Timeline for What exactly is 70mm print and why does anyone care?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2016 at 7:55 | comment | added | DA. | To be clear, IMAX (in the analog context) does use 70mm film, but in a very particular way. It's a subset of 70mm film usage. | |
| Jan 3, 2016 at 7:53 | comment | added | DA. | -1 The answer seems to confuse IMAX and 70mm...especially with the image chosen. | |
| Dec 29, 2015 at 3:08 | comment | added | user1306322 | ok sorry about megapixels, yes I messed up my math with them :x megapixels mean the total number of pixels (in millions) and the size measurement in millimeters only means one side of an image's rectangle | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 20:03 | comment | added | Kyle Strand | @BobJarvis Wikipedia doesn't exactly answer "how many other films have used these same lenses", but Hateful Eight is only the tenth film shot entirely with that type of lens--ever. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 18:56 | comment | added | Adrian McCarthy | Not all 70mm film is shot horizontally. The sample image is comparing IMAX to 35mm, which isn't exactly the same thing. IMAX generally is more square, but 70mm has been used for very wide formats for decades. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 16:47 | comment | added | Cornstalks | @MattD: Has it? I don't see anyone addressing user1306322's comment or his/her math. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 16:45 | comment | added | MattD | @svick I think you're correct, and this may actually use the "5 perf" method of 70mm film as opposed ot the "15 perf" method (perfs are the little holes you see on the side of the film strip). So in terms of more conventional IMAX screens it would be wider, but the resolution (picture quality) and color depth will still be far superior to that of standard 35mm. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 16:41 | comment | added | MattD | @Cornstalks This has already been addressed by someone further up the comment chain. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 16:35 | comment | added | Cornstalks | @user1306322: I think your math is wrong. A 3 megapixel photo is exactly two times smaller in area as a 6 megapixel photo. The megapixels are the area of the photo (measured in pixels, of course). It literally means 3 million pixels vs 6 million pixels. Also, if the film is twice as long in only one dimension then the area is only twice as great. The dimensions would have to be twice as big in both dimensions for the area to be four times greater. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 16:13 | comment | added | svick | I'm confused, you first talk about "more square" and then about "exceedingly wide". Are you saying that 70 mm is usually more square, but Ultra Panavision 70 is the exception and goes the other way? | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 14:47 | comment | added | MattD | @BobJarvis Further, given the last film released in Ultra Panavision 70 was in 1966, even if those were the same lenses then yeah, it's kind of a big deal as far as film is concerned. Virtually everything is done digitally today, but Tarantino managed to shoot an entire film on not just actual celluloid film, but 70mm film. Currently when directors use 70mm film it's only for a few shots here and there, with the film converting back to usual aspect ratios when those scenes are done. This film won't do that. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 14:44 | comment | added | MattD | @BobJarvis It's not meant to be a marketing point, at least not to general audiences who won't really care. What you're not understanding is that Tarantino is a huge film nerd. He collects film prints, owns his own movie theater, and pays massive tribute to his favorite films in his own films. It may not matter to you, but to Tarantino the opportunity to film using the exact same lenses that were used for one of the most iconic films ever made is a big deal. Panavision actually gave him a private screening of the chariot race to help convince him. For film buffs it's a nifty point to make. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 13:37 | comment | added | LessPop_MoreFizz | @Bob well, it helps that those lenses are qualitatively different than anything being used on a modern film. Yes, you could probably make new lenses to those exact specifications, but there's no real reason to do that when there are some perfectly good ones availiable. (And not really many others with similar properties, as the ultra-panavision format never took off, and hasn't been used again since 1966's Khartoum.) | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 12:46 | comment | added | Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні | "...the actual lenses they use to film Ben-Hur." - ROFLMAO! I hope Colbert had fun with this! I've heard of pointless reasons to see a film before but this takes the cake. How many other films have used these same lenses? Probably quite a few. Are we to rush out and see these other films and drool over the fact that at some point in the past the photons which passed through them had been reflected off of Charlton Heston in a toga?!? Is this the best reason people can come up with to watch this film? "They used the same lenses as Ben-Hur"?!? Wooooot! Yeah - I'll save my money... | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 5:34 | comment | added | user1306322 | To be precise, it's not "twice as big" but twice as long in one of the dimensions. The film area is actually about four times greater. For comparison, a 3 megapixel photo is not 2 times smaller in the area as a 6mpx. | |
| Dec 28, 2015 at 2:08 | vote | accept | KutuluMike | ||
| Jan 3, 2016 at 12:35 | |||||
| Dec 28, 2015 at 1:56 | history | answered | MattD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |