I'm working director/DP in LA, I mainly do commercials and music videos, just DPed my first feature... with that said, the ONLY REASON to shoot 70mm is to show the detail I was talking about. There's absolutely no need to 'not' use 35mm or a RED Weapon 8K, which is a bigger format than projected 70mm, btw. (35mm projects, roughly, at 2-2.5K, 70mm projects at roughly 5K... he could have gotten at least a '105mm' look if he used 8K digital.)
But let's get to your questions;
1. Would the film have looked better NOT in 70mm?
Makes ZERO difference to shoot a film like this in 70mm or 35mm, since there's no scope to it and most theaters had to downconvert anyway. And, other than to present himself as some "old school" film guy, which is how he markets himself, there's no reason for 70mm. What, we need to see a little more detail in the wood gain? C'mon man. It's a gimmick.
2.who says that 70mm is (as you put it) "supposed" to be for landscape and detail shots?
Ask any DP. Does Deakins or Kaminki shoot in 70mm? No. They're the two best, in most of the community's opinion. They shot EPIC films... on 35mm of digital. If this film was staged all in the winter exterior, then it would be a different debate and in those exterior scenes, I liked it. Hell, "Django" made far more sense to shoot 70mm than this film.
The way I see it is this...
1. Tarantino wanted to make a film based on a story that was in his head.
Story and the aesthetic of 70mm film are two different arguments. Again, pertaining to story, 70mm added nothing... other than the marketing gimmick. When I was at Cinegear last year, they had a demo of this film at Paramount's theater. People was 'buzzing' about "Oh, the 70mm film..." not, "The really engaging film." And, gee... what'd the show? The exteriors.
2. He loved the thought of shooting in 70mm as no one uses it anymore and it looks gorgeous.
For the interiors, again, it was a total waste and overkill.
3. Wanted to create a Cinema experience of a roadshow like the older times.
Which was on 16mm back in the day.
4. The movie was awesome
I thought it was a better than the awful reviews, but nowhere near an "awesome" film... but would have been a great indie film at a festival for a new director... not someone making his "eighth" film.
5. The movie looked amazing
Question... where was the constant white light coming from in the cabin and in the stagecoach? The one that was always overhead? Was there a hole in the ceiling, letting a strong moonlight (during the storm) motive that light source? What about the stagecoach, how was that light getting through? It's not... it's distracting and annoying. I really like Richardson's DP work, true talent, but he never had to do that until he worked with QT. It looks ridiculous, especially for QT wanting to be a 'throwback' director.
6. Tarantino made what he wanted
True, love it or hate it, it was his film.
7. I loved it!!
You said that with #4 :)
reply
share
raimund-berger
9 years ago
most theaters had to downconvert anyway
Pray tell us again how you "downconvert" 70mm film during projection.
reply
share
ronineditor
9 years ago
You create a 35mm master for theaters with 35mm projectors, which is 99% of them... what's confusing?
reply
share
raimund-berger
9 years ago
That would have been done by the studio, not the theater. And it's not what happened. So that's confusing. That you're talking nonsense while claiming that you had a clue about the business.
Also, 70mm is markedly higher resolution than anything else being distributed. And higher resolution isn't just about landscapes. That would be like saying that we needed HD television only for landscapes. Sounds a bit stupid, doesn't it? Because it's making a difference everywhere. Even INSIDE A CABIN.
Put differently, just because you're blind doesn't mean everybody is.
reply
share
ronineditor
9 years ago
That would have been done by the studio, not the theater. And it's not what happened.
Little dense? What are you saying that I said? Yeah, when films are distributed to theaters, prints or made for their format... where are you getting confused?
Also, 70mm is markedly higher resolution than anything else being distributed.
Not when it's a 35mm for theaters. And like I said, the best DPs in the game shoot on digital and 35mm, nothing wrong with it... ESPECIALLY for a one set film... in the confines of a cabin. What possible reason do we need 70mm, again? It doesn't add anything, other than a marketing gimmick.
And higher resolution isn't just about landscapes. That would be like saying that we needed HD television only for landscapes. Sounds a bit stupid, doesn't it? Because it's making a difference everywhere. Even INSIDE A CABIN.
No, it doesn't sound "stupid" at all. Take an old show like "Little House on the Prairie," shot mainly inside of a cabin... when it's on a small tv back in the day, were you somehow lost, couldn't tell what we going on in the story? NO. Because it was TALKING HEADS IN A CABIN. If they shot this film on 16mm, it wouldn't suffer. 35mm would have been 100% fine... 70mm is a guy trying to over-compensate for a thin script.
Again, like I said, if you're going to need that much resolution and insist on it being projected in "glorious 70mm" then it'd better be for a good reason and that would be to lose your audience in the landscape of huge vista shots.
Let me ask you this... simply put; what does 70mm do to the experience that 35mm didn't? The audience I saw it with didn't even know it was 70mm -- if that sums it up for you. It... added... NOTHING. It was a 'douchey' move by a guy who wants to be a "star" filmmaker trying to baffle audiences with gimmicks, and that's all the 70mm was.
