American Cinematographer report on 'No Time to Die' - 35mm and 65mm

I thought some of you would find this interesting.

 

 

Rehired Gun: No Time to Die - The American Society of Cinematographers

But since you can't splice 35mm and 65mm film together, the edited 'print' must be a digital scan. So all you're seeing as a punter is a video.

 

It'll be interesting to watch those OOF highlights swapping between circles and ovals!

Edited October 2, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

But since you can't splice 35mm and 65mm film together, the edited 'print' must be a digital scan. .

 

 

No, you can't splice them together, but you can certainly print them together. Many 65mm movies have been printed on 35mm in order to show them in theaters not equipped to project 70mm. Likewise not a few film shot on 16mm (even some super 8) have been blown up to 35mm.

Edited October 2, 2021 by chuck909

PS - interesting that they shot some of the 65mm on 15 perf. That is not cheap!

No, you can't splice them together, but you can certainly print them together.

How, pray tell?

Sure you can print any one format onto another, but not different formats continuously. So you end up with two or more sets of positives that then can be spliced and edited - then what? An internegative? A positive dupe? Not very satisfactory quality-wise either way. And since most cinema distribution is done digitally these days, it all seems a bit pointless.

I don't understand any of the technicalities of film formats. What I found most interesting is the vision, planning, skill, and resources needed to create the visual 'moods' for each sequence of the film, while maintaining continuity. I'm sure I'll enjoy the movie as usual (plot, characters, action, humor) but I'll keep a keen out for the cinematography.

 

BTW. There have been a couple of (Netflix) TV series that have also impressed me through their cinematography. For example, Outlander, Peaky Blinders, etc.

How, pray tell?

Sure you can print any one format onto another, but not different formats continuously. So you end up with two or more sets of positives that then can be spliced and edited - then what? An internegative? A positive dupe? Not very satisfactory quality-wise either way. And since most cinema distribution is done digitally these days, it all seems a bit pointless.

Sure you can. Print the different formats to 35mm - or Super 8 if you are feeling a bit odd - then off to the editing room. (camera negs are nearly always duped to whatever gauge is required, so first dupe the 65mm to 35mm if that's what is wanted) True, most theaters show digitals, but so what. Tell the makers of Dunkirk that film - in that case 65mm neg - is pointless. You might want to consider that before digital, movies made for mass distribution were seldom made from the camera neg as it would wear out too soon.

 

Seems that to you any use of film is pointless.

I could have been a bit more clear - usually the original neg after editing it printed to a safety positive from which another neg(s) is made, and then the release prints are made. Joe says that's not very satisfactory, but it IS (was) that way it is done. Guess he thought that Lawrence of Arabia looked like crap.

Guess he thought that Lawrence of Arabia looked like crap.

That's not the point. What happened in the past is in the past.

The point is that today almost all movies go 'straight to video' before they're even in movie theatres. I was therefore questioning whether 65mm shooting had any point, if it was only going to be mixed (presumably seamlessly) with anamorphised 35mm footage. And then digitised before release anyway.

 

Plus, many digitally restored releases are much more enjoyable without the scratches, spots and gate-fluff, and without the soundtrack wow and flutter.

Edited October 4, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

That's not the point.

 

If that was not your point, it was certainly your implication. Why not just admit that you think ANY use of film is a waste of time and effort.

For about 20 years, most movies shot on film were first scanned and a digital intermediate created, where the film is color graded and the special effects are incorporated. This includes Nolan's IMAX filmed movies like Dunkirk and all of Tarantino's recent films (as per IMDB.com). According to IMAX, they now scan at 8K to preserve as much detail as possible from those enormous IMAX negatives, though a 4K digital intermediate seems to be the final master format, for now. It is my understanding that the IMAX and 70mm film prints are made from the digital intermediate, as are the digital files for mass cinema distribution.

 

There are many outstanding films shot of both film and digital, and as long as directors have the budget and want to shoot on film, its their (and the studio's) choice. Unless I go the NYC it is unlikely I will see another movie printed on film. For the near future, it is unlikely I will see a film on anything but my 65" Sony 4K TV.

My whole point was that films of a different gauge could be printed to the same gauge and all end up on the same release print. Of course I am well aware that "films" these days are digital scans.

When we went to watch Avengers: Endgame, I found that it was filmed entirely in IMAX.

(Actually, IMAX digital for those counting.)

 

It was not so easy to find a theater showing the IMAX version, and many were even showing

both at the same time. (The non-IMAX version cuts off some of the picture to fit.)

 

There are many non-IMAX or partial IMAX films shown in IMAX theaters, though.

 

In any case, there were many filmed on mixed film widths.

If that was not your point, it was certainly your implication. Why not just admit that you think ANY use of film is a waste of time and effort.

 

Why so combative?

The local cinematic emporium

Is not only a vast auditorium

But a highly effectual, mutual infectual

closed up spreadatorium

Actually Dunkirk was completely Photochemical with optical dupes depending on shown format in 70mm. Thats why the 5 perf looked worse then the IMAX portions on the print in the theater. But digital intermediates lose rez compared to optical work.

What ever the format the movie was dull. Not up to the usual Bond films. Nothing like the Day of the Dead sequence in Spectre (2015), and no sex.

What ever the format the movie was dull.

 

Yup, VERY dull. A waste of good film. No clue as to why it got good reviews.

Just seen it. An unfeasible and weak sci-fi plot with the incidental insertion of a character named James Bond. Ian Fleming (or Kingsley Amis for that matter) would totally disown any connection with it.

 

Two monocular villains? Did the screenwriters get their inspiration from 'Despicable Me'? All that was missing was the yellow top and blue dungarees.

 

Both the disjointed car chases and shoot'em'up sequences were cartoon-like and well beyond belief. Which dismisses about 90% of the movie.

 

Small wonder that James Bond commits suicide at the end of it!

 

So, no matter whatever media it was shot with; that shot was aimed squarely at the foot of the producer.

Political correctness ad nauseam. I did notice and somewhat enjoyed the use of less than perfect lenses - but a JB film where you pay attention to bokeh and optical flaws is not exactly a recommendation.

The Walking Dead is shot on Kodak film. They do the effects and walkers voices digitally.