MovieChat Forums > Live by Night (2017) Discussion > Super Panavision 70

Super Panavision 70

posted 8 years ago by badado
33 replies | jump to latest

Can't wait to see this movie on the big screen, especially a 70mm print.

[–] AustraPol 8 years ago

Super Panavision 70, wasn't used.

Cinematographer Robert Richardson wanted to shoot the film with the set of Ultra Panavision 70 anamorphic lenses he had recently used on The Hateful Eight (2015), but Panavision had already rented them for use on Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016).

If society could break Pagliacci, then what hope is there for me?

[–] badado 8 years ago

source: IMDB

technical specifications:

Cinematographic Process Super Panavision 70
Printed Film Format DCP

[–] AustraPol 8 years ago

I'm not against it, just showing what i knew. If it is, i'm happy.

If society could break Pagliacci, then what hope is there for me?

[–] badado 8 years ago

:-) no worry! good to know

[–] ArigatouNosferatu 8 years ago

IMDb tend to be wrong a lot in the tech specs area.

[–] frodonsacquet12 8 years ago

Super Panavision 70 lenses are different from Ultra Panavision 70 lenses.

[–] AustraPol 8 years ago

I was wondering if there was a difference however, just took to believing what i was told. Thanks for telling me.

Argo f— yourself.

[–] Korios 8 years ago

Super Panavision 70 has an 2.20 - 2.35:1 aspect ratio, while Ultra Panavision 70 has an insane 2.76:1 aspect ratio. Live by Night is reported to have been filmed with the large sensor Alexa 65 and RED Weapon Dragon(6K?), both the apex of cutting edge professional digital motion cameras. The Alexa footage could be assumed to be "real" Super 70, since Alexa's sensor is large enough, but not the RED footage parts, which has a smaller sensor so the footage is sort of upscaled to Super 70.

But only in a cinema with an old-fashioned analog Super 70 projector (if one could find any) could someone spot the difference, and even then I believe it would be subtle. I do not even know if they intend to print real 70mm negatives, or the "Super Panavision 70" process is just meant to be a "digital equivalent".

Hateful Eight is the first feature film released in (real, not digitally sourced) Ultra 70 since 1966's Khartum, almost 50 years! It is the first film in the last 50 years that shows black bars on top and bottom even on a very wide 21:9 TV set. If you watched it on an old 4:3 TV the black bars would dominate the screen, with about 1/4 left for the film.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] AustraPol 8 years ago

You know your stuff! Thanks for the read although, i must admit i am slightly confused. Does that mean Live by Night is using the better one, or is the difference so minimal it doesn't matter?

Argo f— yourself.

[–] Korios 8 years ago

I do not know how much of the film was shot with Alexa and how much with the Weapon. The latter is more mobile and faster (supports higher frame rates), so my bet is they used it in the action and fast-paced scenes. Alexa 65 is a beast, the one IMAX chose for their new digital platform. I think if there is a marked difference they will soften it during post-processing. Differences usually become more visible on very large cinema screens and high resolutions.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] AustraPol 8 years ago

Interesting, thank you. I might have to invest some time in looking these things up as i do find it rather fascinating.

Argo f— yourself.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Korios 8 years ago

They shot the film digitally (with Alexa 65 and RED Weapon 6K), so this is clearly quite a different case with Tarantino's Hateful Eight, where the source was Ultra Panavision 70. I do not know if they intend to transfer to 70mm prints (how many cinemas have Super Panavision 70 projectors?), but if they do and the master is 4K then the picture quality will clearly be inferior to that of a good digital 4K cinema. The digital copy of the cinema is identical to the master, while there are some losses when transferring to film, whatever technique you use (70mm blowup, etc)

The derivative can never be better than the original, and no, tricks like supersampling do not really work. The only way the 70mm prints would be better is if they shot the film in 6K (Alexa 65 can shoot up to 6.5K) and created a separate 6K master for the 70mm prints, but that would require insane amounts of work during post-processing. Hmm, unless they just created a 6K master and then just copied it and downsampled it to 4K (in much the same way 2K copies are generated out of 4K masters - the reverse is not possible). I am not aware of any 6K master in existence, that would be quite innovative.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

[–] brendanegan03 8 years ago

Will the film be in IMAX?

[–] Trax-3 8 years ago

but if they do and the master is 4K then the picture quality will clearly be inferior to that of a good digital 4K cinema.

More different than inferior. The colour space of print film is different from DCP standard and film print would also have better blacks than any digital projection other than laser. The loss of resolution as long as the prints are struck straight from the filmout should be negligible.

[–] VanderVale 8 years ago

We used two Alexa65s and Panavision System-65 lenses. Spherical, not anamorphic and cropped for 2.40.

Contrary to what is being said out there about using a RED Weapon at 6k, the RED Weapon wasn't out yet. Not to mention, we barely used it enough to even have it stated as a used camera. 2nd unit mounted 2 of them on the outside of their stunt cars to use it like a gopro. They were used for one or two gopro shots over the course of 2 days from our entire 3&half month schedule. It shouldn't even be listed.

