Filming in 70mm.

[BMasson]

I know this is a small gauge forum, but a film titled: Samsara, is coming out soon. Shot in 70mm; it should be a treat for the eye's and the senses. I thought I would just give people a heads-up on this. To see a preview, go to barakasamsara.com
I wonder how this will compare to some of my reg. 8mm work. (Just joking of course)

[Will2]

Same people that did Baraka...a Blu-Ray Must-Own.

[Scotness]

Well that's just awesome - maybe the headlong rush into 8K...10K...12K (insert large co-efficient before the letter K) video will spark a return to the larger film formats.

Scot

[richard p. t.]

Filmed in beautiful 70mm (well, 65mm as 70 is not a camera format (except in the USSR))
and screening in glorious 2K ...
I wonder if they will make even one 70mm print.

[woods01]

The article I read said that they will not be making any 70mm prints. The cost would be too high for the small number of theatres that could screen it. Maybe if we're lucky they will make an Imax print.

The upcoming film, The Master, by P.T. Anderson was shot in 65mm.

[Ektagraphic]

I'd love to go see something like that projected on film, even if it is 35mm projection. All of the theaters around me have switched to digital

[carllooper]

A cinema here in Melbourne, called The Astor (built in 1936), still screens films including 70mm. The interior of the place is huge, and has an embryonic art deco sense to it. The cinema specialises in screening films from throughout history which is great. But the place is constantly under threat of being closed down which would be such a shame.

The cinema also has an ultra bright Barco 4K digital projector. I saw a remastered 2K release of Raiders of the Lost Ark on the 4K projector, and it wasn't too bad.

Prior to the screening there were shown some film trailers of upcoming film attractions. Even though the trailer was a little dark (projector not as bright), even though the colour had faded somewhat (blacks becoming brown), even though there was dirt and scratches, even though the projected image had that micro-jitter about it, it still had this incredible sense of taking place in an otherwise perfect but parallel dimension.

In comparison while the digital Raiders was bright, vibrant, clean and rock steady, it wasn't taking place elsewhere. It wasn't taking place in a parallel dimension. Rather it was taking place in the cinema on the screen. I couldn't lose myself in the image. It was too present.

From a technical point of view I don't think it's because digital is too "perfect", as if adding film faults back in might do the trick. That theory (eg. adding grain) is flawed. The faults of film are not what make a film work. As a rule (ie. ignoring exceptions) the faults of film are just annoying. In film the virtues of such punch through those faults. With digital, it has succeeded in removing those faults associated with film, (and experimenting with putting them back in) but it should really do some more work on understanding how the virtues of film (not it's faults) work.

Carl