Jump to content



Photo

shooting dialog scenes with loud silent cameras

loud cameras dialog makeshift video tap

  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

#21 Jeffrey G Baca

Jeffrey G Baca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Director
  • Santa Fe, NM/ Venice, CA

Posted 06 March 2016 - 10:02 PM

..love to Discussion!

I am glad to see the interest in FILM as a recording medium and the various work around's we may use to improve out workflow.

I would like to see how the New 8MM film camera from Kodak (http://www.kodak.com...era/default.htm) that appear to have a USB port (for charging) along with a HDMI port and a memory (SD?) port as well, which would allow for some to use this camera and provide some form of Digital Image recording, usable as a part of the "dailies" workflow.

 

jGb


  • 0

#22 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 06 March 2016 - 11:47 PM

..love to Discussion!

I am glad to see the interest in FILM as a recording medium and the various work around's we may use to improve out workflow.

I would like to see how the New 8MM film camera from Kodak (http://www.kodak.com...era/default.htm) that appear to have a USB port (for charging) along with a HDMI port and a memory (SD?) port as well, which would allow for some to use this camera and provide some form of Digital Image recording, usable as a part of the "dailies" workflow.

 

jGb

Well, I'm following Kodak's Max8 camera project for some time now. Seems Kodak hasn't figured it all out yet, including market research and deals with different labs/scanning facilities. I just know that I'll stay clear of Super 8mm/Max8. Even the best footage with the best scans (Logmar, K. Vision 3 50D) I ever watched is not quite there. Any scanned 16mm camera footage which is acceptable starts immediately to "breathe" (the image isn't heavily compromised by film grain and the many distracting artifacts that come with Super 8mm and that cartridge) and the best 16mm footage I watched looks crystal clear yet silky. Anyway: Kodak,as far as I've seen, insists that this camera does not record video, yet is has an LCD view finder. I think it is in Kodak's very best interest to make sure that this camera won't deliver any usable video signal - otherwise people might just try out Super 8mm and after a few tries (probably unsatisfied with the results or the workflow with no immediate feedback) just use it as a video camera - and Kodak ends up with customers that won't buy any film stock/turnaround. I'll keep an eye just to see what happens.

 

Christian


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 06 March 2016 - 11:47 PM.

  • 0

#23 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 March 2016 - 05:00 AM

I'm very much looking forward to the new Kodak camera.

 

If the camera provides video out (as it seems) I doubt it will be a video signal that is in any way competitive with that of a dedicated video camera. It will just be (obviously) the same signal driving the viewfinder, the function of which is no more than to provide a visual reference on framing, and the display of whatever metadata might be appropriate.

 

Or to put it more simply, if you otherwise want a good video signal, you won't be buying a Kodak film camera.

 

I don't know that they need to deliberately make the video signal okay (as distinct from high quality) in order to ensure people don't use it as a video camera. If it's just an okay video signal it will be because that's just cheaper to implement. Personally I'd prefer them to make the signal as highest quality as they can - like that in top range phone cameras. But that could make the camera more expensive than it needs to be.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 07 March 2016 - 05:07 AM.

  • 1

#24 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 07 March 2016 - 08:03 AM

Well I look forward too. I wish Kodak all the success. People who love and know film will benefit from it.

 

My reasoning is: what is the mindset of the actual target market? People younger than, say age 50+, don't remember Super 8mm anymore. Died a sudden death around 1881. I was there and read the last articles of monthly publications dedicated to narrow gauge film which all suddenly disappeared after an attempt to include video (even by re-naming the publications, adding "+video") failed. I hope history doesn't repeat itself here in a similar way....

 

Sure, Super 8mm never really died, but the remaining market consisted of a few selected and informed people.

If anything,  Kodak's camera will be cool retro - compatible with today's tastes. That's why the camera design (the earlier one with rounded top and bottom even more so) looks incredibly like what "futuristic" was back in the 1970s. It looks like a mix of an old closed circuit video surveillance camera and Lego - let's be honest: the design is not exactly awesome.

