Tyler Purcell

I mean it all comes down to shooter, lens selection and post work. EX3 is an inexpensive ENG camera and it's small so you can shoulder it OR push it against your body for lower angle shots, making it ideal for reality work. I used one on a pilot once and really enjoyed working with it for TV stuff. But like any camera, if you're not a great shooter, it's not gonna come out good. The camera in that still is an optical disk camera. Not sure the model off the top of my head, but not part of the same family for sure.

I'm sure he's referring to a particular film, it may have been a misprint in the magazine.

Ohh interesting, it looked too good to be the A7, but I haven't see anything from the A7RII before, so that's pretty sweet. The glass helped considerably and your steadicam work was pretty darn good.

I'm one of those strange ducks who likes old technology. Steam train's, old cars, analog tape recorders, 2 stroke engines and motion picture film. I grew up shooting films (and stll do today) on motion picture film and of course watching them on the big screen in the big city of Boston where I grew up. My dad was really into the movies and as a little kid, he dragged me to 70mm screenings of all sorts of things from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to Terminator 2. One of my favorite childhood memories is of my dad holding me up in the projection booth to look at the 70mm film on platter of Terminator 2, I was only 14 at the time. I'm the guy who is turned towards the projection booth, staring at the projectionist as he loads the film, waiting patiently to see it start, the rest of the audience wondering what this little kid was staring at. So of course as a filmmaker in Hollywood, I've attended as many film screenings as I could and since film as a theatrical format is dead, whenever someone works up the gumption to release something on film, I'm there. Last year it was Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' and this year it's Quentin Tarantino's 'Hateful Eight', both projected in 70mm and both finished photochemically. What Quentin is doing with Hateful Eight and the revival of the 70mm roadshow screening, is quite impressive. Weinstein's have helped pave the way for Quentin's vision and after tonight's screening, I'm in awe of their accomplishments. Since the Hateful Eight is as much about the format as the story, Weinstein's decided to have special screenings for academy members because DVD screeners, won't do it justice. As a consequence, there are two weeks of screenings on both coasts of the US and I choose the one at the DGA (directors guild of america) because I know how much they care for projection. The only negative thing about seeing the film so far before it's release date is that I'm unable to discuss the movie itself. This is eating me from the inside out because all I want to do is shout and rave about the details of this movie, but alas I can't. However, I do think it's ok to discuss the projection and what I saw on screen. Not to review the movie, but to simply explain what I saw for fans of the 70mm format, like myself. Hateful Eight is being distributed and shown in over 100 theaters, half of which had 70mm projectors installed for the viewing. This is a huge challenge and the members of this forum may know that the great staff over at Boston Light and Sound (my home town) supplied the equipment and most of it will be shipped back to them after the screenings are over if there isn't another 70mm film to be shown in the next year. To help the projectionists in their task, the film will be shipped already spooled onto platters. This is not the first time this has happened, IMAX films have been frequently shipped this way. It helps with errors that may stem from poor splicing practices. As a consequence, one would assume the prints would be clean, without cigarette burns (change over cues) in the upper right corner at the end of each roll. However, this was not the case for my screening, more about that in a minute. The DGA theater doesn't have a big screen for the size, it's very old school in that way. So the actual viewing experience wasn't optimal, but the projection sure was. The screening starts with an overture and a nice text card on screen saying just that. Reel one on projector A, had some gate wobble AND the right side of the frame was going in and out of focus very slightly, during the overture card. I was very concerned because at the time, I thought it was a platter projection and likewise it would be that way for the entire presentation. The beginning of the film contains some great exteriors and the issue continued for quite a while. However, the moment projector B kicked in, the problems went away and I never saw them again. My guess is, there was something stuck in the gate, preventing it from closing (squashing) the film properly and the