Tyler Purcell

No theaters! IMAX has pulled all the film projectors out of LA and NY. The only theater in LA capable of playing 15/70 is the science museum. My guess is, they will get a print eventually. But they aren't really capable of showing first-run films. I went there for 'Interstellar' and it was a mess.

Well, Hateful Eight is MOSTLY dialog, even more then his other films, mostly because the location doesn't change much. Yes, it's even more dialog driven then his other films. Yes, MOST filmmakers can't stand his stuff. I actually like his stuff because I get it. He makes the movies HE wants to see and ya know what, good on him. There are only a few modern filmmakers who's entire career and success is based on personal films, he is one of the few. I'm a visual story teller, but I can appreciate his sometimes long-winded dialog scenes because they're cleverly written and generally hold my attention. Hateful Eight is no different, it has a great little story, a wonderful cast, it's very silly, shot extremely well, music is awesome and best of all, it's in Ultra Panavision 70mm. Honestly, it's a win-win, even though I don't think it's up to the caliber of Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards or Django. Just go for the ride, go for the mystery and laughs. Don't pre-judge based on it being dialog driven, think of it as being a stage play shot on film.

Ohh I know... I was just saying, it's the type of lighting I like and wish to see more in movies.

Well, I bet ya just don't notice. I've been to theaters all over the country, including in NYC to watch movies and honestly, seen problems everywhere. Heck, I was just in Boston to watch 'Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation' in the biggest theater the town has which is IMAX (AMC Boylston) and it looked like poop. I mean if I hadn't gone with my dad, I would have walked out. It was blurry, it had inconsistent colors from the left to the right of the screen, the double 2k projectors were clearly out of alignment and it wasn't bright or vibrant. The credits at the end had aliasing edges on every character. I don't mind seeing issues on my $910 DLP projector and BluRay source, but I do mind seeing issues when I pay money and take the time to watch something in the theater. Film is a flawed format to begin with, so "perfection" doesn't exist. It's far easier to over-look minor things like a scratch or piece of dirt in the gate, then it is to ignore any issues with digital projection considering my measly setup at home LOOKS BETTER then 90% of the theaters I've been to. It has better contrast ratio because it doesn't have a stupid bright lamp, it has more color separation because it has a 7 seg wheel/single chip instead of only using RGB like cinema projectors. I sit 8 feet away from the 6 foot wide screen and it looks great with zero of the issues I see at almost every theater I go to. Mind you, I saw Jurassic World at the Chinese with the new IMAX 4k laser projectors and they were FLAWLESS!!! I studied the image very carefully and I was MORE than impressed. So IT CAN BE DONE!!! It's just, theaters can't afford to spend 1.5M per projector and until laser projection costs decrease, it's going to be that kind of money. So far, the Hateful Eight 70mm projection at the DGA is probably the best projection I've ever seen. Prior to that, it was Interstellar in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome. Just flawless in every single detail, perfect presentation and the way it should always be!!!!

Nobody said "better"... and I understand the reason why things are done a certain way. Lighting is a necessity of all visual mediums, but clever lighting, that looks "realistic" is far better in my eyes, then over the top unrealistic lighting, which is something you see a lot in movies of all generations.

Yep they did!

That's right Mark and Panavision made the prior projection lenses. They shipped them in HUGE cases with foam packing, no way could the lens be disturbed.

Well, I'd say 90% of the time I see digital projection something is wrong. I've seen 3 digital films in the last 2 weeks and all of them had major problems. One projector had white lines in the upper left hand corner streaking across the image on any bright spot. Reminded me a lot of analog noise one would experience on an NTSC monitor. One projector had green and red channel separation, so anything red in the movie, would overlap onto blue and green channels. Finally, during my digital viewing of star wars, the lamp on that projector was on it's way out. So it flickered for most of the show, so any bright section of the film was just like a candle waving in the wind. So yea... you wanna talk about film projection issues... I rarely see standard non-laser digital projection that actually has NO issues. The only film I saw this WHOLE YEAR that had no issues was the big theater at Sherman Oaks galleria Arclight for 'Bridge of Spies'. Funny that it was one of the few movies shot on film and it was the only digital projection that had no problems.

Man, I wish that was the case. The out of focus streak was so random (per the picture above) it had zero consistency. Plus, these are all brand new lenses and they don't share the smilebox format. A few friends of mine went to 'The Hateful Eight' premiere at the only curved screen in LA and said it was consistently out of focus on the sides, which is typical for that theater.

