Jump to content

Hateful Eight Experience


Recommended Posts

I actually really like Ridley Scott and think he has some interesting things to say about filmmaking.

 

I agree that he made some absolutely classic all time films: Alien, Blade Runner and Thelma and Louise are outstanding works that have already stood the test of time. In the case of Blade Runner in spite of being slated on its release.

He hasn't produced work on this level for a long time but then how many directors are like Stanley Kubrick and have an entire filmography of classic movies? There are some who maybe like to think they do...(almost taking us back on topic!) but it's really difficult to achieve that kind of track record. Even someone like Ti West isn't managing to take things to that kind of level.

 

Ridley Scott has produced a lot of films that I would consider to be "good films" in the intervening years too. Like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. I actually liked Body of Lies which is more recent than American Gangster although I agree that American Gangster is one of his absolute best works of recent times. I actually really liked "A good Year" too which is a bit of an unusual and not very commercial film in a way but is worth checking out.

 

Making good films is hard enough to do in itself. I mean just good, not anything life changing. It's a real achievement.

 

I actually think Ridley Scott is very much trying at the moment. I think he is very aware that he is getting on a bit and is keen to produce a lot more work in the remaining time and there is something to be said for having a large body of work too, especially if a significant part of it is good.

 

Anyway Ridley Scott gets my vote. Keep at it Ridley!

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Ya know, I look at Spielberg and Scorsese, two guys who's careers paralleled Ridley's and those to guys have made amazing films for their entire career. Sure, both of them had some films that weren't quite up to par of their absolute best, but not a single film anywhere near the lows of Ridley Scott. I guess my point is, of Spielberg and Scorsese can still make great stuff, there really isn't any excuse for guys like Scott and Howard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tye is right about Scott. Hell, he said on the latest Hollywood Reporter roundtable that there was no difficulty on The Martian, that it was basically easy (he used the word), and yeah, he keeps churning those out, I love Prometheus but it's been divisive to say the least, The Counselor is horrible, still haven't seen Exodus but it's been trashed. He's very hit and miss and I think he's just effective enough and visual enough (see him talking how he would draw the storyboards for Prometheus every morning going to set, and essentially it was all there).

 

Scott is just more miss lately than hit, Scorsese is putting out some of his best films lately imo, Silence will probably be a knockout, Howard has been very hit and miss. Spielberg and Scorsese are in another category entirely I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

Making good films is hard enough to do in itself. I mean just good, not anything life changing. It's a real achievement.

 

I think this point is getting lost in the conversation. Making a good movie is really hard. Forget the performances, cinematography and VFX. Writing a good script is really hard. Even a master filmmaker like Ridley Scott is capable of making a less than good movie, but not because he doesn't care, but because MAKING A GOOD MOVIE IS REALLY, REALLY, HARD.

 

Tyler, you seem to think all filmmakers are equal in capability, therefore framing them in two categories; caring filmmaker = good, and not caring filmmaker = bad. That's just not how filmmaking works. Making a movie requires thousands of decisions simply based on your personal instinct, but we're all different, and unfortunately human beings are a flawed group and are quite capable of making wrong decisions now and again. That certainly doesn't mean they don't care. Frances Ford Coppola will probably be the first to tell you his later career wasn't all he hoped it to be, but watch any interview with him about any of his latest movies and there's no doubt he cares. Trouble is, MAKING A GOOD MOVIE IS REALLY HARD. MAKING A GOOD MOVIE IS... you get the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Whether or not "The Counselor" turned out well, the fact is that a very bleak, even unpleasant, original script by Cormac McCarthy is not something that a director who only is looking to make a dollar picks as a sure-fire commercial project. If Scott had decided to make "Rush Hour 7", yes, I think most of us would be wondering if he had a house loan to pay-off.

 

Same goes for Ron Howard deciding to adapt Nathaniel Philbrick's history book into a movie -- obviously there had to be some commercial prospects or else it would have never gotten green-lit, but it is not the sort of project that a commercial hack who doesn't care picks when all he is interested in is a paycheck. Audiences aren't screaming to Hollywood to make more tales about cannibalism at sea.

 

And George Miller didn't spend over a decade preparing to shoot "Mad Max: Fury Road" and then spending months in the Namibia desert because all he was interested in was a paycheck either. There are easier ways to make money!

 

Life and art isn't all black and white, that either you are a great commercial artist who makes technically flawless movies OR you are a commercial hack who doesn't care and just wants a paycheck. There are a LOT of variations in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Joel and Ethan coen, James Cameron, Alfonso Cuarón, Alejandro Iñárritu, David Fincher... these guys have figured it out.

 

But I get it. There are so many moving pieces, getting everything to line up and hit a home run every time you go to bat, is nearly impossible. In order to get that great cast, crew and screenplay, you have to be passionate about the film you're making and understand what makes a truly great film. You can't just be a "director for hire" which is what Scott and Howard have been for so many years. Those guys who just take on other people's projects or read a good book and think it can be made into a great movie. Guys like Spielberg have gotten away with it many times, but only because he gets the best opportunities. When he comes calling, people jump at the opportunity and I'm sure it's the same with Scott and Howard. Yet, for some odd reason, these two guys simply can't get their act together.