We know that the video signal coming from the camera is just a reference signal. I have seen all video footage and material I can find online. I hear all the time "This camera does NOT record video also, the output is NOT for video... etc." I am sure, Kodak has to struggle with this problem, because this camera doesn't look even remotely like a film camera of any kind. I'm sure younger folks will get confused by this concept and if the video signal is of poor quality (which it obviously will be) it will make matters worse - in an age when even inexpensive cell phones deliver an acceptable video signal. That's the problem: presenting Super 8mm to a new market, which only knows video. People who really want to buy a Super 8mm camera very likely already checked the internet and know the existing options, pros and cons. It needs to be (re-) introduced to a completely new market to be successful.

 

Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge (GK-film pressure plate?). I bite my nails even thinking about a 20 year old looking for the first time at the scanned footage - full of vertical jitter and focus pumping (applying digital image stabilization - since you have vertical headroom with Max8 - might help just a little bit but it's basically just damage control).

 

I hope this will not be just an expensive hardware/video(=scanned film) version of instagram filters.... Let's wait and see.

 

Christian


  • 0

#25 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4297 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 March 2016 - 01:20 PM

My reasoning is: what is the mindset of the actual target market? People younger than, say age 50+, don't remember Super 8mm anymore. Died a sudden death around 1881. I was there and read the last articles of monthly publications dedicated to narrow gauge film which all suddenly disappeared after an attempt to include video (even by re-naming the publications, adding "+video") failed. I hope history doesn't repeat itself here in a similar way....


IDK about that... I started shooting super 8 in the mid 80's and my last cartridge was shot in 1992. That was about the end of the drug store cartridge acquisition here in the US. Towards the end, I remember going to a wholesale camera store and seeing a 50 gallon barrel full of Kodachrome with sound stripe. I bought as may cartridges as I could with the cash on me and that lasted me for quite a while. When I went looking for more, it was impossible to find outside of speciality stores who wanted A LOT more money. Plus, my camera was beat and had a serious light leak, so instead of investing in another one, which at the time were very expensive, I switched to video.

The reason "film" is making a slow comeback is because our youth are interested in what doesn't exist today. They want to learn about our past and some of them want to embrace it even more so then my generation. What Kodak plans to do for the price point they plan on doing it, is pretty cool. Whether it works, is a whole other issue. I personally would have hired a camera manufacturer to make a camera, not some bloke in his garage, but that's just me.
  • 1

#26 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 07 March 2016 - 03:04 PM

Great! In my natice Germany Super 8mm really was dead by 1982 (and I still was very active filming in 1981 but it all died almost instantly and video was heavily forced into the market to replace fim, still with external VHS recorders and no editing facilities for some time to come) and even 16mm was being phased out in many a tv station at an accelerating pace because portable video cameras and the 3/4 in video cassette (U-Matic) format changed everything (the last 16mm productions were in the early 90s: mostly documetaries and crime dramas, now with way better telecine transfer and video editing). It was very hard to track down any Kodachrome 40 (even though I knew it was still available somewhere). I had the Beaulieu 6008S and it was really impossible where I lived to get the 200 ft sound cartridge, which I really loved, or even any cartridge. I moved to Portugal in 1985 and there it was impossible to get anything resembling film at the time. It had to be ordered from other countries (no EU back then) and sent back - each time through customs (I was there at a specialized office) never knowing if someone opens your processed reels to see if the content breaks any law - or stealing it, saying it was lost. No internet still to track down nearby film clubs which I heard existed and had it all figured out - but were unable to find.

 

Depends a lot on where you are located. I remember being in a shopping mall in Johannesburg, South Africa, during a band tour, in 1990. I spotted a shop with a lot of vintage film cameras in pristine conditions (Double standard 8mm, Super 8mm and 16mm from around the world, lots of lenses, metal and leather cases - at incredibly low prices). Our guide (a security guy) told us: you can't get anything like this through customs, trust me: you will lose it. Don't purchase anything! Crazy where some stuff you never thought even existed pops up....

 

Nowadays in the EU it's all pretty much open and custom/taxes free within member countries since long ago.

