|
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Tarantino Gets 50 70mm Projectors For The Hateful Eight
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 09-22-2015 06:46 AM
From my friend over at MicroIndie Cinema:
quote: How Quentin Tarantino Resurrected Ultra Panavision 70 for 'The Hateful Eight' Roadshow
By Bill Desowitz | Thompson on Hollywood August 28, 2015 at 10:00AM
Oscar-winning cinematographer Robert Richardson digs into the technical nitty-gritty of the large-format anamorphic film process that hasn't been used in nearly 50 years.
The comeback of motion picture film will literally get its biggest boost yet with the Ultra Panavision 70 release of celluloid defender Quentin Tarantino's post-Civil War Western "The Hateful Eight."
Shot on 65mm film with classic Panavision lenses in the widest aspect ratio of 2.76:1, this marks the first anamorphic 70mm theatrical release in nearly 50 years. The two-week roadshow engagement (they're aiming for 100 theaters with the Cinerama Dome in contention for LA, of course) would be the best holiday gift for cinephiles.
"The Hateful Eight" will also pit three-time Oscar-winning cinematographer Robert Richardson ("Hugo," "The Aviator," "JFK") in a shoot-out with Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki, who's going for a third Oscar in a row for his own frozen wilderness adventure, "The Revenant," from "Birdman" director Alejandro G. Iñárritu. (Both films are racing to the editorial finish line for a Christmas Day release.)
Richardson proclaimed that Ultra Panavision 70 more than reinforces the notion that film can coexist with digital: it provides such unparalleled scope, resolution and beauty that everyone should be using it. "When we saw Sam Jackson in a closeup -- or anyone -- it just aided the skin. It's remarkable. We never used diffusion, the only filters we ever did were outside. It was stunning."
Feeding off "Stagecoach," "The Desperate Hours" and "And Then There Were None," Tarantino's ninth film throws eight travelers together a decade after the Civil War in Wyoming. But a bitter snowstorm prevents them from getting to Red Rock, where bounty hunter John Ruth (Kurt Russell) intends to bring feral-like fugitive Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to justice. The ensemble also includes Walton Goggins, Demian Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen and Bruce Dern.
Tarantino touted seven minutes of footage at Comic-Con through the raging blizzard and then inside a stagecoach stop just outside Red Rock called Minnie's Haberdashery (which we reported). According to Dern, "He has the greatest attention to detail on a set as any director who ever lived, his only rival would be Luchino Visconti. He creates an atmosphere for all of us not to do our greatest work necessarily, but to get better."
The last Ultra Panavision 70 release was "Khartoum" (1966), the biopic with Charlton Heston as British Gen. Charles Gordon. The list also includes "Ben-Hur," "Mutiny on the Bounty," "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," "The Fall of the Roman Empire," "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and "The Battle of the Bulge."
In fact, Panavision took Tarantino into a screening room and surprised him with the chariot race from "Ben-Hur," starting with the sides at the normal width and then spread out to expose the full frame -- and the film nerd was totally hooked on Ultra Panavision 70.
But this all began accidentally: "We went in thinking we were going to shoot standard format for 65mm and one day I was with Gregor Tavenner, my first camera assistant, and Dan Sasaki [Panavision VP of optical engineering] was showing us standard Panavision lenses for 65mm and while looking at them, I slipped behind the curtain and saw this shelf filled with odd-shaped lenses [triangular with prisms]. They were Ultra Panavision lenses," Richardson said.
Sasaki put the lenses up on the projector and Richardson was hooked. Even before testing the lenses, Panavision threw all its weight behind the project, and Kodak and the FotoKem lab were on board as well.
First came testing by Richardson in freezing temperatures while scouting locations in Telluride, Colorado that would benefit them visually, with great mountain vistas. Panavision had to reconfigure and apply new coatings to 19 lenses for focus-pulling. Panavision also made a 2,000-foot magazine for the film cameras to accommodate Tarantino's penchant for long takes. The camera's limit fell just under that length, yet this was still considerably longer than the normal 1,000-ft. magazine could handle.
