Hateful Eight Experience

[Tyler Purcell]

Sorry for your problems Bill. I'm part of the film-tech forum where they discuss theatrical projection and there have been quite a bit of issues popping up in various theaters. Clearly your problem was a very easy fix and it's so frustrating when a projectionist doesn't give a poop.

 

I agree that it was a bit pre-mature for Quentin and co to try this unusual system. However, the bugs have to be worked out at some point, so why not do them now?

[Tyler Purcell]

Nolan is shooting on 65 mm according to the press release, no 35 mm. IMDB is not to be trusted this early. And not a lot of BvS is shot on 65 mm, just select sequences. I don't see though how it constitutes nonsense, just because it's a superhero film does not mean it's automatically crap. Pinocchio is not happening, it's been reported a while ago.

Interesting, I just found the press release. I'd honestly assume the press is wrong about this one. Lets wait until we see production photo's and notice what equipment they're using. I personally think he'll pull an 'Interstellar' and shoot most of it on IMAX 15/70 and 35mm anamorphic (according to IMDB), forcing everyone to pull projectors back out again. Obviously, I hope he will do 65 for the whole project, but I frankly don't see that happening if it's all being shot in Europe. It's exciting if it is! :)

 

I had forgotten about PT pulling out of Pinocchio, that was earlier this year. :(

[Manu Delpech]

Sorry Bill, this is disconcerting to say the least, I know the screen at my showing was set for scope, but there was no problem and it was plenty big. I think the projections going wrong are what most will remember rather than all the ones going right. Like I told Tyler, the whole thing is a huge bet, there's no way on earth there wasn't going to be any problems. The Weinstein Company and other people involved should have been more thorough in their approach even though I guess they can't check every single location. As long as it lays the path for Chris Nolan and maybe others, it's all good.

[Jay Young]

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.

[Freya Black]

Just thought I would throw this out there but a lot of these places are big cinemas that have "upgraded" to digital and are very happy with the decision. As suggested in the previous post it allows them to not employ projectionists and to give the manager power and responsibility over the projection systems. The managers are probably quite happy with this situation.

 

The cinemas are only going to this trouble because they want to show the Tarrantino movie and get the revenue.

They might even be quite hostile to the projection system and not keen to see it do well which may account for some of the poor screenings.

 

Then again, maybe not.

Right I'm off to a dark room with my tin foil hat... be back later.

 

Freya

[Manu Delpech]

Wanna bet some would go as far as to ruin the screening on purpose? ^^

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Hey Bill, give Village East another try in their large auditorium. The presentation there was excellent.

[Wiliam Cardoza]

- I teared up ;) watching the intro credits an epic build up with the music, the landscape shots and the overture before that.

- Saw it Sunday in San Jose, CA apparently a flawless showing,

- The horses tracking shot, vivid gorgeous!

- There was a landscape shot from the window of the cabin that pans indoors: it seemed to have violet tonalities (if i'm not mistaken by the color, maybe it was late afternoon?) awesome.

 

There where a couple scenes that seemed a little bit too "talky" but it generally moved along and in retrospect felt like the dialogue made for good pacing building up to the next moment of tension. At first I was disappointed by the indoor lighting scheme but then I forgot about it and figured a choice was made to go "more stylized" to give it more of a fantastical candy gloss, stage-play-like...

 

After "Django" I was disappointed that Tarantino was making another "Western" ... I think another writer / director might have shot a ton of locations "show and not tell" etc. so I thought it was a refreshing to not have to see a kind of "Tombstone" like typical treatment.

 

Loved the ending.

[Bill DiPietra]

Hey Bill, give Village East another try in their large auditorium. The presentation there was excellent.

 

I'm sure it was. That's the only auditorium it should have played in.

[Bill DiPietra]

Check this out. The wide digital release has been moved up to tomorrow.

[Manu Delpech]

Mmmmmm, I see it as throwing in the towel, they've been moving around the date all the time. On one hand, the roadshow version made a ton of dough, on the other hand, there have been quite a few f*** ups.

[Bill DiPietra]

Mmmmmm, I see it as throwing in the towel, they've been moving around the date all the time. On one hand, the roadshow version made a ton of dough, on the other hand, there have been quite a few f*** ups.

 

Obviously, it's one of the situations where it's all a matter of who you talk to.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just saw the 70mm presentation at the Landmark on Pico today, after a 15 minute delay due to a fire alarm being pulled.

