Tell me again why 70mm Film is better than Dragon or Arri images?

[Scott Crawley]

With everything that is invested into this thing I have to wonder how they overlooked the Projectionist. If the roadshow is bringing in specialized equipment, will they be bringing staff as well to insure a proper screening?

If this is the care they give to an LA press screening, what can we hope to see? Is it naive to hope for more from the traveling show?

Disastrous 70mm screening: http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captur...he-hateful-eight-means-for-the-future-of-film

I heard about this early last week, but it appears the official press release has been made:

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/exc...king-changes-to-the-hateful-eight-release-123

I may be committing blasphemy here (bring it...) but I agree with Mark. I saw the film today, well half of it, on 70, dual projector with old fashioned change-over (for those who remember what that is). I left at intermission... Projector 2 was so soft, and had so much jump and weave (thanks to the chapter titles that pop up throughout) that I couldn't discern from the ridiculous focus pulls what was mean to be in focus and what to watch on the screen. Once back on projector 1 on reel 3, I could really see the detail in the shots, but I agree that the lighting was so horrendous in the interior scenes and the dust, smoke and snow "effects" so laughable that I put my head down and groaned. (Umm, I think there were some folks in the back row behind me that had something to do with the DP as they all cheered the "Panavison 70" and "Robert Richardson" titles at the beginning. Also, he was supposed to be there for a Q&A but as I couldn't take it any longer I left at intermission. Did I mention that already?)
Again, it may be blasphemous to say, but I'll withhold any further judgement until I can see it in a proper theater with digital projection. Hopefully they'll make a 4K DCP and I'll search that out...

 

[Phil Holland]

With everything that is invested into this thing I have to wonder how they overlooked the Projectionist. If the roadshow is bringing in specialized equipment, will they be bringing staff as well to insure a proper screening?

If this is the care they give to an LA press screening, what can we hope to see? Is it naive to hope for more from the traveling show?

Stepping back from our typically critical nature surrounding this topic, let me tell you what it's taken to get Hateful Eight projected in 70mm 5-perf.

- Finding and purchasing over 100 70mm capable projectors, most of which are Century JJs.
- Converting film platters, fabricating many custom parts.
- Retrofitting all of the projectors, removing rollers, adding new reflectors, etc...
- Pouring of glass and commissioning 120 1.25X ISCO anamorphic attachments.
- Custom fabrication of cases for the fully assembled film. The film itself is single roll, 200+ pounds, and has "black intermission" frames (12 minutes of it) in the roll itself.

They contacted local Union projectionists in the various areas where the Roadshow will take place. The roll is in experienced hands.

Hateful Eight is a huge, huge, expensive passion project for Tarantino. He's trying to create a cinema experience that hasn't been experienced in decades. This is his vision. It's sad that they chopped 50 screens off, but at the same time this has been more or less trying to move a mountain to even get this done. With bad press things get more complicated, yet more simplified.

I am nostalgic in a similar way to cinema projection, but I've seen the "future" for myself with high resolution/high quality laser projection. But I have to respect the magnitude of this undertaking. This might very well be the last time you'll see anamorphic 65mm projected via a film projector even though others are now filming on Ultra-Panavision currently, those projects might delivery digitally.

From a filmmakers perspective in some ways the projector and print have been such a point of frustration when it comes to having control over your final image. Prints degrade, get damaged, get dirty, and are often different than what the filmmaker initially intended when it comes to color. LAD targets, NG prints, are color casts to the projection screens themselves have been headaches I've had to deal with years ago. The allure of digital projection, specifically laser projection, eliminates much of this chaos while producing a more evenly lit and more contrasty image. But at the same time you lose the tangible and intangible things like gate bounce, flicker, transport blur, etc. of film.

For many who decide to still capture their stories on film I would prefer them to mostly use it as a recording medium, digitally post as they see fit, and create a digital master for the audience as the filmmakers themselves intended it to be.

And while all this 5-perf 65mm is amazing, we aren't even in the hell of what 15-perf 70mm IMAX actually is. Vacuum plates, horizontal transport, HUGE platters, etc..... For me if I was going to capture on analog film today that's where I'd be curious to explore, however that comes at a massive expense.

Much of this is why I've put so much focus on RED 8K as a premiere large format exhibition system. Optics in general are within "a hard to beat sweet spot" when it comes to this VistaVision+ sized frame. The whole industry knows that. The camera itself is still absurdly compact, which opens so much creative possibilities. And for those who have seen 8K displayed, you already have seen the extremely real advantages of the format. Our future is digtal 4K and 8K for some time.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Two welcome bits of news:

They contacted local Union projectionists in the various areas where the Roadshow will take place. The roll is in experienced hands.

"With Help From 'Star Wars,' Kodak CEO Says Its Film Business Will Return to Profitability"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-wars-kodak-ceo-848593

 

[Marc Wielage]

"With Help From 'Star Wars,' Kodak CEO Says Its Film Business Will Return to Profitability"

I agree with many of your comments, Scott. This quote from Kodak puzzles me, though, because when I actually worked for Kodak from 2002-2004, I was told several times by the West Coast VP of sales that their profits on camera negative stock were minimal, and 90% of their profits came from print stock. My belief is that what killed Kodak was more theaters changing to digital, not cameras changing to digital.

Digital cameras did hurt the major film camera rental companies like Panavision and so on, and definitely killed labs like Technicolor and Deluxe, but at least the camera companies eventually embraced digital and are doing OK. What I suspect is happening now is that Kodak laid so many employees off and shut so many factories down, a much-smaller Kodak can make enough of a profit to stay in business if a half-dozen major productions shoot on 35mm negative every year.

