As a data analyst and self-described cinema format geek, few things excite me more than exploring the technical details of motion picture film stocks. So let’s compare the vital stats of the two most acclaimed: 35mm vs 70mm.
In the following deep dive, we’ll contrast these landmark formats via their history, specifications, usage costs, image integrity and more from a diehard film nerd‘s perspective. Read on for context around 35mm and 70mm’s enduring roles in the photochemical realm!
Brief Histories: Origins of 35mm and 70mm Film
Before assessing picture properties, first some background on how 35mm and 70mm came to prominence…
35mm Timeline
- 1891 – William Dickson with Thomas Edison receive a patent for 35mm negative film loops to supply their early Kinetoscope experiments. This sets 35mm as the standard width for Edison’s subsequent motion picture engineering over the next decade.
- early 1900s – Thanks largely to convenient 35mm film cameras commercialized by Kodak, the format becomes firmly established as the industry norm by 1910. The Academy of Motion Pictures settles on 35mm as the unanimous standard by 1932.
- 1920s/1930s – Introduction of 35mm sound film solidifies its status for the next 70+ years as Hollywood’s workhorse format. Continuous advances make 35mm production increasingly cost-effective.
- 1950s – Color 35mm film stocks are perfected while anamorphic processes widen aspect ratios. Refinements in 35mm technology, selection and accessibility enable greater creative choice through the 1960s and beyond.
- 2000s – Digital capture finally begins challenging film‘s century long stronghold. But 35mm persists thanks to stalwart auteurs who insist only celluloid satisfies their creative visions.
70mm Timeline
- 1890s – 70mm has uncertain origins but a viable inventor was Herman Casler who first shot 70mm footage of the Henley Regatta boat race in 1896.
- 1928 – The Fox Film Corporation partners with inventor Theodore Case to develop an improved 70mm format called Grandeur film. The Great Depression buries their plans for introducing widescreen Grandeur film production but establishes technical foundations adopted later.
- 1950s – Following grandeur of Cinerama, Mike Todd reinvents 65mm negative photography and 70mm composited exhibition prints for his Todd-AO process focused on epic subject matter. The unwieldy format is adopted sparingly in both original photography and blow-up prints from 35mm negatives.
- 1960s – Super Panavision 70 and Ultra Panavision 70 build on Todd-AO, using customized anamorphic lenses to achieve even wider aspect ratios as later famously seen in Lawrence of Arabia. Yet again, costs limit applications.
- 2000s – As digital capture comes to dominate theatrical features, celluloid devotees like Paul Thomas Anderson and Quentin Tarantino fight to sustain 70mm film production on acclaimed efforts like The Master and The Hateful Eight. Their monumental (if expensive) 70mm quality helps in the debate over film preservation.
So while 35mm evolved to greatest ubiquity as celluloid’s compact workhorse, 70mm has persisted from decades past as filmmaking’s most ambitious technical showcase reserved primarily for event features. Having charted their progress, let’s compare image integrity…
Technical Specifications Compared: 35mm vs 70mm Stats
| Category | 35mm Format | 70mm Format |
|---|---|---|
| Year Created | 1891 | 1894-1897 / 1928 |
| Film Width | 1.377” – 1.378” | 2.6” – 2.8” |
| Perfs per Frame | 4 | 5 (IMAX 70mm – 15) |
| Frame Aspect Ratio | 1.375:1 / Various Anamorphic | 2.2:1 / Ultra Panavision 2.76:1 |
| Area per Frame | 0.868 in2 | 3.89 in2 |
| Total Negative Area | 14,878 mm2 | 48,259 mm2 |
| Estimated Digital Resolution Equivalent | ~6K | ~18-22K |
Examining the numbers reveals 70mm’s sheer physical advantage with nearly triple the surface area over 35mm and up to 15 perforations per IMAX frame vs just 4 perfs on 35mm. This explains 70mm’s unrivaled resoluting power, confirmed via math and practical resolution tests.