As far as "will it be released in imax?" Don't know. Alexa65 is imax certified so they have the option, but it's ultimately the studio's decision.

[–] frodonsacquet12 8 years ago

Thanks a bunch for this, I knew there was film footage in there (the first shots in the trailer at the very least), but nice to see it confirmed. I'm guessing you can't speak of this until the ASC article (if it gets one, or another mag), but did Robert Richardson convince Ben to shoot on Alexa 65 mostly?

Ben is really a film guy, he's said it many times (especially on Project Greenlight), so that's surprising to me. How much of Live By Night is film, how much of it is Alexa 65? I'm guessing film is used for the beginning of the film or something?!

[–] VanderVale 8 years ago

Sorry, but just to clarify, we didn't use any film at all. It was entirely Alexa65 (2 cameras).

After we did tests between film and A65 and screened it at panavision, Bob and Ben were both in love with the format. Zero percent of the movie is film, all digital.

[–] Super68 8 years ago

*beep* nasty. If I want to watch television I can watch that at home. I go to the cinema to see FILM, not video on a giant projection TV. Ben sucks ass. At least you called this a "movie" and not a "film".

It's time for a backlash against digital photography, motion pictures, music, sfx

[–] niceguy11122 8 years ago

I suppose David Fincher, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, Clint Eastwood and Iñarritu suck ass, since they've shot on digital too. Just naming a few.

(I'm not really a fan of Iñarritu, but the cinematography on The Revenant was simply breathtaking)

[–] AustraPol 8 years ago

I don't understand the blind hate. He must watch very few movies considering most are digital now.

You question my normality because I'm happy.

[–] Super68 8 years ago

You're correct, sort of. First of all I have nothing but disdain for Hollywood. The best cinema comes from outside the U.S. Hollywood makes nothing but consumable, disposable, industrial entertainment product. If a movie is shot using digital video (and I love how people conveniently leave the word video out), I'll watch it at home on my television. There are only a few exceptions when I would go to a cinema to see something that was shot on digital video. I do see a lot of film though. I live in New York and you can see film all over the place. New York is such a huge cinephile town, with many venues projecting film. Museum of the Moving Image, Metrograph, Film Forum, BAM Cinematek, Anthology Film Archives, Film Society of Lincoln Center, Museum of Modern Art, etc.

It's time for a backlash against digital photography, motion pictures, music, sfx

[–] Super68 8 years ago

Yes, the all do suck ass. Woody Allen got swayed by Vittorio Storaro. And Inaarritu. *beep* him. Digital is crap. It's lazy. It was shoved down the throats of filmmakers to "save money" (which it really doesn't) and is a terrible archival medium.

It's time for a backlash against digital photography, motion pictures, music, sfx

[–] boog-16 8 years ago

Mann's work is usually very technically flawed (he said himself that the digital work on Public Enemies wasn't very good and has talked about wanting to go back to film), Inarritu actually does suck ass (Gotta agree with you - not a fan. Although I thought the Revenants cinematography was unimpressive as well. It was more about "if I do this it looks cool!" Than about anything else), Scorsese used digital once (and has since gone back to film two projects in a row), Woody Allen has yet to produce a good movie digitally and cinematography isn't usually one of Eastwood's strongest categories. You have me on Fincher, though. That man is genius. By far the best director using digital.

[–] niceguy11122 8 years ago

Woody Allen hasn't made a good movie in quite some time, but Café Society still looked pretty good.

[–] niceguy11122 8 years ago

What about Dennis Villeneuve? Another one who's mastered digital filmmaking.

[–] AustraPol 8 years ago

His brilliant!

How do you like them apples?

[–] Super68 8 years ago

Let's call a spade a spade. Digital Videomaking. Not filmmaking.

It's time for a backlash against digital photography, motion pictures, music, sfx

[–] niceguy11122 8 years ago

My point is he's an amazing director with gorgeous looking films -- all shot digitally. If you think that's automatically worth less because it's not film, well...

[–] Super68 8 years ago

You mean digital videos.

It's time for a backlash against digital photography, motion pictures, music, sfx

[–] boog-16 8 years ago

Yeah, Villeneuve's pretty good. But while he's on a good run now with Prisoners and Sicario, Enemy wasn't as good and in general he hasn't done enough to put him in the same class as Fincher. Another relevant point to this discussion is that Fincher started out using film and then transferred over to digital, whereas Villeneuve's always used digital (at least in his mainstream stuff). Fincher didn't miss a step, and maybe even got better with the switch, which is interesting because most good directors go downhill.

[–] AustraPol 8 years ago

Arrival is being labeled as one of the best Sci-Fi films of all time by critics. His "role" continues to grow.

My boy's wicked smart.

[–] Confection_Pictures 8 years ago

Scorsese is back to shooting in film, though.

Want three steaks?... My mistake. Four steaks. 