I'm with Scott in that capturing on 35mm negative and then doing all post in digital makes total sense. To me, then you have the best of all possible worlds... provided you can afford to budget for film stock. The good news is that the camera bodies are plentiful and inexpensive; in fact, a full-blown 35mm camera package is probably half as expensive on a daily rental rate as an Alexa or full-blown Red Weapon. Lenses, support gear, grip trucks, and all that stuff are exactly the same. Processing and dailies are actually not that costly, but it is an additional expense.

I would bet if you had at least a $7M-$8M production, shooting on film for a normal 30-40-day indie shoot would not have to cost more than about $500K (all in). Sure, it's a big chunk of dough, but it's not nightmarishly expensive.

Logistically, though, it makes more sense to just shoot on 4K digital. I think the important use of the budget is to devote more time and care to the lighting; I'm not convinced the camera makes that much of a difference. It would in the case of 65mm, if it's printed and projected correctly. (Big if.)

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Cleopatra

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think the quote from Robert Altman was something like.

"the cheapest thing about making a film is the cost of the actual film."

Of course digital has changed that a little bit, but not in the high end. Films budgets are bigger now, even if they are shot on digital. So all this cost savings stuff is mostly crap unless you are dealing at the bottom of the barrel stuff. Films with a budget can still shoot film, you just might not film rehearsals or do as many takes.

Banal.

David

With a high enough budget, yes, there's no further real costs, but for independent film to be able to deliver a 4K DCP today, it can be done through my home office. The light sensitivity of modern digital sensors and the processing powers of common consumer computers makes it possible to shoot an entire independent film with your own gear without any real costs to anything other than storage and time. Comparing the cost to chemical film, it would be impossible to do it. The cost of a team, cast props, set design and so on will still be there, but if you look at the actual cost of digital high quality film, it's a day and night difference between them.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I agree with many of your comments, Scott. This quote from Kodak puzzles me, though, because when I actually worked for Kodak from 2002-2004, I was told several times by the West Coast VP of sales that their profits on camera negative stock were minimal, and 90% of their profits came from print stock. My belief is that what killed Kodak was more theaters changing to digital, not cameras changing to digital.

Well, what it seems he is stating is that they will be able to survive on rather than die completely if they continue to get this level of support. He isn't saying that they are fully restored to what they once were.

It seems pretty clear that the business model has changed since 2004.

 

[Terry Delahunt]

With a high enough budget, yes, there's no further real costs, but for independent film to be able to deliver a 4K DCP today, it can be done through my home office. The light sensitivity of modern digital sensors and the processing powers of common consumer computers makes it possible to shoot an entire independent film with your own gear without any real costs to anything other than storage and time. Comparing the cost to chemical film, it would be impossible to do it. The cost of a team, cast props, set design and so on will still be there, but if you look at the actual cost of digital high quality film, it's a day and night difference between them.

Absolutely

 

[Marc Wielage]

With a high enough budget, yes, there's no further real costs, but for independent film to be able to deliver a 4K DCP today, it can be done through my home office.

Not if you need experienced people with talent, particularly editors, sound mixers, VFX people, and colorists. Doing this at home is not going to happen for small operations, not unless you hire outside talent. It's not the equipment and software that's the trouble; it's the talent and experience that takes time. As an old pal of mine likes to say: "it takes years of experience to get years of experience."

Also, I would bet you don't have a DCI-capable projector in your house. I'm skeptical that watching a DCP on a computer display is going to give you the same believable performance that it will in an actual theater. Reflected light off a projection screen doesn't give you the same kind of image as direct light off an LCD monitor. I'm also not convinced many people are willing to do what's necessary to calibrate real P3 performance, even if you had a top-flight monitor capable of producing those pictures. All you can do is confirm there's "some kind of picture" there on the DCP, not necessarily one that will look good on a 20' or 25' screen.

In a lot of these cases, I think it falls in the line of "just because you can do something yourself, doesn't necessarily mean you should do something yourself." I would always prefer hiring a plumber or a carpenter or an electrician to do work in my house -- not because I can't necessarily do it myself to a point, but because I know a professional will do it far faster, easier, and better than I ever could. I think the same is true for many facets of production and post, even for things that appear to be as simple as (say) catering meals on set. Sure, you can send out to Subway every day for tuna sandwiches, but it's a lot more beneficial to give everybody a hot meal a couple of times a day and actually give them a real meal break. There are effective ways you can save money, but I think trying to do everything yourself is foolhardy. I have seen many, many, many examples of sad projects that have ended in disaster (or at least financial distress) because the filmmakers erroneously assumed they could do a lot of stuff themselves. The reality was much more costly and difficult than they expected.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

It's not the equipment and software that's the trouble; it's the talent and experience that takes time. As an old pal of mine likes to say: "it takes years of experience to get years of experience."

I suppose that some things simply cannot be compressed.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Kodak is running an article about editing the Hateful Eight. Just look at the light Richardson and his crew were laying down. Damn! this guy is at the top of his game.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/Motion/blog/blog_post?contentId=4294992915

http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedImages/Motion/InCamera/2015/TH8-AC-00062.JPG?n=1803

 

[David Battistella]

Nice Frame.

Gotta love that. Those crushed out blacks really give you that Carravaggio feel.

Think I'll up the road here for some inspiration over the holidays.

http://www.uffizi.org/halls/hall-90/

David