Jay Young

Cinefilm in Atlanta was acquired by Crawford Media: http://crawford.com/creative-services/film-and-digital-dailies/

To be sure, Roger Deakins states on his own website that he is not "officially" attached to the picture at this point.

I saw "The Hateful 8" yesterday at the Regal IMAX and 18 whatever in Knoxville. I have to say I wasn't that blown away by the presentation. I enjoyed the film for the film, but there were at least three hard splices in the overture and some very heavy scratches like they drug that section through the floor. It was on a platter system which worked flawlessly throughout. The digitally timed house lights seemed to work more or less as intended, and no dolby atmos or other audio gimics were employeed.. not even that much surround was used, which I very much liked. My major problem with the presentation was the framing. It was very nice seeing that huge anamorphic projection lens above my head (and not so nice being grimaced at by the lady working on the projector at the time). However, the way they framed the projection was... not optimal. They moved the top of the gate up to meet with the top of the screen, which left about 4 feet of blackness at the bottom of the screen which distracted me the whole time, as the gate was dirty. Overall the presentation was on a gently curved screen - I assume curved for cool points rather than edge brightness - and focus was sharp throughout, with little gate weave except for in the more damaged first 100 feet during the overture. I felt the film was interesting overall, but for some reason didn't resonate with me the way previous films did, such as "Inglorious Bastards". As a fan of the anamorphic process, I enjoyed seeing the natural flares, and I personally enjoyed all the bloom and top down lighting from Bob Richardson. No, it wasn't realistic, but it was interesting. I was an enjoyable experience, but I can't help wonder what the experience would have been like at the DGA presentation or at a changeover house with a real projectionist.

I was just speaking to someone not too long ago about a similar topic. In black and white printing, one can use various blue/ultraviolet light to increase contrast. I assume a similar effect might be gained by using color gels to change the tone or density of the light It wouldnt have the same effect as filter, for example, to darken the sky, but if you had someone in a blue costume, you might be able to play with the tonality of that by lighting it with different colors.

Again, I think with a REAL roadshow there would not exist these problems. Just take the projectionist with you! Furthermore, in my area, it is the managers who are normally running projections - I don't know why. I have asked at the local art house many times if they needed a dedicated projectionist and they always say "its a managers job". I don't understand this thinking. Projection is so important that it should be the managers job to HIRE a competent projectionist. I paid $25 for two tickets. If the other several hundred people paid the same, surely the cinema can cover the cost of film rental plus the cost of hiring a dedicated projectionist that is either willing and keen to learn, or already knows how to do the job correctly. I personally would have no problem doing it for day rates in my city. I'm going today to see it at a Regal cinema in Knoxville. I'm sure it will be filled with Blue LED lights and non-dimmed house lighting. I just hope whoever presses the button can at least spell film.

Measuring Modes can be added or removed in the Custom Setting Mode. It is available, you just have to add it to the menu.

I'm headed to see it Tuesday in supposedly 70mm, I'll believe that when I see it. I haven't read all the posts, but I'll say; I like long dialogue scenes, and long dialogue driven plots. I would love to do a version on Dune myself, in the long form. I like a big action film just as much as an art film, and I really don't pay much attention to how much it cost to make as usually the first 99% of the budget is to pay the top bill talent, then to pay for the story that the director wrote, and then if you have any money left, to pay for the top bill actors entourage. At least thats how I read budget reports these days. I'm glad QT has enough finances or personal wealth to launch a project he is passionate about.

I'm seeing it tonight with the family in glorious 2k digital barco projection. I hope there's some kind of story.

David I totally agree. I DID shoot FF35 for decades as a stills photographer, and still do. In this sense a 50mm lens might be considered normal, at least to me. However when I look through a motion picture camera I don't automagically think "Oh, I need to use this lens because it multiplies correctly based on some number" in stead, I just choose the normal field of view lens for that camera and go from there.