PS... if QT was soooo concerned about the best resolution possible, he'd shoot digital, "glorious" 8K... also, with 16.5 stops of dynamic range vs. film's limited 11.5.
reply
share
raimund-berger
9 years ago
Not when it's a 35mm for theaters.
Look, maybe it somehow escaped you, but there's been a comprehensive 70mm roadshow in the US well before any other release. And the film has been distributed internationally that way, too.
Then there's of course the digital distribution which followed later. And 35mm for theaters not yet equipped for digital projection. Which, by the way, surely is not the majority. Much less "99%" of them.
So that's where 70mm makes a difference. When being projected that way. Which is exactly what happened. Globally.
True, if he had shot in that format and then downscaled to digital and 35mm distribution exclusively it would have made little sense. But that's not what it's been about. The studio went to considerable lengths to make sure a wide audience could enjoy 70mm film in theaters. You missed that? Blame yourself.
And again, high resolution isn't just about landscapes. Everything benefits. Like closeups on faces. If you had any clue about photography you'd know that.
reply
share
ronineditor
9 years ago
You certainly are an arrogant f-cker aren't you?
If you had any clue about photography you'd know that.
You need 70mm to show... a CLOSE-UP!? LOL... wow. Sums up your 'knowledge' right there, to me.
So that's where 70mm makes a difference. When being projected that way. Which is exactly what happened. Globally.
I feel like I'm talking to QT himself, can't see the forest from the trees. Um, NOBODY PROJECTS 70MM THESE DAYS!!!!! That's the point! Oh, the 'roadshow' projects it at 70mm... for how long? Then what? Oh, people will watch at home on their 1080p TVs, their tablets, etc. It's overkill for no reason, which you're too dense to understand.
Back to "Revenant" - look great or not? Hmmm? It looked great - period. A) it was digital, B) it wasn't 70mm.
And you're talking out of both sides of your mouth... you say how pristine and great 70mm is... okay, fine, let's go with that. If that's the case, then why didn't QT shoot 8K DIGITAL which is better than 70MM!!!!? Oh. Defend that, then. If QT's actual concern was the overall perfection... then he would have shot digital, period. He's a pompous filmmaker holding onto history (and stealing way too much from it) when there are better, faster, more 'prestine' ways of doing it these days. Film is the past, just like flatbed editing, just like analog 2" tape.
reply
share
BebeJumeau
9 years ago
curiously Ronineditor - that same question about whom I am engaging in a textual dialogue with has passed through my head on another board where someone made extended, detailed and passionate explication over several about why Daisy is a psychopath, I thanked him for the direct veracity of the engagement and passion ... and said it was fun but I was totally unmoved and unconvinced still by the Daisy is a psychopath thread - and remain so here too
perhaps there are some fanboys out there whose identification is so passionate that they move beyond sock puppeting to channelling ... or perhaps ......
reply
share
jaseace
9 years ago
Maybe you're you've been shooting too many B act pop music videos, who the F cares. Didn't know ppl gave a sh!t about music videos anymore. For one, what is your point whining about the 70mm? It's something QT did for the fans I'm sure it was an extra hassle to do that. If he did this with the viewer in mind, how can you hate on that? I thought the movie was great. Why are you on the board if you don't care for the movie?
And what awful critic reviews? So just because you allegedly are some kind of "director/DP" nobody gives a damn, you could still be a hack! So that makes your opinion more true than the next person? Sounds like you're just pissy & wanted to dislike the H8. The revanant was a completely diff. film,completely diff. Director with a different style. Both movies looked great. So you sir, can f off to smelL-A , inhale some gas fumes & smog, & watch some music videos instead of QT's films. Crybaby over there whining about something a good director did for the fans, asshat.
reply
share
jaseace
9 years ago
And I don't want to hear *beep* about grammer just because I forgot to erase the "you're". And to anyone else on any board talking about grammar, that's what you do when you have no valid argument left. This is a movie comment board not a goddamm attempt at a novel
reply
share
TheReturnofCountSuckula
8 years ago
And I don't want to hear *beep* about grammer just because I forgot to erase the "you're".
Well of course you don't, but for your own edification you will..."grammer" 
"Stick with me, baby, and you'll be fartin' thru silk."
reply
share
boogles
8 years ago
After watching it - on TV/digital stream form - yeah, I'm sort of left wondering why he did it. I'm guessing that it's his old : "I love film - film is movement captured, etc. Film is like vinyl is for music fans, etc." Those arguments he always makes. The film looked great and everything(cinematography was superb) - but I sort of only appreciated the fact that the 70 mm would make the snowy exterior shots look great. The cabin stuff - well, meh - you need 70 mm for that?
Like others have said - The Revenant(which was shot digitally) looked amazing.
You know, I can't see this film going on people's list of 70 mm films like 2001, Lawrence of Arabia and Branagh's Hamlet. The film lacked the scope for its use.
reply
share
raimund-berger
9 years ago
If QT's actual concern was the overall perfection... then he would have shot digital, period.