 

Yep: seen some young film groups actually using film (for the reasons you mentioned). Spotted these on YT, and in all cases they also use video (meaning they are not blindly defending one over the other - but rather knowing the pros and cons and appreciating the results of film when budgets allow). These are usually film students though - but I'm happy whenever I see young college-age people re-discovering film and using cameras like a converted Arriflex (SR2), often accompanied by a pro from back in the day - eager to learn from him/her everything. Seen two examples of young film groups already - here in Europe - doing just that.

 

Let's see if Kodak makes it. The names of well known film directors still using film and defending it - appearing in the ad campaign is a very good idea to connect this new camera to cinema. Bringing some references into it.

 

Christian


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 07 March 2016 - 03:17 PM.

  • 0

#27 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 March 2016 - 05:26 PM

Yes, Super8, as a mass market item, came to an end in the early 80s. I too was there. And it was an instant death. Video cameras became the thing.

 

But that didn't stop those with Super8 from continuing with it. It's never gone away. It's always been around in one form or another. The only thing that died was it's presence in the larger market place.

 

While Tyler might like to oppose "blokes in garages" to camera manufacturers, he should understand that the Logmar camera components were not built in a garage, but were built by companies such as Hasselblad, amongst many others. Cameras taken to the moon included cameras made by Hasselblad.

 

The reality is that most of the best design work done on the planet is actually done by people who may very well spend an inordinate amount of time in their garage, or in whatever other desired work space that might be. My preferred work space is typically a cafe, where I'll work out the most important parts of some project there, scribbling such down on a piece of paper.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 07 March 2016 - 05:32 PM.

  • 0

#28 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 07 March 2016 - 06:04 PM

Well we do agree 100% about the story of Super 8 (it seems to have been at about the exact same time everywhere in the world). As early as 1979 I heard about the idea to convert cinemas from film to video projection. Which finally came true around 2011 (the last year film prints were delivered to Europe from the major studios, and "digital" was the magic word.

Now 70mm film prints are shown of the new Tarantrino film - in selected theaters which still have a 70mm film projector (it remains to be seen if these copies are correctly letterboxed or cropped - I don't see those rare anamorphic lenses with the 1,25x factor being distributed and the image size to be fitted for the existing screen) and the young folks run to see them and put it on social media because they loved it. That's a good sign.

 

I think there are two interpretations of "blokes in their garage" (both metaphors):

1) people who just hastily slap together a concept and present it to the company - have the nerds figure out to make that stuff really work.

2) the old school clockwork precision craftsmen working with all kinds of machinery, magnifying optics and power tools, electronics - old and new. The guys who fully rebuilt, say, just about any 16mm Camera to a modernized crystal sync precision Super 16mm camera. Those are the Hasselblad and Logmar guys. These should have designed the Kodak camera. I heard the Logmar has some trouble at speeds other than 24 fts. Well the footage I've seen is the very best I have ever seen from the Super 8mm format. The idea taking it out of the cartridge through a 16mm-style sprocket drum and guide rollers into a precision film gate/pressure plate with pin registration is fantastic!. That solves about 60% of my issues with Super 8mm. The remaining problem is: current Super 8 stocks are all cut from stocks that were originally designed for 35mm motion picture film or stills photography - so anything with a higher ISO than 50 will show significant grain. To make matters worse: it's very coarse grain, causing "blocking" and other very distracting artifacts if the files are downsized to be viewable on an average computer without causing it to crash. I am honest: I saw a lot of higher speed Super 8mm film (100, 200, 500) and it has a ridiculous amount of grain which really throws me out of the image. Only two ways to fix this if you won't go to a larger film format: 1) better ultra fine grain film emulsions (out of the question, since making a film stock especially with Super 8mm in mind like back in the day the Kodachrome 40, would not be feasible considering all the R&D necessary). 2) highly effective image noise reduction algorithms for moving pictures (as opposed to the existing image noise reduction for stills photography which simply doesn't work for moving film images).

 

Just my 2C

 

Christian


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 07 March 2016 - 06:17 PM.