projectionist fixed it because even the end credits were rock solid, no wobble or anything. This might sound disheartening to some people, but the projection was so good, it looked like digital. I've seen some IMAX presentations like this before, where it's so crisp, so clean, so grain-less, you swear it's the best digital projection ever. Yet, this was the first 5 perf 70mm projection I've seen which could stand next to the very best IMAX 15/70 projection and hold it's own. Most of that comes down to the top-notch projection, which was flicker-free, rock solid stability and silent (no whirr of a projector in the background). The other part came from the filmmakers use of fine-grain stocks, like 50D for exteriors and 250T for a great deal of interiors. There were a hand-full of shots you could see grain, but the vast majority where smooth as silk. Unlike digital projection which leaves most content lifeless through raised blacks and crushed highlights, film projection doesn't do that. Plus, this being a brand new print, perhaps shown two or three times prior, it was in immaculate condition. The detail in every shot was outstanding. You could see strands of hair and sweat in close-up's. You could see the crispness of the layers of snow even though it was all white, there was still detail. One of the characters has a striped shirt on and even when there were dark scenes, you could differentiate between the brighter and darker sections of that shirt. To me, that's a great acid test for dynamic range and I was more then impressed. I kept saying to myself during the screening, if everyone saw it like this, there maybe a push for future 70mm releases. If there was to be a complaint about the technical side of Hateful Eight, it would be the interior lighting of the main location. I knew it was going to be over-lit, thanks to the trailers and press stills, but it was way more over lit then I even expected. Table tops so bright, the actors faces were getting enough bounce for that to be the only light source. I understand the reasoning behind this lighting concept; it saved a lot of time and allowed the filmmakers to use slower speed stocks and lenses. However, it's my only real beef with the film technically and that's pretty good coming from someone who simply can't sit through our modern films due to how poorly they're made. Bob Richardson and his crew did a fantastic job at making a stage play interesting to watch on the big screen. The only other technical thing to discuss is the use of those fantastic anamorphic ultra panavision lenses, which were re-built just for this movie. It was a clever idea to tell this story in 70mm Ultra Panavision because most of it takes place in one interior location. The filmmakers could use wider shots and achieve longer dialog scenes, which not only looks cool, but saves time. I think the standard 5 perf 70mm 2.20:1 aspect ratio, may not be quite wide enough for this movie. The unbelievable bit is how little those old lenses breathed and how little anamorphic distortion there was. I was more then impressed with the look, never noticing the anamorphic lensing. There were a few shots using diopters as well, pretty slick stuff and cool looking since nobody uses them anymore. Reminds me of films from the 70's ad 80's where you had to keep the lens wide open, but wanted less depth of field. With all that said, Hateful Eight is a wonderful cinematic experience for the true cinefile. It was clearly made with the heart's of many others like myself, who strive to keep shooting film and keep it alive for future generations. The shooting crew, team over at Panavision, the great finishing guys at FotoKem and DGA projectionist, all did an amazing job making this film. Everything came together flawlessly, Quentin's vision (from the first time he saw that Ben Hur chariot scene) was a complete and utter success. He's proved without a shadow of a doubt, 70mm acquisition and projection can be better then digital. There wasn't a moment watching the movie where I was taken out of the action due to a problematic technical error, like so many modern films. Every frame was rich in color, painted with a master's paintbrush and projected with artistic flair of it's own. What Quentin has showed us with Hateful Eight is that, it takes a team of outstanding artisans both behind the camera, in the lab and in the projection room, to show something properly on the big screen. It doesn't require fancy modern digital technology to tell a story, it only requires technology from the 60's and a few people who care. If you are a cinefile, take some time out to see Hateful Eight in 70mm before it's too late. Even if you don't like the story (not everyone's can of worms), go for the technical aspects alone and next time you see something digitally, just remember how flat-out amazing GOOD film projection is to watch. Thanks for reading