Still more rubbish. Above you whine about how few cinemas are able to project 70mm. And now you're suggesting 8k apparently oblivious to the fact that even less would be able to project that.
In contrast to 8k the 70mm equipment is already there. It's an established process back to back, and carries comparatively little risk as such. And the studio made sure, by sending out technicians all over the country and providing additional equipment, that enough theaters would be able to show the film in its native format.
So that's why 70mm. Top grade visuals for a wide audience, internationally. At comparatively low risk and cost. Shouldn't be that hard to comprehend, should it.
reply
share
fufanux
8 years ago
LOL armchair cinematographers and DPs. As a dude who knows the Hollywood grind as crew; don't listen to these turds. They will defend Tarantino like Hillary and Trump supporters.
reply
share
alvarezabel
9 years ago
Actually this has always been his signature style. You must have seen Casino. Heck even JFK used it quite a bit.
reply
share
ronineditor
9 years ago
Actually this has always been his signature style. You must have seen Casino. Heck even JFK used it quite a bit.
Worked in Casino due to the lights of the casino, which, in context, looks great... but in a cabin lit by candles and a blizzard outside, the 'God light' is always on.
reply
share
gsmame
9 years ago
When did the 8k become available? Principal photography began in late 2014 I believe.
As near as I can figure he might have wanted to shoot as wide an image as possible in order to give the idea of a sort of stage play, which is basically what the film was.
It was definitely a gimmick to some extent, especially given the dearth of places where you can actually see it in that format (2 screens in my entire country) but I think the guy really is in love with film and his views on digital are well known so it's unlikely for him to plump for digital just out of principle.
reply
share
Trax-3
9 years ago
the ONLY REASON to shoot 70mm is to show the detail I was talking about.
Sorry, no. Also depth of field, brightness and colour rendition. The bigger the negative the more refined the look. And in the case of anamorphic the extra wide frame allows for interesting compositions.
or a RED Weapon 8K, which is a bigger format than projected 70mm, btw. (35mm projects, roughly, at 2-2.5K, 70mm projects at roughly 5K... he could have gotten at least a '105mm' look if he used 8K digital.)
It's widely accepted that the Red cameras have inflated resolution. They are not honest about it like Arri.
Makes ZERO difference to shoot a film like this in 70mm or 35mm, since there's no scope to it and most theaters had to downconvert anyway.
The look is obvious even on a computer monitor.
Ask any DP. Does Deakins or Kaminki shoot in 70mm? No.
Deakins has said on his forum that he would love to shoot 70mm when given the opportunity.
For the interiors, again, it was a total waste and overkill.
Some of the most striking shots in Ben Hur for example are not landscapes.
Which was on 16mm back in the day.
Complete drivel, you are beginning to show you know nothing you're talking about.
Question... where was the constant white light coming from in the cabin and in the stagecoach? The one that was always overhead? Was there a hole in the ceiling, letting a strong moonlight (during the storm) motive that light source?
This is the style of Robert Richardson - he doesn't do realism. The hole film was strongly visually rooted in Old Hollywood. You are suffering from delusion that art is supposed to be realistic.
You create a 35mm master for theaters with 35mm projectors, which is 99% of them... what's confusing?
Which would result in far higher print quality than anything originated on 35mm.
You must remember that print stock being extremely slow emulsion has an insane resolution and. 35mm print is not bound by the limited resolution of 35mm camera negative.
You need 70mm to show... a CLOSE-UP!? LOL... wow. Sums up your 'knowledge' right there, to me.
Yes, in 70mm faces become landscapes and all that...
reply
share
mitzibishi
9 years ago
Everybody STOP arguing with the OP.
Ronnie IS,
I'm working director/DP in LA
 
reply
share
CoastalCruiser
9 years ago
I'm working director/DP in LA, I mainly do commercials and music videos, just DPed my first feature
Hello. Honestly, I think this might say it all. Come back in twenty years and express how you feel about the use of 70mm in this film. I suspect that the longer you are in the business the less likely you will be to have such opinions.
Even if 70mm did not add to the film, it is less likely this was due to any sort of theatrics on the part of QT, and more likely that this ex-video store employee just loves film, and is nostalgic for how movies used to be made.
Another point. Even if one was to acknowledge that only the few exterior shots benefited from the 70mm / old pana-whatever lens combo, is it not true that a movie maker will pour enormous effort into a shot that takes up only a few seconds of screen-time/ wait. Don't answer. I've heard way too many directors say just that on the commentary track.
And the Weinstein Brothers, who reportedly poured 8-10 million into the restoration of the lens / camera system to work, did they just do this to appease QTs vanity?
just DPed my first feature
By the way, you may want to spell out that term next time. In the age we live in someone may wonder what genre you just DPd in. ;>
reply
share
Burk48917 (11488)
a year ago
There it is. Just say what you mean. You're a wannabe filmmaker so you think the way to elevate yourself is to bring down one of the greats. I'm sure whatever bullshit "project" you're doing in your backyard is much more highly revered than QTs work 🤣. Fucking jealous clown.🤡
reply
share