Jump to content

The Official Thread for the Church of Oscar-winning Director and (soon to be) Sir Christopher Nolan


crocodile

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Jay said:

Did Koray basically just say "something isn't in my bubble so therefore it doesn't exist"?

 

Drive In Movie theaters are everywhere. 

 

Travel more!

8 hours ago, TSMefford said:

For real, we've got several around where I'm at too.


It was a joke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this a joke?

 

On 7/13/2020 at 5:52 PM, Koray Savas said:

I’ve never seen a drive-in theater anywhere. You guys are living in the 70s!

 

I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being really slow today, but you explain the joke to me?  I honestly don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Drive In near my is now showing Empire Strikes Back and Black Panther on one screen, and The Exorcist and The Shining on the other

 

Random choices

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new problem for Nolan. Tenet's runtime is too long for China. Due to COVID-19 reopening measures, people can no longer spend more than two hours in the theatre. Tenet's runtime is 150 minutes. 

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/07/tenet-china-says-runtime-too-long-1234574752/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Tenet Opening Overseas One Week Ahead of US Release

 

Just over a week after the studio revealed Christopher Nolan’s highly-anticipated Tenet wouldn’t be getting a traditional theatrical release due to the pandemic, Warner Bros. has announced the blockbuster will open overseas in late August one week ahead of a United States release, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

 

The highly-anticipated mystery project will first open in 70 countries including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Russia, Spain and the U.K. on August 26, with some territories including China still yet to receive a release date, while select US cities will see the film open on September 2 ahead of the Labor Day weekend.

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1143290-tenet-opening-overseas-one-week-ahead-of-us-release

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2020 at 2:59 PM, Smeltington said:

As long as I eventually get to see it in 70mm!!

I saw DUNKIRK in 70mm

Then I watch2d it on home video sourced from the IMAX negative.

The blue ray blew the 70mm away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

I saw DUNKIRK in 70mm

Then I watch2d it on home video sourced from the IMAX negative.

The blue ray blew the 70mm away!

 

I saw Dunkirk in 70mm and it rocked my face off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

5 perf

IMAX is 12 perf.

 

No comparison.

I love the film in ANY format.

A cinematic masterpiece!

 

Yeah it was a great movie! What strikes me about it is how it was able to rely on all aspects of film production to be more experiential. Texture, sound, composition, all play important roles.

 

 

Just now, TheUlyssesian said:

 

I saw Dunkirk in 70mm too. Still thought it was garbage.

 

Well at least you gave it a good chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Interesting.

 

I suppose its to do with the size of the screen. 

No.

Like I said, the blu( and HBO stream) sourced the 65mm 12 perf negative.

At least Twice as sharp as 65mm 5 perf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMAX isn't twice the sharpness of 65mm 5-perf. Its about 20-30% more.

 

A good 65mm contact print resolves around 3K-4K, while a Bluray is less than 2K, so no matter the acquisition format, Bluray isn't going to look quite as good as 65mm film projection.

 

But of course, its all to do with screen size and viewing distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

Zzzzzz...

 

Oh, sorry. I fell asleep in this thread. 

Zzzzzzzzz.....

15 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

IMAX isn't twice the sharpness of 65mm 5-perf. Its about 20-30% more.

 

A good 65mm contact print resolves around 3K-4K, while a Bluray is less than 2K, so no matter the acquisition format, Bluray isn't going to look quite as good as 65mm film projection.

 

 

I guess my trained cinematic eye couldn't tell the diff😠

Does shiny armor look better in IMAX or bluray?😝

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its very difficult to tell the differences, honestly.

An IMAX negative should be crystal clear, and over 8K in resolving power; you'll even read exaggerations about it being 12K or 18K. 

 

Which of these images looks like that to you?

format comparison.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends so much upon on projection focus, screen and sound system etc.

 

Just the fact of it being in 70 mm wouldn't make it a better experience.

 

Blu Ray and UHD are more controlled format - seen on more reliable equipment - large TVs with pre calibration and control and guaranteed stability of image etc.

 

70 MM done right is of course better. I saw Lawrence of Arabia in 70 MM and I have seen it on Blu ray and it is not even a comparison. The 70 MM explodes off the screen. But I saw an absolutely first rate projection that's why.

