4 ms·

Large format film is the domain of the auteur because they're the only ones who can get away with it. 70mm is ridiculously expensive, and the logistics of movin

Large format film is the domain of the auteur because they're the only ones who can get away with it. 70mm is ridiculously expensive, and the logistics of moving it around doubly so -- a typical thousand-foot reel of 1570 IMAX 70mm will give you about three minutes of shooting before a reel change is necessary. You get one good take, then your camera assistants spend 10-15 minutes changing the reel while your cast stands around smoking. 35mm, on the other hand, buys you about 10 minutes of shooting on a typical reel and a much faster turnaround. When Christopher Nolan says sure, I'll cook you a billion dollar movie but here are my requirements, he'll get away with it. When Judd Apatow tries the same, he won't. Blockbuster superhero movies, given their returns, should be shooting on whatever they want but those are made for quantity.

JoshTriplett 9y ago
I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K resolution, once digitized. Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, what's the advantage to shooting in analog 70mm instead, especially if you're going to end up digitizing anyway?
- snicky 9y ago
  Maybe it has something to do with the film being able to capture a larger spectrum of colors, the "analog feel" in general or the ability to scan it to higher resolutions in the future when technology advances? None of these seem to justify the costs though. There are probably some other reasons, I'm just guessing.
- objclxt 9y ago
  Despite being in tech industry I went to film school back when it was still very common to be taught to shoot film so I'll have a go: > I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K resolution, once digitized. It's tricky to give an exact number because it's an analog format, but in most cases it will be higher than that. You can get a good 4K transfer off 35mm, and 70mm is four times the area - so 8K would be very conservative. Of course, the big advantage of film is you get the grain, as well as what some people consider to be a better look (although that's subjective). > Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, When shooting digitally your ratio would usually be 10:1, even 20:1 (as in, you shoot 10 times more material than you end up using). You're right that lots of directors see that as a great benefit. But when shooting with film - and especially 70mm - you have to be really conservative. A ratio of 3:1 would be much more common because you just can't afford any more. And that means you have to be very careful in layout your shots up, getting your actors prepared, etc. There's a minority of directors who appreciate this.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K resolution, once digitized. Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, what's the advantage to shooting in analog 70mm instead, especially if you're going to end up digitizing anyway?

snicky 9y ago
Maybe it has something to do with the film being able to capture a larger spectrum of colors, the "analog feel" in general or the ability to scan it to higher resolutions in the future when technology advances? None of these seem to justify the costs though. There are probably some other reasons, I'm just guessing.
objclxt 9y ago
Despite being in tech industry I went to film school back when it was still very common to be taught to shoot film so I'll have a go: > I've seen analyses that suggest that 70mm is roughly equivalent to 8K resolution, once digitized. It's tricky to give an exact number because it's an analog format, but in most cases it will be higher than that. You can get a good 4K transfer off 35mm, and 70mm is four times the area - so 8K would be very conservative. Of course, the big advantage of film is you get the grain, as well as what some people consider to be a better look (although that's subjective). > Given that 8K cameras exist, and would presumably allow as much shooting as you can attach auxiliary storage capacity, When shooting digitally your ratio would usually be 10:1, even 20:1 (as in, you shoot 10 times more material than you end up using). You're right that lots of directors see that as a great benefit. But when shooting with film - and especially 70mm - you have to be really conservative. A ratio of 3:1 would be much more common because you just can't afford any more. And that means you have to be very careful in layout your shots up, getting your actors prepared, etc. There's a minority of directors who appreciate this.