 

The image was sharp from end to end, so no real problem with their anamorphic lens though after the intermission, the image seemed slightly crooked as if the lens wasn't quite rotated correctly but that might have been the shot itself, a dolly move outside from the front door porch area to the side of the house.

 

The print already has some wear and tear, but minor, some dirt, dust, and a small scratch now & then. Certainly could not be mistaken for digital projection. The number one thing that hits you in the image is not so much the resolution as it is the black levels of a photochemical print, deep, velvet blacks. Grain is very fine even with the 500T footage. Close-ups looked gorgeous.

 

Interesting to compare with "The Revenant" experience at the same theater yesterday (different screen, both big) -- I believe it was a 4K presentation. Technically flawless image, and considering that maybe 87% was shot on the regular Alexa, only 13% on the Alexa 65 if the AC article is correct, that says a lot about the quality of the Alexa image, though I think you can still feel the extra quality of the 65mm landscape shots in there (no 65mm film ended up in the final cut). What you notice though compared to "The Hateful Eight" is the difference in contrast and saturation, "The Revenant" has a more "open shadows" look with softer colors. I also felt that perhaps I was sensing some extra sharpening applied to the image at times, but that was also probably the result of shooting high contrast edges like dead tree limbs against a bright sky and snow. Or maybe it was a 4K digital projector effect.

[David Mullen ASC]

As movies, I think they are both great achievements but are both flawed -- "The Revenant" was a shoot on the scale of "Lawrence of Arabia" in some ways in terms of physical difficulty, and both have great landscape photography, but "Lawrence" also had WIT in the dialogue of Robert Bolt performed by actors like Peter O'Toole and Alec Guinness. I know such dialogue would have been out of place in the mouths of these characters, and what dialogue we heard here was very naturalistic, but a tiny bit more humor wouldn't have hurt. As far as western survivalist tales go, I enjoy Clint Eastwood movies more, or "Jeremiah Johnson".

 

Whereas "The Hateful Eight" was not lacking in wit, but the problem is that you assemble a great cast of characters with great dialogue... but too many are gone soon after the halfway point, so the movie gets less and less interesting as you make it to the end, which is sort of a structural problem that Tarantino attempts to address with the flashback scene near the end.

 

As far as the 70mm presentation, I wish the theater could have made some makeshift screen masking for the bottom of the screen rather than let the projector gate create the bottom frame line, but I guess the theater doesn't plan on showing many more 2.76 : 1 movies in the future (there was some minor cropping on the sides, so what I saw was more like 2.6 : 1.) There was also some mild shutter strobing that you could see on very white scenes.

 

As far as the sharpness, it was nice but clearly the optical artifacts were intentional, otherwise you might as well shoot in spherical 65mm. The period lenses lent a little bit of diffusion and texture to the image. Compare this to the spherical photography of "The Revenant", with no anamorphic photography creating odd bokeh in low-light scenes, and no flaring to speak of, even with the sun in half the shots it seemed.

[Jay Young]

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.

[Giray Izcan]

I watched it at ArcLight in Hollywood. I don't remember having those problems that you just described. I thought the film was rather dull, but looked great. Although some master shots in the cabin were a tad soft, considering it was shot on 65mm film. I don't know i thought it'd resolve more details in those master shots since it's a larger format. Still though, little stuff like that did not ruin my experience about the film - or should I say its cinematography more than the story.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Giray Izcan

[JD Hartman]

Saw the 70mm print today at the AMC24 in Hamilton, NJ. Large auditorium, great sound, good seats, theater almost filled to capacity. Great experience, very enjoyable, only saw about 3 seconds of scratches in the print. Theater had an actual projectionist that was hired for the film screening.

[David Cunningham]

The Boston Experience

 

 

I have to say. Overall, my experience with the Hateful Eight has been fantastic. Both the Somerville Theater in Somerville, MA (just outside Boston) and the Coolidge Corner Theater in Brookline, MA (basically down town Boston) were great.

 

However, the Coolidge showing was far superior. Everything was pretty much perfect with the projection. The outdoor scenes and indoor scenes all look just like I was expecting and were stunning. I was most moved by the close-ups of the 6-team horses and carriages throughout the movie as well as the one scene that begins outside looking at the barn and without cutting moves to a table inside and then again without cutting moves to the bar. Amazing stuff!