 

For what its worth, the blu ray is pretty good. And by the reviews, UHD is even better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

I saw Lawrence of Arabia in 70 MM and I have seen it on Blu ray and it is not even a comparison. The 70 MM explodes off the screen. But I saw an absolutely first rate projection that's why.

 

A UHD Bluray from a 70mm source will probably beat 70mm film projection.

 

Didn't people find Nolan's 70mm prints of 2001 unsharp compared to a 4K digital projection version? I also recall hearing the same about The Hateful Hate (which was Ultra Panavision).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DUNKIRK on HBO was stunning.

The aerial footage really looked better. I was shocked how much.

The 70mm looked like 35 film , complete with scratches. Remember , the theatrical version was 2:35 / 220 spherical, the 35mm was 235 anamorphic.

The br home version was 1:78 /235. HBO showed it in 2:00.

But, you're right about the particulars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite finishing all their shows in 4K for years now, HBO has yet to actually launch a 4K channel, or allow 4K streaming on HBO Go/Now/Max.


The only way to see Game Of Thrones in 4K, for example, is to buy the UHD Blu Rays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then ain't no way 70mm film projection would look worse than 1080p. It might not be quite as steady or clean, but it should definitely be more resolute, and would probably have better blacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

A UHD Bluray from a 70mm source will probably beat 70mm film projection.

 

Didn't people find Nolan's 70mm prints of 2001 unsharp compared to a 4K digital projection version? I also recall hearing the same about The Hateful Hate (which was Ultra Panavision).

 

Can confirm dunno if I saw Nolan's 70 mm but in the program I saw at MOMI in NYC, 2001 70 mm wasn't as good. Frankly better at home.

 

Lawrence though was one of the best visual experiences I have ever had in a theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawrence uses more natural light and less wide lenses than 2001, and very few shots in that film had any optical effects, so naturally it will look better. But it was still made with 1960s optics.

 

Here's a comparison of a still from Lawrence (6K from the 8K scan) and a demosaiced RED Dragon (~4.8K from a 6K sensor). The results would not satisfy the likes of Nolan: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?114840-RED-Dragon-vs-65mm-Film-cont-d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently watched TALES FROM THE LOOP on AMAZON.

It was listed as UHD.

Don't know if that is accurate but it did look extraordinary!

When it comes to sight and sound I don't need a decibel graph or signal readout or pixel count.

Eyes and ears , baby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bruce marshall said:

When it comes to sight and sound I don't need a decibel graph or signal readout or pixel count.

Eyes and ears , baby!

 

No, but its worth pointing out when there's appearantly something of a placebo effect going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add this to the conversation something which I said even when I was very young and working with a friend on competing painting projects for a competition. My friend was undoubtedly more skilled but I inevitably placed higher - due to what I attributed to greater imagination and compositional skill.

 

I think the same is with movies. High quality modern equipment only take you so far. Go 100K if you want rather than 4K and the best VFX money can buy or not, but there is no substitute for framing, for blocking, for knowing where to place the camera and where to put people and things in a frame etc. It is the latter things which make for stunning and memorable images. Which is why so many classic older films have a greater visual impact that modern films shot on 16k or whatever.

 

Something like Lawrence is spectacular simply because of how it is composed. Modern directors have great cameras and hard drives but rarely a good eye or good imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jay said:

Despite finishing all their shows in 4K for years now, HBO has yet to actually launch a 4K channel, or allow 4K streaming on HBO Go/Now/Max.


The only way to see Game Of Thrones in 4K, for example, is to buy the UHD Blu Rays

The first season on UHD was a 2K upscale. I don't know about all the others.

 

I've never seen Lawrence. Missed the 70mm screenings in London last year. But my UHD set should be with me next week. Looking forward to seeing that.

 

As for 2001, I enjoyed it very much on big screen.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it is more satisfying on a large format like this. I definitely enjoyed it more on big screen. Having said that, the recent 4K Blu-ray is pretty good.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I'd even prefer to watch a 35mm print of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (which I did, on its 50th anniversary, in 2012), than any 3D, IMAX modern monstrosity that passes for popular motion picture entertainment, these days.


i haven’t seen 3D in 6 years. Zero interest. I find it to be extremely juvenile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.