT or Dolby Digital], it's possible to use the entire frame width with a properly filed aperture plate.
 

Dick

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,305
Real Name
Rick
If Branagh decides to look into another Christie novel to adapt, I hope it is a decent remake of And Then There Were None (called something else in the UK for a long while, as Christie originally named it...that title is now quite offensive). The Blu-ray that emerged of the very good 1945 adaptation looks terrible, as did the DVD editions (I believe the film is in the public domain). Other versions calling themselves a bunch of other things, such as TEN LITTLE INDIANS, are generally inferior. It's a good story, and I think would benefit from a well-produced new edition. Kenneth...?
 

sbjork

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
304
Real Name
Stephen
Given that recent 70mm prints of 65mm originated films are likely not mag striped [since they're likely using DATASAT or Dolby Digital], it's possible to use the entire frame width with a properly filed aperture plate.
That's what I was looking for. Thanks!
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
23,202
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Given that recent 70mm prints of 65mm originated films are likely not mag striped [since they're likely using DATASAT or Dolby Digital], it's possible to use the entire frame width with a properly filed aperture plate.

It’s possible, but given the limited numbers of showings and scarcity of equipment and qualified people to service and run it, I can’t imagine anyone cutting new aperture plates or installing them specifically for this.

Orient Express was letterboxed 2.40:1 within the 2.20:1 frame on the 70mm prints. Seems likely the same team made the same choice for Nile.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
351,017
Messages
4,939,082
Members
142,962
Latest member
bannedjr
Recent bookmarks
0
Top