 

The nice and shallow depth of field in addition to the wide format made for a fantastic setting inside the cabin. Just fantastic cinematography. The only two issues I had with this were the excessive use of focus changes during the guitar/coffee scene and their special effect used to deal with the depth of field "problem" with Jackson on the Bed and the Sherrif in the foreground. The guitar scene, although I know what they were trying to do, overused the idea of changing focus. Especially with the distortion of the anamorphic a it was just too distracting. Just doing it 2 or 3 times total would have been ok... But they did it a bunch. The foreground/background issue where they needed SLJ to be in focus on the bed and the Sherrif in the foreground just looked weird. I don't know how they did it, but the background directly behind the Sherrif being out of focus but suddenly being in focus on the right side of the screen was just weird. Most probably didn't notice it.... But I was there for the format and it was distracting and annoying.

 

Overall, very pleased with the movie. It met all my expectations. Too violent as a whole for my taste, but I knew it was a Tarantino movie. So, I knew what I was getting into.

 

Now, as far as the theaters. I've had an ongoing issue with the film projections at the Somerville theater where they try to turn their lamps up too high to "bring more detail out of the shadows." But, what happens is it causes the bright scenes like the bright outdoor snow scenes to actually flicker badly and the indoor scenes to have blacks that aren't deep but almost gray. It was rather disappointing. I wasn't sure if I was just being too picky. I had the same problem when they showed Interstellar. So, I went and watched the showing at the Coolidge down the street and it was 100x better. The blacks were black and the whites were nearly flicker free. Beautiful!

 

Both locations had lateral frame movement that I assume was just old/warn projectors so the film floated in the gate a bit. The Somerville projectors also had some vertical jitter... It wasn't quite registering right. It was only distracting on the static scenes.

 

All in all... It was great! But go see it at the Coolidge.

[David Mullen ASC]

I saw "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" a second time today, because I wanted to see it in 2D (saw it in 3D IMAX before)...

 

Anyway, as I was leaving, the next room over was playing "The Hateful Eight" in digital projection so I watched a few minutes of an early scene in the stagecoach ride. It was interesting to compare with the 70mm projection I saw the day before yesterday -- I felt that the detail and resolution in the image was pretty close, and certainly you could see the benefits in originating in 65mm film, but the artifacts like gate weave, jitter, dirt, dust, and scratches were completely absent, so was the shutter strobing on the white areas. The image was letterboxed equally top & bottom, not projected to the top of the screen mask with the projector gate providing the bottom frame as with the 70mm presentation. What was most noticeable to me though was that the black levels in the digital presentation couldn't hold a candle to the 70mm print I saw, and the deep blacks gave the snowy images more depth, more dimension. But otherwise, the digital presentation was more technically flawless.

[Tyler Purcell]

But the 70mm projection was still better... that's been the take everyone has made who's done the comparison. I don't dare compare because there is no way I'd appreciate the digital version compared to the DGA 70mm screening which was in my opinion superior to digital in every way since the print was brand new.

 

It really comes down to the fact we're using 50+ year old projectors and 80+ year old designs. Heck, most digital theaters are using projectors from a few years ago and most of them still look like crap compared to the 85 year old 70mm format. I mean seriously, 15/70 blows the doors off anything digital, mostly because they have a far superior projection system. Registration pin's, film cleaning systems and more sophisticated film movement/guide solutions, have made IMAX superior and most of that technology would work fine in a vertical 5/70 environment, it's just that nobody cares, so nobody spends the money. Platter systems ruin prints because they're poorly designed and film handlers don't make the necessary changes to make them work. Good example of this is the destroyed print of 'Force Awakens' at the Vista, looks like it was dragged on the floor a week after it's initial release.

 

So yes, we can complain about dirt, dust, scratches and jitter, but those are not 'inherent' in the format, like the muddy blacks and flatness of digital projection which IS inherent in the format.

 

We can fix film projection, it's not complicated, it just requires money and a few people who care.

 

What ceases to amaze me is how good Arclight Cinema's does with film prints. Yet, nobody else who uses platter systems gets close. What gives? This isn't rocket science!!!!

[David Mullen ASC]

The only two issues I had with this were the excessive use of focus changes during the guitar/coffee scene and their special effect used to deal with the depth of field "problem" with Jackson on the Bed and the Sherrif in the foreground. The guitar scene, although I know what they were trying to do, overused the idea of changing focus. Especially with the distortion of the anamorphic a it was just too distracting. Just doing it 2 or 3 times total would have been ok... But they did it a bunch. The foreground/background issue where they needed SLJ to be in focus on the bed and the Sherrif in the foreground just looked weird. I don't know how they did it, but the background directly behind the Sherrif being out of focus but suddenly being in focus on the right side of the screen was just weird. Most probably didn't notice it.... But I was there for the format and it was distracting and annoying.