  • 0

#29 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 March 2016 - 07:01 PM

Well we do agree 100% about the story of Super 8 worldwide.

I think there are two interpretations of "blokes in their garage" (both metaphors):

1) people who just hastily slap together a concept and present it to the company - have the nerd figure out to make that stuff really work.

2) the precision craftsmen working with all kinds of machinery and power tools, electronics - old and new. The guys who fully rebuilt just about any 16mm Camera to a modernized crystal sync precision Super 16mm camera. Those are the Hasselblad and Logmar guys. These should have designed the Kodak camera. I heard the Logmar has some trouble at speeds other than 24 fts. Well the footage I've seen is the very best I have ever seen from the Super 8mm format. The idea taking it out of the cartridge through a 16mm-like sprocket drum and guide roller into a presision film gate/pressure plate with pin registration. That solves about 70% of my issues with Super 8mm. The remaining problem is: current Super 8 stocks are all cut from stocks that were originally designed for 35mm motion picture film or stills photography - so anything with a higher ISO than 50 will show significant grain. To make matters worse: very coarse grain, causing "blocking" and other very distracting artifacts if the files are downsized to be viewable on an average computer without causing it to crash. I am honest: I saw a lot of higher speed Super 8mm film (100, 200, 500) and it has a ridiculous amount of grain which really throws me out of the image. Only two ways to fix this if you won't go to a larger film format: 1) better ultra fine grain film emulsions (out of the question, since making a film stock especially with Super 8mm in mind like back in the day the Kodachrome 40, would not be feasible considering all the R&D necessary). 2) highly effective image noise reduction algorithms for moving pictures (as opposed to the existing image noise reduction for stills photography which simply doesn't work for moving film images).

 

Just my 2C

 

Christian

 

Well, the suggested grain "problem" with Super8 isn't because it's cut from film stock designed for 35mm, as it would have the same "problem" no matter which way you made it. Available film stock will tend to be the best it's going to be at any moment in time, regardless of format. I mean Vision3 film stock is at the bleeding edge of film stock technology. If one is arguing that Super8 should be better than it is - well it's already massively better than it was. For it to be better than it currently is, we would have to wait for the future to arrive, for that. But when it arrives, would it help in any way? After all, one could just compare it with 16mm made from the same stock (or 35mm etc) and make exactly the same claim one is currently doing.

 

Now one can always achieve finer grain (such as that used in sound stock, intermediate stock or print stock) but there is a corresponding drop in ASA/ISO which makes it somewhat harder to sell as a general purpose camera stock. But one can certainly use it that way. Shooting with print stock, on a bright day, can give one interesting results. Indeed, shooting on sound stock can create some really interesting imagery - really fine grain with completely opaque blacks. Very contrasty but not without it's own awesome power.

 

Most of the grain issues in Super8 are not in the film itself, but in the transfer to video. The transfer introduces a low pass filter which aliases the grain, ie. making the grain far larger than it actually is. The only way to alleviate such grain aliasing is to perform higher definition transfer of Super8.

 

Degraining is only necessary if wanting to play the outcome in a low bandwidth context such as YouTube etc. But if wanting to do so, degrainers will work a lot better if the scan is higher definition. Doing HDR scans is also a massive help. Doesn't mean one needs to play the result at higher definition. After HDR toning, degraining, etc, one can pump it out to some suitable file format for a given bandwidth/display system.

 

The only real thing working against Super8 is the entrenched belief system that Super8 shouldn't have the potential that it does actually have. In other words, while one might spend a lot of time and care making a 35mm film, or even a 16mm film, including digital post work on such, the idea of applying the same attention to a Super8 film, suddenly becomes an obstacle, rather than an opportunity. The rules are reversed for some reason. And I guess that's fair enough - why not.

 

C


  • 0

#30 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 March 2016 - 07:51 PM

The Kodak camera is a good idea. It taps into the belief system that Super8 should be used in a care free (care less?) way.