Today was the first public screening of Hateful Eight in Southern California and boy was it exciting. LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) decided to put together a Ultra Panavision show at their Bing screening room. Working with the wonderful Elvis Mitchell, today's screening was set into motion months ago. It was two road show films presented back to back; 'It's a Mad Mad World' and 'The Hateful Eight'. Of course, 'It's a Mad Mad World' is one of Quentin's favorite films, so he actually graced the audience with his presence. It was nice to finally shake his hand and talk about the film afterwards. Funny enough, very few people came for the 'It's a Mad Mad World' screening, it was pretty empty. Picture of the film can's: The evening started with a fantastic introduction by Elvis Mitchell. He discussed putting this show together and how exiting it was to see Ultra Panavision on their screen for the first time in a while. The overture was presented with the curtain down, unlike 'Hateful Eight' which has a title card. The 70mm print was clearly restored and had digital audio. The projectionists explained, they don't even have the capacity to run mag audio anymore. The curtain rose to a beautiful and crisp print. It was a tad bit dirty and the right side had a few cinch scratches on it, which is pretty typical from it being mistreated during the many screenings it's had over it's life. But over-all, the print was in exceptional and watchable quality, far better then I expected. The highlights were a bit yellow, but it had stellar dynamic range, deep blacks and a really nice color pallet. I had never seen the film before because I was told it was stupid and maybe at home it would be. However, in an audience full of cinephiles, laughing all together, it worked really well. I fully enjoyed the film and guessing who the myriad of cameo's were, was a lot of fun. For a film shot at the beginning of the 60's, it really held together nicely. Projection Room between shows: With all that said, the film was run A/B projectors with change over's every 2000 feet. During the 'It's a Mad Mad World', the lenses were out of focus. It was very clear to me, the issue I had seen at the DGA screening prior, was the same issue here. It's basically a blotch of fuzziness which stays in place, never in the dead center, just off to the left side most of the time. In the case of this projection, the lenses were pretty bad, I'd say a good 1/4 of the screen was flat out blurry. It really pissed me off because the projectors were working like a charm and I'm sure with spherical lenses, this wouldn't have been a problem. Between the two shows, I went to the projection room, where the guys were hustling around testing different things to fix the lensing issue. Here is a video of the test loop they were provided by Boston Light and Sound, http://tye1138.com/stuff/hatefuleight/testloop.MOV ... plus a still image of the out of focus range, clearly visible on the left side of center: This is where I met Paul Smith from D-Mation, who was kind enough to talk me through some of their issues as they were in process of solving them. He's the go-to guy for large format in Los Angeles, he helped re-construct the sync Cinerama 35mm 3 strip projection system at the Cinerama Dome. He told me the lenses are coming from Boston Light and Sound messed up. They had four lenses to test and all of them had problems. He didn't quite want to admit it, but eventually he shook his head in agreement. I was really hoping for 'The Hateful Eight' presentation, the issues would have gone away. The theater was packed, but not sold out, for 'The Hateful Eight' screening. Quentin was nowhere to be found, though his car was still in the parking lot according to my friend who knows him well, so he may have peeked in at one point and left. Here is Elvis Mitchell's introduction to the show: http://tye1138.com/stuff/hatefuleight/h8intro.mov The moment the overture card came up, the focus issues were still there. I was immediately dismayed because yet again, the print looked amazing, not a single piece of dirt or scratch marks. It wasn't quite as vibrant as the print at the DGA, that COULD be simply due to the lumens, the lamps at LACMA seemed to be less consistent then the one's used at the DGA. Projector A was brighter then B and there was absolutely more lamp related wavering in brightness, probably needs calibration. However, the projection like 'It's A Mad Mad World' was fine, just the lensing was a problem. 'Hateful Eight' was shipped on 4000ft rolls, so they required less change over. Interestingly enough, the focus issue changed as the lenses got hotter. I think the lenses cooled down between the reel changes and when they got hotter again, they got out of focus more and more. The blur spot during the whole screening changed from being just a little pocket, left of center, to eventually being a good 1/2 of the upper part of the screen. So the text cards that come up during the film were blurry! The audience loved the film, I really enjoyed it my 2nd time around and hopefully will see it again in a few weeks at the Cinerama Dome after Star Wars. I really want to see how Arclight will project it, if they will insure the lensing is OK. But this problem with the anamorphic lenses is huge and it's systemic. I've watched the movie twice now and BOTH times, there was a lens problem of one kind or another. Panavision sent out lenses to the DGA, so perhaps thats why they worked so well, but the standard 70mm theatrical experience won't have those lenses. After 'Hateful Eight' I went back to the projection booth to thank the guys and unfortunately, I got the cold shoulder. I had clearly outstayed my welcome, which is truly unfortunate because I really hadn't wrapped up our earlier conversation. The only thing I got was a business card and a hand shake. I guess what more can you ask for! Never the less, the night was good and bad. I was frustrated because the projectionists seemed to think everything was ok, but as an audience member, it was soft and down-right blurry in some parts of the image. If I were there, I would have apologized to the audience at some point and explained this is NOT the way either of these two films look. In my opinion, the blurriness is unacceptable and if this is the kind of crap every theater has to go through to project this wonderful movie, I'm really scared it will be a deterrent for future use of the format.