Ohh and for anyone in LA... LACMA is showing back to back roadshow 70mm version of It's a Mad Mad World and Hateful Eight, Sat Dec 19th starting at 1:30. This MAYBE the best place to see it because those guys show a lot of 70mm and they have a dedicated projector PLUS Mad Mad World is also in the same anamorphic format, so I'm sure it will be rock solid. Not the best theater in the world, I'll still be squeezing in an appointment to the Cinerama dome if they show it, but well worth the screening! Tickets are on sale now http://www.lacma.org/event/mad-mad-mad-world

poop, that's just wrong. Press screenings should be something very special and that one looks like it wasn't. I mean, they may have had a bad anamorphic decoder element, which is something I'm sure everyone is talking about right now. Personally, I feel it was a mistake to shoot in anamorphic because it adds one more variable to a system that really is barely working to begin with. Heck, even when I saw Interstellar on 70 @ The Cinerama dome, during the 70mm trailer for Inherent Vice that preceded it, the projectionist was adjusting the loop, framing and focus for a good portion of the trailer to insure the feature (when it came on) would be perfect and ya know what, it was!

Nice, really enjoyed it. :) So which camera was it shot on? I'm guessing FS7.

In other good news... reviews are coming out about the film, so far it's all good!

Yea, it would be cool. It maybe possible with a still image of a pattern or something.

Ohh I wish you could do that, but unfortunately you can't sample. You can apply a LUT (look up table) of different print stocks. I used a Fuji print stock on my sample earlier. You can do pretty much everything with the free version, but you need one heck of a fast graphics card for it to work properly.

For that money you can buy a used pocket camera and some classic Nikon still glass off ebay. So I 2nd what Kenny and John said above, that's the right advice. If you're using the current version of FCPX, you can integrate directly into DaVinci, which is where you'd be doing all the "film look". You don't need any plugin's, just a sample of film footage which are free online and you simply matte it onto the final output from DaVinci. It's quick, easy and works like a charm every time. Rendering takes a while, but the end result is something that looks very filmic. The sample I posted above is a pretty good representation of what it "could" look like. Though I will admit, the pocket camera will look considerably different as it's a more cinematic imager. I'm not one to screw around with looks in post because I'm more of a purist, get it in camera sorta guy. If I want a film look, I generally shoot on film. If it's a good festival piece, you will be asked for a DCP which can be made in DaVinci. Nobody strikes 35mm prints for shorts anymore, that just doesn't happen and it's overly expensive coming from a digital source. Generally speaking, if you have something awesome to make, why not find the money through donations and make it on film the way you want it to be made.

Hmm, yea I have my doubts as well.

Again, the camera only spits out 60i without flags, so the moment you hit an external video signal, you're stuck with that frame rate.

The XL2 has a real 24p mode, it puts proper flags in. So it will have no problem removing the pull down.

I've tried it before, it's not very good at working with transport streams. The most powerful tool I've found is cinema tools, part of the FCP 7 bundle. However, it's a lesson in futility because there are so many options!

Sure, I'm positive you can crack the camera into doing all sorts of things, maybe even make coffee if you work hard enough. Point is, out of the box the camera is pretty much a toy. Anyone who goes out to shoot a feature film on one, really doesn't know anything about cameras because even during the HDV-only days, there were far better cameras for not much more money. I mean shooting with one today is kind of a lesson in futility because there are so many inexpensive used cameras which blow the doors of it.

Huh, odd... I guess the frame rate feature isn't 'unlocked' unless you go into cinema mode. I honestly never went to that mode because I color everything in post anyway and the last thing I need is more color tainting/enhancement done in-camera. I bet FCPX knows how to remove the pulldown, but it would be interesting to do some testing. The XAH1 flags properly, so it works perfectly in 24p mode.