 

I know it's not a talent issue, Scott and Howard absolutely have the same skills (proven time and time again) as anyone else on that list above. Yet, their movies are in many cases, laking that illusive soul which makes a truly great product.

 

Guys like Coppola have other issues, maybe too much passion and not enough common sense? Balancing those things is very challenging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

...Scorsese is putting out some of his best films lately imo, Silence will probably be a knockout, Howard has been very hit and miss. Spielberg and Scorsese are in another category entirely I believe.

 

Scorsese's work is what made me want to study film. So, speaking as huge Scorsese fan, I feel his last great film was The Age of Innocence back in 1993. He still turns out good work, but I feel his best work is behind him. Spielberg continued to make engaging films throughout the 2000s, but even he is reaching his limit...in my opinion.

 

But that's the whole point. These are all personal opinions, nothing more. People seem to be losing sight of that, especially in this thread, and treating other people's views as though they are gospel.

 

At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to believe what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Coming back to the original theme of the post, I watched The Hateful 8 today and I think it was a very entertaining movie.

A tad long but I guess I felt that way because I was really tired.

 

Have a good day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where it is true that lower-lumen DLP projectors in dark rooms, have better blacks then high-output theater projectors... it is NOT true that digital projection in the cinema comes even close to that of film... because it doesn't. Before you go on a rant about technical specs of the projectors, let me first start by saying that DCP's have only 12 bits worth of data per frame, where film is 32bit equivalent. Lets say the DLP mirror only moves 20 degree's between full black and full white. The black area itself would constitute around 2 - 5 degree's of movement. There is NO WAY... neh, it's IMPOSSIBLE for DLP technology to have enough detail in that little bit of movement.

What laser projection (Dolby Vision/IMAX) does deliver is noise-free, pitch black. However, the dynamic's necessary to produce all the tones of black from pitch black to lets say Sam Jackson's face, don't exist! What you get instead are STEPS in the blacks. You don't notice this phenomena until you see it back to back with a film print. The 12 bit source material literally doesn't have enough information, so it literally doesn't reproduce the fine details you see on the film print. To the untrained eye, you'd just assume that those black areas look really good. However, you're actually missing a substantial amount of data, not just from the 12 bit source, but also from the lack of the DLP imager being able to reproduce it.

 

UHD BD is currently only an 8 bit 4:2:0 format, so it will look like utter crap compared to the film print.

 

It's unfortunate that REAL photochemical film prints have been lost for over a decade. Most film prints from 2000 and on were DI, which means most of them were only made from 2k sources and at 12 bit color space. So comparing a standard film print that you MAY remember from a few years ago, is nearly impossible. Hateful Eight was done photochemically, so it retains all the dynamic range DI prints lack. Interstellar was done photochemically as well, but special effect shots were rendered at 24 bit and 8k, so the scan-back to 70mm prints was the highest quality ever done for a standard theatrical release. Those two films (Hateful Eight and Interstellar) are the only films done this old fashion way recently. So if you really wish to compare film to digital, you'd have to see a 70mm print of BOTH movies and watch it digital as well. I've actually done that with Interstellar and wasn't at all impressed with the 4k presentation. It didn't have NEARLY the dynamic range of the film print. Hey, what can you do with only 12 bits of data!

 

It's the old adage; just because it's new, doesn't make it better!

 

1. Dolby Vision projectors are not regular DLPs. They are bright and they have lower blacks than any film print. Film prints have at best an On-Off contrast of in the 10000:1 to 30000:1 range. Dolby Vision has above 100000:1.

2. Film does not have 32 bit resolution at all. Unless you add RGB/CMY together. Then digital projection has 36 bit. Show me the tech reference which shows film has 32 bits. That would be an insane dynamic range well well beyond the best digital audio. Ridiculous claim!

3. So where did you compare the shadow detail of the same film on Dolby Vision DLP and 70mm? Right, you did not. Interstellar was not shown on Dolby Vision.

4. UHD BD is not 8 bit but 10 bit 4:2:0. Utter crap compared to a film print? Maybe in tĥe fantasy land you seem to live in. While a 70mm print from 65mm OCN has the upper hand the difference is not nearly a big as you claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film doesn't have bits at all, nor pixels.

 

Of course. Nonetheless there is a digital equivalent with a resolution in bits and pixels that can represent analogue film digitally to a degree that is undistinguishable to the human visual system from the film original. Also proper distinction between the digital source and the projection of it is necessary since if an image is lacking in quality the cause can be the source, the projection or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Of course. Nonetheless there is a digital equivalent with a resolution in bits and pixels that can represent analogue film digitally to a degree that is undistinguishable to the human visual system from the film original. Also proper distinction between the digital source and the projection of it is necessary since if an image is lacking in quality the cause can be the source, the projection or both.

 

How do we know that? Have some tests been performed? Do you have a link?

