Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 'Hateful Eight'

This is topic 'Hateful Eight' - not 70 mm. in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=002554

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-17-2016, 04:45 PM:

Since I'm asking about both film and digital I wasn't sure which forum to put this in.

Do the digital and 35 mm versions preserve the full Ultra Panavision aspect ratio or are they reduced to 2.39? If the original a.r what format are they in; is the image letterboxed within a 2.39 DCP or 35 mm anamorphic film frame?

Posted by Michal Matys (Member # 8614) on 01-18-2016, 07:54 AM:

Hi Stephen

I dont know how about 35mm, but in digital it is letterboxed 2.39.

Michal

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-18-2016, 09:08 AM:

I haven't seen the Multiplex version but the Roadshow version was letterboxed to 2.76.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 01-18-2016, 10:00 AM:

Besides the 35mm roadshow and 35mm general release prints that were struck specifically for Tarantino, and are now playing at his New Beverly Theatre in Los Angeles, were any other 35mm prints of either version struck for distribution?

Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 01-18-2016, 10:59 AM:

No 35mm in the UK, and only 1 70mm, apparently

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-18-2016, 11:22 AM:

Thank you gentlemen.

Michal, can you please clarify one point. When you say 'lerrerboxed 2.39' I assume you mean that it was a 2.39 DCP with a 2.76 image letterboxed within it, not that the actual image was 2.39 and this was letterboxed within within a narrower format. The latter seems highly unlikely, but I have seen stranger things in the past.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 01-18-2016, 02:27 PM:

I recently saw digital Hateful Eight, and it was definitely 2.76 (or close to it) letterboxed inside 2.39.

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 01-18-2016, 03:43 PM:

Yup, it's 2.76:1 inside the 2.39:1 frame.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-18-2016, 04:41 PM:

Same as the trailers, and properly named. Just that the FTR is in 4k

TH8_TLR-2_S-276_EN-XX_51_2K_20151113_ADC_IOP_OV

I heard that the roadshow DCP is only delivered to those locations playing the 70mm - meant as a backup only in case the 70mm fails.
All digital only locations get the standard version.

- Carsten

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-18-2016, 06:33 PM:

So, if showing this in 2k, on an ordinary projector without an anamorphic lens, how many pixels are actually seen on screen?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-19-2016, 05:37 AM:

720p...er 2048x742

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-19-2016, 10:32 AM:

I did a quick calculation during the night and worked it out to 743, so I was near enough. How does it look?

They want to show it here, but on our screen the picture will be about 1.2 metres high, and there's a Vue multiplex about one minute walk away that will have shown it before us.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-19-2016, 10:35 AM:

Actually it's 1080 - with a fair amount of them being very dark.

- Carsten

Posted by Michal Matys (Member # 8614) on 01-20-2016, 09:56 AM:

Hi,

Yes, I meant 2.76 letterboxed in 2.39, and as mentioned it is 1080.

Michal

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-20-2016, 02:28 PM:

It's not really my sort of film, but I went to see it in 70 mm at Leicester Square today. The first half was better than I had expected, but I wasn't so keen on the second half. I can understand him wanting to shoot it on 65 mm, and release on 70 mm, but why in Ultra-Panavision? There were few shots which really made use of the full frame, most of the action takes place inside a building. II don't think if would have lost anything if it had been shot in spherical 65 mm, either letterboxed to 2.39, or with the negative image extended into the area formally used for the inner sound stripes on 70 mm prints; that should give an image close to 2.39, a ratio which all cinemas should be able to show without problems. As it is I think it will look terrible on our screen if they do decide to show it, tiny picture, and poor quality due to being cropped to 2.76 from a 2k projector. Also, we would have screen masking problems.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-22-2016, 03:56 AM:

On an unmasked screen, seeing the 2.76 in a 2.39 container is like seeing three images at once and it's horrible.

You got the unlit open screen, the dark grey hue of the 2.39 container, and then the image in the middle of this container.

Feature definitely needs to be masked for a proper presentation.

Posted by Allan Riddelll (Member # 5090) on 01-22-2016, 08:07 AM:

We have side masking. Other than the slight black bars top and
bottom, image is perfectly satisfactory.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-25-2016, 10:53 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
Do the digital and 35 mm versions preserve the full Ultra Panavision aspect ratio or are they reduced to 2.39? If the original a.r what format are they in; is the image letterboxed within a 2.39 DCP or 35 mm anamorphic film frame?

HATEFUL 8 is playing in 35mm at a theater here in San Francisco.
A friend who had seen it swore that it was not "letterboxed' to fit the screen.

I got a chance to actually examine a 35mm print of HF-8 last night and I can
confirm that they did letterbox the SuperUltraPanavision (or whatever) image
inside of the the standard 35mm scope frame. You can clearly see thick black
frame-lines on the print. I did a little more probing and found out that the
theater he saw it has movable top & bottom maskings, which they apparently
adjusted to hide (or 'mask' [Wink]

) the fact that the vertical size had been reduced.

(Wasn't sure exactly where to post this, but it's "not 70mm" so I puttit here.)