quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

I'm sure BFI will show it at some point, but how many prints are there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Did you have to put up with the Les Mis featurette? Has to be the single most 'wanky' thing I've ever seen. If anything it proved that my love of film and utter hatred of actors isn't crazy.

And who'd have thought singing live would ever be classed as 'groundbreaking'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

btw adambatman as someone who's seen both versions can you tell us if there were any huge differences between the digital and 70mm print? I only saw the 70mm print and it looked beautiful!

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

btw adambatman as someone who's seen both versions can you tell us if there were any huge differences between the digital and 70mm print? I only saw the 70mm print and it looked beautiful!

I'm a big fan of 70mm, so naturally lean towards the "yes there is a huge difference" side of the argument. However, I did tweet as soon as I sat down in the theatre that it wasn't a particularly big format friendly auditorium (low ceilings, unusual seating etc). I'd never been in Screen 2 of the Odeon West End, so booked third row seats, but had I known just how far set back the screen was from the front row then I'd have gone for the front row. I suspect the average person, sitting towards the back of the screening room would have left muttering things along the lines of "I couldn't tell the difference".

It's a beautifully shot film, so it's going to look great in any format, but from a technical perspective our eyes ought to theoretically be able to see more information and notice more detail on the 70mm print. Were I to recommend one version of The Master, I'd suggest making the effort to see it in 70mm. As is usually the case with the vinyl argument, I certainly think there's a difference in the "feel" of the experience of watching a film *on* film.


Funnily enough I had this exact conversation with Empire's own Kim Newman outside of my first screening of the film. We didn't know if it was going to be digital or 70mm that night see, so there were a number of folk quite worried that they wouldn't be able to actually tell the difference between the two if not told which version we were watching. You'd be surprised by the number of people, and professional film critics at that, that admitted that evening of not being able to tell the difference between DVD and Blu-ray!

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

btw adambatman as someone who's seen both versions can you tell us if there were any huge differences between the digital and 70mm print? I only saw the 70mm print and it looked beautiful!

I'm a big fan of 70mm, so naturally lean towards the "yes there is a huge difference" side of the argument. However, I did tweet as soon as I sat down in the theatre that it wasn't a particularly big format friendly auditorium (low ceilings, unusual seating etc). I'd never been in Screen 2 of the Odeon West End, so booked third row seats, but had I known just how far set back the screen was from the front row then I'd have gone for the front row. I suspect the average person, sitting towards the back of the screening room would have left muttering things along the lines of "I couldn't tell the difference".

It's a beautifully shot film, so it's going to look great in any format, but from a technical perspective our eyes ought to theoretically be able to see more information and notice more detail on the 70mm print. Were I to recommend one version of The Master, I'd suggest making the effort to see it in 70mm. As is usually the case with the vinyl argument, I certainly think there's a difference in the "feel" of the experience of watching a film *on* film.


Funnily enough I had this exact conversation with Empire's own Kim Newman outside of my first screening of the film. We didn't know if it was going to be digital or 70mm that night see, so there were a number of folk quite worried that they wouldn't be able to actually tell the difference between the two if not told which version we were watching. You'd be surprised by the number of people, and professional film critics at that, that admitted that evening of not being able to tell the difference between DVD and Blu-ray!

Really? That is surprising. I remember one of the first blu-ray's I got was The Dark Knight and I remember showing my brother the truck chase scene and then showing him the same scene on his DVD and I was shocked how blurry the picture was on the dvd (although i've since found that the Blu-Ray makes Two Face's burnt face look less convincing while the dvd it looks more believable)

Also I remember putting in Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol Blu Ray and thinking halfway through watching it that it was an extremely poor picture for Blu Ray...only to realise that I had accidentally put in the dvd version of the film!