The team brought a very analogue approach to shooting in Telluride (with few blizzards and rare overcast days) and onstage at LA's Red Studios, where they lowered the temperature to 30 degrees. They screened dailies in 70mm, with no digital intermediate, and the film is being color-timed photochemically, the old-school way, by FotoKem.
Theaters will be retrofitted with anamorphic lenses for 70mm projectors. Yes, there will be a digital release from TWC on January 8, 2016, which will continue to show the film in 70mm as well.
With two cameras at his disposal, and Tarantino operating a couple of shots himself, Richardson had to get used to certain anomalies: slight color alterations when shooting actors' faces after switching lenses — ranging from the triangular ones that provide a bronze look to more user-friendly cylindrical shapes — or odd flaring caused by light bouncing indirectly off the prism when shooting two characters in front of a fireplace.
"The most complex thing for me was that the set was primarily this one building where they arrive in this stagecoach," Richardson explained. "But if you shoot a medium shot with the lenses, anywhere you're seeing two-thirds or more of the room, depending on where the character is, because it's such a wide frame. You're lighting the entire set and other characters are constantly in your frame. Quentin first looked at 'Mad, Mad World'. Part of what happened in that film is that you had a medium shot with all the characters in the frame. It was an adjustment for all of us."
Indoors were lit warm and exteriors cool. Sasaki also altered the lenses for sharpness in closer shots (within three feet). "Quentin likes to shoot a lot of masters because his films are dialogue-driven. We worked with all primes. He accepted what 65mm allowed him. There are more characters in the frame -- at least four in one shot -- and he could see the quality of the image and quick adjustments could be made for makeup and hair [as a result of the 70mm dailies]. We all knew we had limitations and there would be breakdowns with the 65mm camera because they're not used often, but overall there very few problems with the equipment," Richardson said.
Because of the film's claustrophobic, lowly lit nature, however, the use of Ultra Panavision was actually counter-intuitive. But Tarantino wasn't about to turn down this rare historical opportunity. In a clever game of hide-and-seek, he used the frame to deliberately show more or less when he wanted to obscure crucial character information.
"There's a great deal of interior landscape available and the actors loved it. Also, I think they enjoyed the visual feast that was given to them in terms of their own faces," said Richardson, who admitted, though, that throwback photochemical color timing has been frightening.
"I'd become reliant on a digital intermediate for fixing things in post and you can let certain things go. For example, you realize that the backgrounds are blown out but you don't want to take the time to put a hard gel up. You know you can rescue that with the window and tracking, or if your weather doesn't quite match, it's easier to work a look between sunny and overcast.
"In this particular case, there was no fixing: what you shoot is what you get. You're not going in to fix a wall if you didn't put enough light on it; if you're overexposed on that side with sun, you're gonna have sun. There's nothing you can do. So Quentin worked very hard in collaboration in trying to make sure the weather conditions were what he wanted for sequences. And he helped me a great deal in that way. Ordinarily, he says to me, 'If they're looking at your work, they're not listening to my words.' He's going to go for the best performance regardless of the condition of the light."
But not when it came to this gorgeous look. And this is just the beginning, as Gareth Edwards' "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" is also reportedly being shot with Ultra Panavision 70 lenses.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-24-2015 03:32 AM
Bobby mentioned the deeply curved screen -- was the original spec for UP70 that it was to be presented on a curved screen...I mean really curved, not a that wimpy CinemaScope mild curve?
As for this whole idea of trying to go backward in time to reverse all the changes that have come about in the whole cinema process from camera lens to the screen -- from finding suitable equipment that's no longer manufactured and that's in top working condition (equipment on both ends of the spectrum -- production to presentation), and then needing to reconfigure cinema rooms that have long been modified or fully built NOT to be able to accommodate screens of the size required by the UP70 format (or even SD70), really right down to Paul H.'s "final solution" which may be that you have to go back and build your UP70 format theatre from construction plans of an original UP70 house!