Ohh I have zero issues with anything. I merely thought it was cool that they attempted to use all natural, non-man made lighting sources. I was simply separating man made (gas/incandescent/LED/florescent) with the sun and burning wood. I understand that using gas to keep the wood burning at a certain color temp AND brightness is more practical. However, you don't need that much light in all honestly. I've shot a lot of stuff with candle light and 500ASA film stock without a problem. It's dark, but what do you expect! Modern filmmakers spend so much time worrying if the actors look good and not caring of their lighting is at all realistic. That's why I love guys like Roger Deakins. He tries his hardest to generate realism and when it's dark, man it's dark!

Ohh gas? Yea artificial light source.

Yep, if you need to push, you'd do that in the photochemical process, not the digitizing process.

In my opinion, "lighting" is from an artificial light source. I don't consider fire an artificial light source since it's kind of a natural occurrence, kinda like our sun.

HOLY CRAP!!!! That's what I'm doing during the week next week! WOOT! :) Thanks for that!

Yea, for me I felt like all of a sudden I stepped into the prequel's and Jar Jar was right around the corner. They could have very easily pulled a Hoggle from Labyrinth. Little person in a suit with a motor controlled face. I honestly felt the glasses were most of the problem. They reflected very strangely and it threw me off as well.

Well, I mean they did "light" a lot of the film, it was just done with practicals. Some would call that "lighting" but I call that not-lighting because the light source is physically in the shot.

I just sat down to watch Sicario tonight and I really enjoyed it. They built suspense very well and held it for long periods of time without anything happening. I thought the characters were not very kinda flat, but honestly that's reality! I thought the story being Benicio Del Toro's at the end was great and semi unexpected. The best things over-all was it's cinematography, realism and pacing throughout. The whole package was a bit different then a regular movie, the audience was taken along with Blunt on the ride. The stuff with the Mexican cop wasn't too important, but I understood where that was coming from and why it was there. My only real complaint would be Blunt's motivation, it seemed kinda weak. I also thought Benicio Del Toro should have been shot at the end by Blunt's partner. To me, that would have been the icing on the take, but meh, what can you do! Deakins is amazing with the Alexa. He's the only person capable of shooting digital and making it look like film, every single time. It was smooth (no digital crispness), had no digital noise, none of the standard issue mid tone issues or highlight clipping issues you see with MOST digital movie. Furthermore, no digital-looking motion blur! Bravo! Over all Sicario was a great film and very entertaining. I have a bad feeling it will be overlooked in this years award season, which is a real shame.

Man you're harsh! ROFL!!!! :D It probably cost 10X as much to make those two characters in CG then it did for Henson's group to put together a puppet. So in this case, it was actually money tainting the decision making process. Also... another theory is they DID make a puppet and it didn't look good. How it could look WORSE then the CG characters, I don't know, but I've seen some pretty lifeless puppets before!

I know right? They did such a good job avoiding CG creatures and they just HAD to use them somewhere. I bet Jim Henson's shop would have done a far better job with a puppet then they did with the bar keep character in CG. Another POOR excuse for CG, but it was such a short scene, meh... I gave it a "pass".

It's all up to Russia and China. I bet in those two countries, it's not being shown yet. They'll probably delay it a few weeks to get a head start. It's going to make one heck of an awesome bootleg since digital projectors don't flicker like film projectors do! I bet someone may even try to hack the lock and get the DCP converted directly. Next few weeks are going to be very interesting in deed!