Well, there are lots of problems with the HD30, a camera I know quite well. 1) It only does 29.97, so there goes the filmic frame rate look. 2) It doesn't allow for smooth aperture or focus adjustment, so there goes pulling focus. 3) It has a fixed lens, so even the adaptors won't work well. 4) It has rolling shutter issues since it uses an early generation CMOS imager 5) It has a very limited dynamic range with limited ability to make manual adjustments in order to make it function properly. Now, I've done a lot of shooting with it's big brother the XAH1 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/589903-REG/Canon_3238B001_XH_A1s_3CCD_HDV_Camcorder.html It's a proper camcorder, 24fps, fully manual; lens, aperture, shutter speed, etc. Plus it uses CCD's which don't have rolling shutter issues and have far better color separation then that early generation CMOS imager. The 8 bit HDV 4:2:0 color space file format is a hindrance, however with some post work (no plugin's necessary) you can make it look pretty good. Here is a short I made few years ago using free DaVinci Resolve to set a print stock type and Final Cut 7 to matte film grain which I got for free online. It's basically a 30 second piece of 35mm film that you composite into the shot. I did all of this work because the camera looks like dog poop without it, I had to do something or I'd just throw the project away and never watch it again. We recorded the audio through the XLR inputs as well using wireless mic's, but the audio was a lot of work in post production. You can probably achieve similar results with your camera... I just wanted to give you an example of what it could potentially look like.

So yea.. been doing some of my own maths, seeing things first hand (bored in the garage). Horizontal 4 perf 16mm is cool and all, but holy poop 3 perf is cheaper! EEK!

I've been working with Thomas from in70mm.com on updating his site with pertinent info and images. Here are some other interesting facts about distribution: http://in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/index.htm • all 70mm prints (for platter houses) will be shipped out entirely assembled, none will be assembled in the venues. The prints are being built up by a selected crew working near Magic Mountain (Santa Clarita), CA. • the prints will be in one single transport case, custom made for the show. A large, flat case, similar to those sometimes used to transport Imax 70mm prints, back in the day. • even though the show will have an intermission, there will be only ONE ROLL of film. In other words, the intermission is built into the movie, with 12 minutes of black film (and DTS [Datasat] timecode printed in it) in the middle of the built-up platter print. There is no audio during the intermission, but there is a 45-second "entr'acte" music bit at the beginning of the second half of the show. • the film print itself weighs about 220 pounds. • with the shipping box, the total shipping weight is 350 pounds. • the total running time is a little over 3 hours, including the intermission. • BLSI tracked down about 120 projectors, including 20 from Cinemeccanica and some Simplex XL 70’s. About 90 of the machines are Century JJ’s.

Well, you only need the ADR for that one shot when the windshield is gone. All the other stuff when the car is buttoned up, you could probably make it work. However, being a sound guy as well, I generally favor ADR for car scenes unless the vehicle is on a trailer.

If you aren't seeing the windshield in the shot, it's really easy. Cut a piece of plexiglass to fit the window. Then make a small cut for the lens of the camera. Tape the plexiglass to the car using gaf tape. We used a thicker piece once and attached speed rail mounts to it and the top of the car, so it worked like a hinge. We then built a small box out of the remaining plexiglass to cover the hole left by the lens and camera. On one shoot, we built a little box out of plexiglass, glued it together and used that to cover the entire camera, so no wind would come in. Another trick I've used in the past on night jobs, is two pieces of plywood along the side of the hood (l&R)and a piece of plexiglass on top. Screw it all together which gives you the over head light looking down, but gives you a box to protect from the wind. It allows you to put speed rail on the plywood, to hang lights and gives you a lot of room to mount the camera. We tried this trick with a car in motion once and it worked really well once we put another piece of plexiglass covering the gaping hole in front. On a trailer rig, you can cover that with extra pieces of plywood if the wind is crazy. But from my experience, the half-box generally reduces the wind enough. Now sound is always a problem with car shots, doesn't matter if the windows are up or not. Most of the time I go into a car scene knowing I'll have to ADR it. So in my eyes, the sound isn't a big problem unless you're working with A list talent and don't have the money for an ADR session. Sure, there are rare occasions where the road is super smooth, the windows are up and the camera is on the outside of the car. However, I haven't been that lucky over the years, most of the time, the roads are beat up (car shaking), windows are down and camera is inside the car making all sorts of noise. Since audio is just as important as picture in my world, ADR is really the only solution to good audio in a moving car scene.

Both actually, assuming the car is on a trailer.

Actually, you can very easily devise a system to remove the wind, it wouldn't be complicated.

Great stuff, the way movies should be made, through the use of skilled craftsmen using their hands rather then computers.