When you look at this list of SOOO many elements working against getting a substantial number of cinemas that can actually play this thing and indeed do it justice, it is really discouraging. It seems like too many theatres will wind up with a patchwork of compromises and "fixes" to accommodate the format only to wind up with a screen not the right size, not the right gain (like silver!!), and an image in some venues for all we know, being shown without the right anamorphic lens by projectionsts not able to master the craft.
Unfortunately the fact that Tarantino has chosen the UP70 format to "resurrect" film as a viable "event" to encourage the use of film and to show off its splendor may actually work against that goal. For all his good intentions, he may have bitten off it just to much more than he can chew -- after all, though he may be able to surround himself with top-draw technical people who can put a visually stunning image on that strip of polyester, he simply isn't going to have the resources to be in every booth applying his meticulous attention to detail that he's noted for to the way his film is presented in those 50 venues. The reality may be that on the presentation end, it may just be too ungainly a project to work -- and by work I mean, that it does the format justice on the screen and probably more importantly, it winds up being profitable for theatre owners as well as producers and investors so they'll want to do it again for other similar, specialty FILM engagements when a director gets the film bug. It has to make economic sense for everyone, especially the exhibitor -- it can't disrupt their business flow if ever it is to become something that will happen more than just this once.
Exhibitors are business men first and only secondly are they....well, secondly they are business men too; only somewhere way down the distant bottom of a long list are they lovers of the photochemical film process as an aesthetic entity that should be preserved for future generations. That's the business of museums and unfortunately museums as they are today are not viable venues for a commercial 70mm theatrical run, UP70 or SD70.
If we put aside that pessimistic laundry list that we can all envision with this project and imagine the best case scenario, it would be that this thing comes off without too many problems, exhibitors make money, the public is enlightened to the beauty of film as a very special way of seeing movies vs. the every day, run-of-the-mill digital presentation and everyone looks forward and gets excited about other directors who in the future decide to do a film treatment for their special projects. And it happens often enough that it no longer presents the daunting challenges we have enumerate in this thread. Imagine all the 70mm installations...it's easy if you try.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-03-2015 09:39 PM
quote: Frank Angel It seems like too many theatres will wind up with a patchwork of compromises and "fixes" to accommodate the format only to wind up with a screen not the right size, not the right gain (like silver!!), and an image in some venues for all we know, being shown without the right anamorphic lens by projectionsts not able to master the craft.
Unfortunately the fact that Tarantino has chosen the UP70 format to "resurrect" film as a viable "event" to encourage the use of film and to show off its splendor may actually work against that goal. For all his good intentions, he may have bitten off it just to much more than he can chew -- after all, though he may be able to surround himself with top-draw technical people who can put a visually stunning image on that strip of polyester, he simply isn't going to have the resources to be in every booth applying his meticulous attention to detail that he's noted for to the way his film is presented in those 50 venues. The reality may be that on the presentation end, it may just be too ungainly a project to work
"Far and Away" was supposed to resurrect 65mm origination in 1992. It didn't because it simply didn't look different on the screen than a well shot 35mm film and the film itself was not well received.
"Baraka" (1993) looked great, but at least in NYC, it didn't play the best venues.
"Hamlet" (1996) looked okay, but wasn't a big film.
"Samsara" (2012) was never presented in 70mm.
"The Master" (2012) looked like crap in 70mm at the Ziegfeld when I saw it.
So I think Tarantino has his work cut out for him, especially since the total image size will be smaller than a regular widescreen 2.39 AR film. Unless the image quality is strikingly better than usual, it may get a "meh" reaction. And even if it does look spectacular, if the film doesn't do great business because it's not a great film, analysts will think the 65mm origination (Ultra-Pan or not) was a waste. Do current film audiences care about westerns, even a Tarantino western? In addition, 50 theaters is nothing. It's not like those 50 theaters are going to be 2000 seat theaters like we had back in the day. At most, those 50 theaters will comprise only 20,000 seats. And in addition, it's going to be competing for screens with "Star Wars VII", "Inferno" and "In the Heart of the Sea".