It seems unlikely given the poor state of digital projection right now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I haven't seen Dolby Vision projection yet but someone who has told me that the blacks were as black as the screen masking, which is as good as a 35mm print if not better. I remember an old interview with David Fincher where he talked about using ENR processing for his prints because he got tired of not getting blacks as black as the screen masking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yea David, Dolby Vision has a "lamp off" black. I assume they can adjust the lumens of the laser lamp source based on the image, that's how they generate the blacks. The funny thing is, the little Dolby Demo that they show before the feature, looked like crap. I mean 2k, aliased all to crap and lots of compression/low bit depth noise. The moment the demo went away, the projectors black level went back up to normal for the trailers and feature. So yes, the projector using the Dolby Vision demo has great blacks. The actual movie itself, had normal digital cinema blacks. Plus, I wasn't impressed at all with the flatness of the image.

 

In contrast, IMAX laser projection had NONE of those issues. It's not only crisp, but it has beautiful deep black levels throughout the content. I never saw a single aliasing or compression artifact in any of the IMAX laser presentations I've seen. Unfortunately, IMAX hasn't been able to figure out a higher resolution distribution format. They claim there isn't a provision for it as of yet, but I think that's just an excuse because getting 8k content is ultra expensive. When the price goes down and IMAX finally has 8k at the theaters with a complete 8k workflow from scanning through projection, it will be amazing. Until then, IMAX laser is the best digital presentation, but it's still lacking the depth of 5/70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to seeing Dolby Vision in cinemas because I saw a demo of Dolby Vision on screens last year and was blown away by the improvement which was just night and day. I really feel digital cinema needs this kind of technology, I've been really unimpressed by the state of digital cinema projection which doesn't seem that much better than when I was working with DV cameras in 2004 or something crazy like that. I thought it was okay back then for projecting video at festivals and the like but for this to be the only cinema experience on offer these days is a really sad state of affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How do we know that? Have some tests been performed? Do you have a link?

It seems unlikely given the poor state of digital projection right now.

 

Know what? Regular cinema DLP projection is certainly not indistinguishable from film projection. It's more stable but has poorer black levels for sure than a good print projection. So the quality bottleneck is the digital projector, and then the 2K resolution for 35mm which is not enough, a source issue. Or did you mean how we know there is a digital equivalent that looks the same as the analogue original? Mathematics says so (sampling theorem). What exact parameters are needed is an ongoing discussion, though.

I have seen the latest "Mission Impossible" in Dolby Vision. The quality bottleneck was not the projector but the source! The 2K simply did not cut it on that big screen sitting rather close. 4K was needed. And even more would have been beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea David, Dolby Vision has a "lamp off" black. I assume they can adjust the lumens of the laser lamp source based on the image, that's how they generate the blacks.

 

The black is achieved with dual modulation, 2 mirrors, one after the other. Manipulating lamp output would affect white the same as black and limit dynamic range in the same frame. Not optimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The black is achieved with dual modulation, 2 mirrors, one after the other. Manipulating lamp output would affect white the same as black and limit dynamic range in the same frame. Not optimal.

Hmm... so why couldn't you use that trick on standard lamp projectors?

 

Also, all the mirrors do is reflect the light, so how does adding more mirrors achieve this?

 

I'd love to learn more about it, but there don't seem to be very many technical documents around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... so why couldn't you use that trick on standard lamp projectors?

 

Also, all the mirrors do is reflect the light, so how does adding more mirrors achieve this?

 

I'd love to learn more about it, but there don't seem to be very many technical documents around.

 

Standard meaning other DLPs? It can be done with any DLP but for now it's a Dolby/Christie development, very expensive and limited for their own use. Longer term it might trickle down to other brands and even DLPs for home cinema. And it could also be done with non DLP technology (DILA, SXRD). JVC has less need of it since they achieve 40000:1 to over 100000:1 without dual modulation in their DILA 3 chip home cinema models.

The first mirror modulates the amount of light falling on the second mirror on a pixel basis. The second modulates as usual. Multiplicative effect for contrast is the result. Technical details are hard to come by since it's their business secret how to do it exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know what? Regular cinema DLP projection is certainly not indistinguishable from film projection. It's more stable but has poorer black levels for sure than a good print projection. So the quality bottleneck is the digital projector, and then the 2K resolution for 35mm which is not enough, a source issue. Or did you mean how we know there is a digital equivalent that looks the same as the analogue original? Mathematics says so (sampling theorem). What exact parameters are needed is an ongoing discussion, though.

I have seen the latest "Mission Impossible" in Dolby Vision. The quality bottleneck was not the projector but the source! The 2K simply did not cut it on that big screen sitting rather close. 4K was needed. And even more would have been beneficial.

 

Are you suggesting that either (or both) 35mm camera negative or 35mm print film are only 2K of information? If so, I would very very very much beg to differ. Even most not on the film origination/projection bandwagon will give 35mm film at least 3K, but most at or near 4K. In camera negative, there begins to be noise in the form of film grain that may distract from the image resolution or quality... But surely it resolves more lines than 2K. Print films are even better as the grain is super-super fine and the film super-super low speed. If you take a 4K noise-free digital source and correctly print it to 35mm print film you will not loose any information and likely will add very little if any "noise" from grain structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...