Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats (1 Viewer)

[Chris*Liberti]

I am trrying to find out if anyone is still shooting films in large negative formats like 65 or 70mm? (not including IMAX). If so what films have been shot in these formats recently?

 

[Peter Kline]

I believe the last major film to be photographed in 70mm was "Hamlet" starring and directed by Kenneth Branagh in 1996. Some 70mm productions are done for theme parks but I don't know if recently. By the way, what ever happened to Mr. Branagh?

 

[ThomasC]

By the way, what ever happened to Mr. Branagh?

He was in two movies last year, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets as Gilderoy Lockhart and Rabbit-Proof Fence. He was also the leading man in a TV movie that was shown on A&E called Shackleton.

 

[Aaron Garman]

Hello all. What effect does shooting in large formats have on CGI? We've already discussed how anamorphics effect it, but what about standard large formats? I yearn to actually see 70mm films, but like people have stated, they are simply not made anymore. Maybe Indy IV could be in 70mm...oh my!

AJG

 

[Jason Seaver]

What effect does shooting in large formats have on CGI?

In short: More pixels.

 

[Chad R]

I'm not positive but I believe that all of the plates for 'contact' were shot 65mm to eliminate the anamorphic problems in the CGI.

 

[Guy Martin]

As chad points out, its not uncommon for effects plates to be shot in large formats like VistaVision since it is much easier to do effects in a "flat" format (no need to worry about correcting for the distortions caused by anamorphic lenses). Although in recent years this has been supplanted somewhat by the use of Super35 for FX-heavy films. Presently I'm working at a company that's producing a major release where the bulk of filming is in anamorphic, but the FX sequences are being done in Super35 instead of VistaVision.

As for doing CGI at 70mm, the bottom line is it is simply a matter of having to render everything at a much higher resolution (approx 4x that of 35mm) with the resultant increases in render time and storage space. There are a few CGI effects in Hamlet (most notably the shot of Fortinbras' army just before the intermission) so obviously CGI is possibly at 70mm, it just costs more and takes more time (as almost everything does when shooting 70mm).
- Guy

 

[Scott McGillivray]

Here is a pretty good list detailing movies that were shot in 70mm or at least used it in some aspect of filming.

List of 70 mm films - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty cool information!

 

[Richard--W]

I'm one of those eccentrics who think that digital capture and 35mm film should be retired. All movies, without exception should be shot in stereoscopic 70mm with a horizontal pull.

The image quality of digital capture withers in comparison. No matter how fast digital progresses, it will never equal 70mm.

Maybe the cost-prohibitive price of 70mm would come down to something reasonable and affordable if the entire industry -- including exhibitors -- retooled for stereoscopic 70mm.

One can dream ...

 

[Brian Borst]

Martin Scorsese is using 65mm cameras for his new film 'Shutter Island' apparently. It's a thriller that's set in the fifties, so it fits.
I don't know if it's the entire film, or just selected shots. Considering the costs, it's probably the latter. Although it would be interesting to see another film entirely in 70mm, and not just a blow-up.
And I still have to watch Baraka on Blu. Every review states it's amazing, but I haven't come around to watch it. Will do it soon.

 

[David Norman]

IT LIVES! 6 years in a coma and the thread returns from the dead -- Inconceivable!

 

[Mr. Film]

I don't really care whether it's 70mm or not. 35mm is fine, and digital is progressing. Plus, very few theaters have 70mm projectors, besides Imax which is 65mm.

 

[Brian Borst]

I don't think digital filmmaking comes even close to 70mm film, and some think it doesn't even hold up to regular 35mm. I think it's good that some filmmakers want to do something different than the current trend of digital filmmaking, like Christopher Nolan and Michael Bay. I hope this will continue.

 

[MatthewA]

Does anyone even shoot in real widescreen anymore (scope as opposed to the faux widescreen of "Super" 35)?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yes. The non-IMAX portions of "The Dark Knight", to name one.

True anamorphic filmmaking seems to be less popular these days, as the special effects wizards have an easier time doing their work on Super35 (a format to which I agree, there is nothing super about it).

But anamorphic/scope films are still being made. A good resource to look at is the website for the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers). Their website has most of the content from the magazine, it would seem, and their features on each film list not only the format the film was shot in, but also which lenses were used, what film stock it was shot on, what post-production processes and facilities were used, what film stock the release prints were made on, and what lab did the work.

 

[Brian Borst]

It's being used less and less unfortunately. Super35 is easier to light and costs less, so those are the main motivations behind it.
I was actually surprised while watching Indy 4 that it was shot anamorphically, I never though Kaminski would do that, he always shoots in Super35.
Christopher Nolan and Michael Bay are the only two directors I can think of, who still frequently film in anamorphic.
And though I like the look of an anamorphic film more, David Fincher's Super35 films still look amazing, I think.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I was hoping that Indy 4 would be shot anamorphically before it came out, and was pleased to find out that was the case. Kaminski said that he studied Doug Slocombe's photography on the other three films and wanted to keep this one in line with the others, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was reason -- or even if Spielberg insisted on anamorphic photography for that reason. And this is totally off-topic, but I really enjoyed Indy 4

 

[Brian Borst]

Me too, but we're a small minority

. I think it fits well with the other Indy sequels. Good films, but nowhere near the quality of Raiders.
But we're going slightly off-topic here.

 

[Yee-Ming]

I may be off here, but if I understand correctly, in shooting anamorphic or Super 35, both use the same (OK, similar) 35mm film stock, but anamorphic uses a special lens to squeeze a wider shot onto the relatively square-ish 4:3negative, whilst Super 35 in effect shoots 4:3 directly, but the DP composes the shot and 'protects' for whatever widescreen ratio (usually 2.35:1 or 1.85:1) that the director wants? Hence Super 35 is practically "tilt-and-scan" in that much less of the negative is used for usuable information, thereby reducing PQ?

65mm and 70mm I understand, larger negative, captures more detail, ergo better PQ.

Sorry, I've never been very much into the technical background of shooting films, but that's my understanding so far. Any corrections will be gratefully received.

 

[Brian Borst]

You've got it right, basically. They use the same film stock, but Super35 films don't use the optical soundtrack on the right, so that space is used for the picture. The release prints are anamorphic.
65 and 70 mm are the same. The first one is used while shooting, and the second is used when showing a print (again, the optical soundtrack adds the 5 mm).