With such a colossal photochemical canvas at their disposal and robust film stocks to capture tons of information, it’s no wonder visionaries battle Hollywood penny-pinchers to shoot in 65/70mm’s divine image quality.
Next let’s scrutinize the monetary reality…
Comparing Production Costs: 35mm vs 70mm Budget Breakdown
Shooting on film – especial 70mm – incurs major costs before considering additional digital expenses to scan material for editing and visual effects. Let’s break down typical 35mm and 70mm film budgets:
35mm Costs
- Film Stock (500 ft rolls) – $450 x 40 rolls = $18,000
- Processing – $350 per roll x 40 rolls = $14,000
- Telecine Transfer Scans – $750 per roll x 40 rolls = $30,000
- Filming Total: $62,000
- Struck Prints (at $2,000 per) – $24,000 for typical first run bookings
- Grand Total: $86,000
70mm Costs
- Film Stock (500 ft short ends) – $900 x 100 = $90,000
- Processing – $800 per roll x 100= $80,000
- Scanner Transfer – $1500 per roll x 100 = $150,000
- Filming Total: $320,000
- Struck 70mm Prints (at $15,000 each) – $180,000 for regional release
- Grand Total: $500,000
As shown above, base stock and processing alone for 70mm runs 5X higher than 35mm before any cameras roll. And immense scanning/printing costs stack astronomical post expenses on top of production. No wonder most features default to 35mm origination before intercutting select 70mm footage.
Indeed practicality dictates the formats…
Format Applications: When Is Each Used?
Given the numbers, how specifically do contemporary filmmakers utilize 35mm and 70mm? Generally three approaches prevail:
A) Shot Entirely on 35mm – To gain celluloid’s intangible organic superiority while avoiding 70mm’s costs/headaches, projects focused mainly on performances often shoot whole features with 35mm:
- Licorice Pizza
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Little Women
B) 70mm Impact Shots Alone – Alternatively, filmmakers preserve 70mm only for key visual set-pieces to maximize effect. Surrounding footage utilizes 35mm or digital:
- Tenet (prologue)
- Mission Impossible – Fallout (helicopter sequence)
- The Dark Knight Rises (Bane‘s plane hijacking)
C) Special Venue 70mm Release – Finally, 70mm remains a prestige format for special retrofitted theaters and roadshow events – typically applied to epics:
- Dunkirk
- Interstellar
- The Master
Now let‘s compare the qualitative outcomes…
Picture Quality Analysis: 35mm vs 70mm vs Digital
Make no mistake: when shot and finished photochemically at high budgets, 35mm and especially 70mm cinematography easily bests digital capture and projection. This stems from irreplaceable advantages rooted in light sensitivity, gamut and registration only possible with legacy film emulsions. Let‘s assess image criteria:
Resolution Limits
- 35mm Color Film – 20-24 megapixels per 4-perf frame
- 65mm/70mm Film – 50-100 megapixels per 15-perf IMAX frame
- Digital Motion Picture Cameras (6k) – 12-30 megapixels per frame
Resolving Detail
Thanks to random silver halide grain structure, celluloid renders detail at intimate levels rivaling human vision that digital pixels estimate through fixed mapping.whereas digital applies clinical precision.
Dynamic Exposure Range
- 35mm Color Film – 14+ exposure stops
- Digital Cinema Camera – 13 stops
Color Information
- 35mm Film – Fuller gamut than human eye registering into infrared and ultraviolet
- Digital – Limited to standard RGB primaries
Color Rendition
Film emulsions manifest color through transparent dye layers interacting at a photochemical level deeper than binary color mapping through opaque pixels. Hence richer, more nuanced hues.
Textural Nuance
Grain structure varies across shots and formats based on exposure, processing, film stock, etc lending every frame distinct character. Digital fosters clinical uniformity.
Immersive Analog Motion
Even modern digital suffers "strobing" and artifacts during movement that transparent celluloid avoids through seamless analog capture.