Before I go yelling on Reddit, I figured I would ask people smarter than myself about it; There was a thread talking about crop factor on Reddit today, and one of the comments mentioned that "Hollywood has been shooting crop factor 1.6 forever as Super 35 is basically the same as APS-C". And then I wanted to yell. However, I soon realised that crop factor appears to have come from sensor sizes smaller than "full frame" (from here on 8/35), and all other cameras being equal shoot 4-perf... Is it just me or should we not be comparing 3-perf to 8-perf anyway? And for that matter, should not all "full frame" digital cameras be digital VistaVision in the first place? All that thinking lead me to wonder if there is actually a crop factor on 4/35 cameras or not. Surely lenses created specifically for 4/35 may not cover the full 8/35 frame? No? However, all lenses made for 8/35 should be able to produce an image circle large enough to cover 4/35? Am I completely wrong in my thinking? Furthermore, if I take a stills lens, mount it on a Super35 camera, will I in fact get a crop of 1.5+-? If I'm totally wrong, that's wonderful and I'll have a deeper understanding of all this crop factor jazz.

I didin't want to post this in "On Screen" section, since I haven't seen it and its still doing the festival rounds. Apperently they did tests on the '19 and underexposed the whole image two or three stops, and left an ND 6 on the front the whole time. Can you imagine! [i think they actually meant ND 0.6, as an ND6 would cut... 20 stops? HA! I don't even think such a thing exists] I am very interested to see what the daily looked like without grading. I'm interested in seeing the finished film also, the story sounds great. I recall John Seale stating he never shot on anything other than high speed film once it came out, as one could take it to the beach at noon, throw four ND12's on the front and it looked fantastic. Anyhow, interesting indeed! From the Kodak article found here: http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Blog/Blog_Post?contentId=4294992583 Cinematographer Bobby Shore, CSC and Director Connor Jessup explain: They used a set of Ultra Speeds and a Panaflex Millennium XL from Panavision Toronto. They shot entirely on (KODAK VISION3) 5219 with an ND 6 filter in front of the camera the whole time, but metered as if Shore was rating the film at 500. “We spoke a lot about the films of Hirokazu Koreeda and Edward Yang,” explained Shore. “Connor has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of Asian cinema. I had tested (KODAK) VISION3 500T (Color Negative Film 5219) and tended toward the additional texture I got with the 5219 when it’s underexposed by two or three stops. The image becomes slightly lifted and almost creamy, but with a lot of texture as the inherently tighter grain structure of the VISION3 stock starts to degrade a bit.” Here's a very short trailer:

Youtube just simply does not play well with celluloid. Digital artifacts all over the place. Looks great!

I much prefer your bottom image personally. That's one thing I never got the hang of was coloring... there's other experts for that tho!

Looks great!

Having workprints done at FotoKem is FAR cheaper than scanning negative to digital. Last month I sent in some testing footage and development cost + two prints came about to about... $0.60/ft or less. The cheapest scan option when I talked with them was $500 per hour which they said netted about 20 minutes of digital footage; that's the same as $0.65/ft of JUST SCANNING, then there is the development cost on top of that plus the fact that 40 minutes of your $500 is wasted on "computer processing". One could develop and print almost 1200' of 16/35mm for the same cost. And that's just me spending tiny money. I wonder how many millions was spent on the 70mm of The Hateful Eight? I believe there is still enough demand.

Wow, I very much like it. Would love to have a print of that.

Ironically, apparent an ArcLight cinema projector glitched, and then skipped to a later part of the film? That wouldn't happen in 35mm!

My brother just turned me on to the despecialized versions, which one has to acquire through alternate means - but WOW do they look great. Sort of like how a first run print must have looked in 1977.

http://rogerdeakins.com/ Just checked, seems to work fine.

When doing a photochemical film print, you can change the value of the print lights which effect color density and contrast. D.I. stands for Digital Intermediate - It means scanning the negative and doing all color manipulation in the digital realm. For Books, the ASC Manual comes to mind.

Are you sure the camera was in manual mode? It seems as if the test footage above was metered for the light outside the window, and not the wall. Turn that lamp on and see if it starts to solve your issues! Also maybe set the camera down?

Love the poster! Great work there.

Sadly I don't think It's anywhere near me at the moment. Looks brilliant tho.

I agree, push the 200t, and save the 250d for actual outdoor in the sunlight work.

Ok, I realise this is not a real road show, but all 70mm prints are only available on Christmas day? Well, I guess that rules me out. Actually I guess some cinemas are showing it only on the 25th and others are showing it on Saturday? Or perhaps some websites are not listed? I would much rather drive to Knoxville than Atlanta, but at least Atlanta has a Saturday 26th showing listed.