So even if every showing in every 70mm theatre goes technically perfect, I think the chance of this film resurrecting 65mm origination of any kind is amazingly slim. But he'll be able to go down in film history as making the last 65mm film.
You know what might have made some sense? Installing 70mm projectors in IMAX theatres. At least many of them have really big screens. Or printing the Ultra-Pan image to the 70mm/15 IMAX frame and making this the last 70mm IMAX movie instead of Interstellar.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-12-2015 02:16 PM
And now he's doing a roadshow cut: Variety
quote: Quentin Tarantino Says He Cut a Different Version of ‘The Hateful Eight’ (EXCLUSIVE)
Hateful EightCOURTESY OF THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY OCTOBER 12, 2015 | 12:07PM PT In addition to featuring an overture and an intermission, the limited engagement will include six extra minutes of material.
Kristopher Tapley Co-Awards Editor @kristapley When audiences pay to see the limited roadshow engagement of Quentin Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight” this holiday season, it won’t just be the projection of Ultra Panavision 70mm photography that distinguishes it from multiplex versions released two weeks later. It will be a slightly different — and longer — film overall.
This story first appeared in the October 13, 2015 issue of Variety. Subscribe today. “The roadshow version has an overture and an intermission, and it will be three hours, two minutes,” Tarantino told Variety. “The multiplex version is about six minutes shorter, not counting the intermission time, which is about 12 minutes.”
The two-time Oscar winner was not ordered to truncate the film for wider release. Rather, he liked the idea of the roadshow experience having a little something extra. “Nor did I want to treat the multiplex release like this left-handed version, either,” he said. So he tweaked certain scenes to better suit the separate viewing experiences.
“The 70 is the 70,” he said. “You’ve paid the money. You’ve bought your ticket. So you’re there. I’ve got you. But I actually changed the cutting slightly for a couple of the multiplex scenes because it’s not that. Now it’s on Showtime Extreme. You’re watching it on TV and you just kind of want to watch a movie on your couch. Or you’re at Hot Dog on a Stick and you just want to catch a movie.”
The sequences in question play in “big, long, cool, unblinking takes” in the 70mm version, Tarantino said. “It was awesome in the bigness of 70, but sitting on your couch, maybe it’s not so awesome. So I cut it up a little bit. It’s a little less precious about itself.”
Roadshow experiences are rare these days, but they have been implemented by filmmakers looking to make splashes. Kevin Smith toured his 2011 film “Red State,” four-walling it in theaters across the country at premium prices. In 2008, Steven Soderbergh’s two-part “Che” was presented as a double-feature roadshow in certain markets. Tarantino’s fellow celluloid proponents Paul Thomas Anderson (“The Master”) and Christopher Nolan (“Interstellar”) have released movies in the 70mm format in recent years, but it’s mostly reserved for repertory and retrospective programs.
Panavision retrofitted lenses for cameras during production of “The Hateful Eight” and made 2,000-foot magazines to hold the massive amounts of film. The Weinstein Company, meanwhile, is paying to install projectors in venues across the country. While only 16 70mm prints for “The Master” were struck, and 12 for “Interstellar,” the ambitious plan for the “Hateful Eight” roadshow is to play in 100 theaters.
Tarantino, who revamped the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles last year with a film only directive, said 70mm could be a way to combat ubiquitous digital projection, a development he considers a bridge too far in the steady move away from celluloid.
“I didn’t realize what a lost cause 35mm projection was,” he said. “But what I also didn’t know is how excited everyone was going to be about 70. I think everybody is looking to see how we do in that first two weeks. But that’s also kind of exciting. I’m hoping that ‘Hateful Eight’ does well enough that that becomes, for the filmmakers who care, the new premier way to launch their movie in an exclusive way.”
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|