 

If you aren't going to do a lot of cutting and want to play a dialogue scene out in fewer shots, then when and how to rack focus, when to leave something soft and for how long, whether to use faux deep-focus tricks all become an issue. There are no good answers -- I noticed in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" a few scenes where they "ping-ponged" the focus a few too many times, i.e. rack-focus to someone in the background for their line, rack-focus to the near person for their response, rack-focus back to the farther person for their next line, they leave frame, then rack-focus back to the foreground person left in the frame. With the breathing in anamorphic, all of this becomes distracting. But you also have to ask yourself if the alternatives are any better -- chop up the shot into coverage, let one person be out-of-focus the whole time, use a split-diopter or tilt-focus lens to hold both in focus, etc.

 

There are a couple of split-diopter shots in "The Hateful Eight" for that reason. They don't bother me, I think they are saved for certain moments which makes them "mark" the scene or shot as being significant. It's not like the 70+ split-diopter shots in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" which were used as a motif to make the movie in general seem deep-focus. Sometimes it worked well because it was so seamless and other times it stands out.

 

Here is works better because the split is hidden in the black grey wall:

 

Here is works less well because there is nothing to hide the split:

 

Since a split-dioter is such a simple piece of technology, a diopter cut in half, there is no reason why they shouldn't date back to the dawn of cinema but I can't find any examples before the late 1950's at the height of widescreen -- it seems that Nicholas Ray was one of the first to use them, as in "King of Kings":

 

 

Also, Anthony Mann used them for one or two shots in "El Cid":

 

[cole t parzenn]

There are no good answers -- I noticed in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" a few scenes where they "ping-ponged" the focus a few too many times, i.e. rack-focus to someone in the background for their line, rack-focus to the near person for their response, rack-focus back to the farther person for their next line, they leave frame, then rack-focus back to the foreground person left in the frame.

 

Gah! What I really hate is when focus starts on the far actor, so that the near actor is on the edge of acceptable focus and you don't notice that they're soft until they're racked to, after which focus becomes ridiculously distracting. Either put everyone in focus or open up enough for proper separation! /rant, carry on...

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't really agree with the notion that an image either has to be deep focus or shallow focus, but can't be in-between. If there is an obvious point of focus, I'm not bothered if the surroundings are just slightly soft, it happens all the time with day exterior photography. Look at "Touch of Evil", there is a lot of deep staging where the focus doesn't hold.

 

The thing is that if the foreground person is only slightly soft, then just leave the focus on the background person, or leave it on whoever is the more important character, or only rack once.

[cole t parzenn]

Yeah, it's thoughtless racking that gets to me.

[David Cunningham]

I saw "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" a second time today, because I wanted to see it in 2D (saw it in 3D IMAX before)...

 

Anyway, as I was leaving, the next room over was playing "The Hateful Eight" in digital projection so I watched a few minutes of an early scene in the stagecoach ride. It was interesting to compare with the 70mm projection I saw the day before yesterday -- I felt that the detail and resolution in the image was pretty close, and certainly you could see the benefits in originating in 65mm film, but the artifacts like gate weave, jitter, dirt, dust, and scratches were completely absent, so was the shutter strobing on the white areas. The image was letterboxed equally top & bottom, not projected to the top of the screen mask with the projector gate providing the bottom frame as with the 70mm presentation. What was most noticeable to me though was that the black levels in the digital presentation couldn't hold a candle to the 70mm print I saw, and the deep blacks gave the snowy images more depth, more dimension. But otherwise, the digital presentation was more technically flawless.

I'm going to see Star Wars again tomorrow so I can pay more attention to all the fine details of both cinematography and story line since now I don't have to worry about following the story as a whole.

 

I would imagine that the 4K digital projection would be somewhat close in quality. I still think a correctly projected 70mm print would be far superior especially for those outdoor scenes with the mountains and trees in the distance. Even after the many generations to get to print that 70mm print should be in the 6-8K range at least if not higher.

 

Interesting about the "mask". I did not notice anything odd about the mask in either 70mm projections I saw at two different theaters. It looked like a gate mask top and bottom to me. Perhaps I'm wrong. Also, the second presentation I saw had virtually no dust, scratches or jitter. Only the lateral gate weave was present... But still less than the first showing.

 

Although I didn't see the digital version, I have no doubt that the blacks and highlight details and the contrast of the two was likely far superior in the 70mm print.... Even with the best new digital projectors.