:cough: Ok so I'm not going to talk about digital in this review! Yeay! :) Ohh and NO SPOILERS!!! So feel free to read! I'm a pretty big Star Wars fan, to the point of even owning a few action figures. My most vivid memory of Star Wars was seeing Phantom Menace at the Cheri in Boston two weeks before the actual release for the Boston press. It was a horrid raining and there was a line people with tents and umbrellas hanging out side to get tickets for the first public showing. Some of them looked like they had been there for a few days and still had a few days left to hang out! YUCK! I didn't have the heart to tell them Phantom Menace sucked! As everyone knows, the film started playing early in select cities. Arclight cinema's, our premiere theater in Hollywood, had it in every screen BUT ONE! They were playing it every 15 min, half 3D half 2D. I have zero interest in seeing a 3D movie, so I bought 2D tickets and watched it in one of the smaller theaters. It's amazing how GOOD their smaller theaters are though, technically a top drawer experience. Unfortunately, an butt and his/her family came in 5 minutes late, had seats right in front of me and the mom handed out ipads for the kids to play with. So imagine this, 3 kids all very young, sitting in seats in front of me with head phones on playing on ipads. The kids were screaming and hollering throughout the first 40 minutes or so. Eventually the guys sitting in front of them got pissed off, stood up and screamed at the woman. She grabbed the kids and left the theater in a hissy fit with her husband in toe. In line to pay for parking, the people behind me complained about the same thing in a different screening. So to the movie! This NEW Star Wars film; The Force Awakens is an absolute fanboy's dream. Everyone involved hit a home run and delivered far more then even I expected. Unlike JJ's Star Trek reboot which was disrespectful of what Star Trek was all about, JJ's Star Wars treatment embraced the original franchise and held it tight. I was MORE then impressed with his decision making process, never getting to the utter insanity which reigned supreme in Star Trek. Force Awakens clearly took a while to make and had some great details. It also helps a lot that MOST of the film wasn't trapped on a space ship like Star Trek. They brought back a bunch of great sets and ships, stuff we remember from the original franchise. Even the updated costumes, weren't too far off from the original and didn't bother me at all. The cast worked great and I can't wait for their next adventure! People were saying online that the story was a rehash of the first (episode 4) but honestly, all of the Star Wars films follow a similar arc. I actually thought Lucas didn't do a bad job with the story in his prequels, but the filmmaking wasn't good. In Force Awakens, it's just the opposite, the script was meh and the filmmaking was stellar. When things didn't work, they'd throw some eye candy at the audience or make them laugh. Really my ONLY beef is what was on the written page AND how it was put together in post production. I feel a few extra minutes here and there, wouldn't have effected much in terms of runtime, but helped slow the film down a bit. We needed that Luke standing outside his dwelling in the desert at the beginning of the first movie (episode 4) looking up at the two sun's moment. Ya know, just a beat here and there. I understand why they did so much nip and tuck, but it wasn't necessary. Maybe it's a good thing wanting more! :) Cinematography wise, Mindel did a great job! I was talking to one of my friends on the way home and mentioned to her the few shaky dolly shots and told her, that was so awesome! Today's movies strive to be so "perfect" technically, I just love to see filmmakers do something wild like not use a stabilizer on a tricky tracking shot. It brings realism and a sense of immediacy to the shot. The framing was very Star Wars as well, they clearly watched the original films. The coloring was done by stefan sonnenfeld and he(as always) did a great job. Of course Ben Burtt and crew over at Lucas Sound did a great job with the mix. One of the best mixes I've heard in a while, right on point. Lots of detail in the rears and excellent LFE track that wasn't over powering. William's new score was mostly rehashed material from Episode 4, which was expected. I'm so happy he didn't bring in the theme from the prequel, I was never a fan of that theme or frankly, the scores at all. It was great to hear those classic Star Wars themes on the big screen with an all new cast, at one point I had a tear in my eye because it worked so well. In the end, Force Awakens does exactly what it's suppose to do. It's the 'Star Trek: Generations' of Star Wars films. It's the in-between film to change the guard so to speak between the old characters and the new. It's also going to be the first time many kids are able to see a Star Wars film in the theater, so for them it's all about the new characters. Force Awakens will do very well in the box office, I predict they'll make their money back by end of day friday and will hit a billion world wide by the 1st of the year. People (myself included) are going to watch this film in the theater over and over again. I can't wait to see if an IMAX 15/70 print shows up down here at one point. My biggest concern isn's Gareth Edwards Rogue One... I think that film (which is a prequel to Force Awakens), will be pretty good. My concern is Rian Johnson's episode VIII... which will have the same cast, but an entirely different crew. He's going to helm the next two films and is already in production. He's said in interviews they're sticking with 35mm for the next two films, which is great. However, I'm skeptical if he can steer the ship like JJ, Kasdan, Mindel, Williams and Burtt. It's release is more then a year away (May 2017) so I'm not holding my breath yet. In the meanwhile, lets hope they keep making these whilst the original cast members are still alive! (no that's not a spoiler) This is Tye saying TWO THUMBS UP drop what you're doing and go see it! :)

Cool, thanks for that! I've messed with the 4k, but only with artificial lighting.

Do you think the 4k isn't up to snuff? People really don't like that 4k sensor. The standard URSA has it and there have been wild complaints about it't latitude. IDK, just wanna hear some outside thoughts about that. Also... did you buy the viewfinder? Is it any good?

Schweet! I'm interested in how you feel about the camera over-all as well. I don't have the money to buy one now, but I will be buying one next year for sure, the 4.6k version though.