Granted, digital refinement has vastly improved over early video days. But given optimum production conditions, photochemical cinema still proves more dimensionally nuanced with each frame indexically and tonally distinct versus digital‘s inherent conformity.
Indeed many iconic directors (with final cut) like Tarantino, Spielberg and Villeneuve still consider 35mm/70mm mandatory for fully realizing their creative visions.
Let‘s examine each format‘s qualitative pros and cons…
The Pros and Cons: Strengths vs Weaknesses
35mm Pros
- Costs moderately vs 70mm
- Cameras very accessible
- Retains photochemical advantages
- Less cumbersome shoot logistics
- Available infrastructure from 100 years as standard format
35mm Cons
- Doesn‘t match 65/70mm magnitude and detail
- Ongoing printing/processing costs
- Still requires careful handling and preservation
- Film camera scarcity as market declines
70mm Pros
- Unprecedented resolution equivalent beyond 18K
- Physically largest negatives with 15+ perf frames
- True cinematic spectacle/immersive exhibition
- Distinctive roadshow cachet
70mm Cons
- Exorbitant production and printing expenses
- Burdensome cameras and slow set-up times
- Very costly distribution challenges
- Requires niche infrastructure and expertise
Again, their contrasting attributes suit 35mm to general shooting while reserving 70mm for vital sequences deserving of largesse. Their synergy is key…
Latest Films Shot on 35mm / 70mm
Despite celluloid‘s shrinking market share against digital capture, acclaimed directors continue leveraging 35mm or 70mm for targeted films or scenes requiring extraordinary image integrity. For example:
Latest All-35mm Films
- Babylon (Damien Chazelle)
- Empire of Light (Sam Mendes)
- Good Luck to You, Leo Grande (Sophie Hyde)
Latest 35mm/70mm Hybrids
- Nope (Jordan Peele)
- Top Gun: Maverick (Tom Cruise/Joseph Kosinski)
- Licorice Pizza (Paul Thomas Anderson)
Latest Rare All-70mm (65/70) Films
- The Hateful Eight (Tarantino)
- Dunkirk (Nolan)
This year alone, critical successes like Empire of Light, Nope and the blockbuster Top Gun sequel all shot sequences in 65 or 70mm to crashing jets and expansive skies unmatched clarity possible only on large format celluloid.
Meanwhile, niche filmmakers like Anderson and even lower budget indie films (Good Luck to You, Leo Grande) leverage easier 35mm technology to retain filmic sophistication.
Indeed 35mm and 70mm live symbiotically – a practical reality and technical benchmark – for preserving cinema‘s richest creative means against digital conformity. Which brings us to the closing debate…
Shooting Film vs Digital: Why It Matters
While tracking detachable metrics like sharpness and dynamic range, we risk overlooking celluloid remnants‘ greater meaning…
Film capture confers exceptional organic quality through light made metaphor, heightening reality via chemistry into revelatory cinema. It renders motion fluid and form precise yet poetically ephemeral as passing shadows. Material imagination.
Conversely, digital risks sterile perfection – reality denatured as mere clinical reproduction more virtual than visceral. Flawless, yetkj false.
So preserving film against digital risks homogenizing how stories get told and losing creative richness birthed by cinema‘s analog origins.
We must sustain 35mm/70mm not for nostalgia but because no pixel array matches its dimensional intimacy through illuminated emulsion. We stand to sacrifice subtle cinematic language if celluloid disappears.
Because while digital constantly improves, it still deals bluntly in synthetic reality – 0s and 1s RENDERING light and motion but rendered bloodless. Filmmaking instead exists in light made physical impression through fragile silver, vulnerable as memories.
That‘s why Tarantinos and Nolans still shoot celluloid – to safeguard cinema‘s most mystical means. Each frame a m
So let‘s champion 35mm and 70mm against digital tyranny even as their usage declines. Because pixels lack poetry where chemistried images sing. We have to preserve celluloid‘s intangible sanctity to prevent movies losing their immortal soul.