 

And there's a lot going for that. Indeed one can use the same approach in 16mm. Apart from the timeout required to reload a 16mm camera, and it's relatively weightier mass, one can certainly work against such obstacles and handle the camera in the same way one might otherwise handle a Super8 camera. I certainly have. I'll bring to 16mm all the handheld techniques I've otherwise used with Super8, handicams, and camera phones. Not as easy as those alternatives but not all that hard.

 

It's doing the opposite with Super8 which seems to be the conceptual obstacle. To treat it in the same way one might otherwise treat 16mm seems to violate some peculiar law written in the history of film. But that's precisely the very thing that motivates my work - to violate such laws.

 

C


  • 0

#31 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4166 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 08 March 2016 - 04:14 AM

The remaining problem is: current Super 8 stocks are all cut from stocks that were originally designed for 35mm motion picture film or stills photography - so anything with a higher ISO than 50 will show significant grain. To make matters worse: it's very coarse grain, causing "blocking" and other very distracting artifacts if the files are downsized to be viewable on an average computer without causing it to crash. I am honest: I saw a lot of higher speed Super 8mm film (100, 200, 500) and it has a ridiculous amount of grain which really throws me out of the image. Only two ways to fix this if you won't go to a larger film format: 1) better ultra fine grain film emulsions (out of the question, since making a film stock especially with Super 8mm in mind like back in the day the Kodachrome 40, would not be feasible considering all the R&D necessary). 2) highly effective image noise reduction algorithms for moving pictures (as opposed to the existing image noise reduction for stills photography which simply doesn't work for moving film images).

 

Just my 2C

 

Christian

 

There is just so much nonsense written about grain in Super 8

.

For starters it isn't a problem for some people because some people actually like grain.

 

There are also projects that embrace the extra grain in formats like 16mm and Super 8 because they are trying to reproduce the look of film stocks from a long time ago when they were grainier. For instance Ti Wests "The House Of The Devil" which tries to look like low budget horror movies shot on 35mm in the  late 70's and early 80's.

 

HOWEVER the main reason people say stuff about Super 8 being so grainy is because they don't have much experience with the recent negative stocks. This is always really obvious to me. For instance Christian, you talk about 100ASA film but the 100ASA colour neg was only available in Vision 2 and even then as a special product from Pro8mm. It was never a Kodak product. The vision 3 stocks are a world less grainy than the Vision 2 stocks. There is very little grain in 50D at all and the 200T is also low grain. If you want proper grain from Vision 3 now then you need to be shooting the 500T.

 

Obviously it all also depends a bit on your tolerance for grain too.

 

Freya


Edited by Freya Black, 08 March 2016 - 04:15 AM.

  • 0

#32 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4166 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 08 March 2016 - 04:20 AM

Kodak needs to do something about that cartridge (GK-film pressure plate?). I bite my nails even thinking about a 20 year old looking for the first time at the scanned footage - full of vertical jitter and focus pumping (applying digital image stabilization - since you have vertical headroom with Max8 - might help just a little bit but it's basically just damage control).

 

I hope this will not be just an expensive hardware/video(=scanned film) version of instagram filters.... Let's wait and see.

 

Christian

 

 

A 20 year old might like the jitter and not have the same issues and associations with it that you have.

For instance I really miss the mild jitter you used to get on film titles when they were shot on film.

Not everyone has the same issues with various "flaws" see anamorphic lenses for the same story.

 

Such jitter is something that makes Super 8 very different from video and if people are looking for something different from video they might like it.


  • 0

#33 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 08 March 2016 - 04:24 AM

 

Now 70mm film prints are shown of the new Tarantrino film - in selected theaters which still have a 70mm film projector (it remains to be seen if these copies are correctly letterboxed or cropped - I don't see those rare anamorphic lenses with the 1,25x factor being distributed and the image size to be fitted for the existing screen) and the young folks run to see them and put it on social media because they loved it. That's a good sign.

What?

An entire warehouseful of projectors and 1.25x lenses was refurbished for "Hateful 8".

http://www.blsi.com/...atefuleight.php


Edited by Mark Dunn, 08 March 2016 - 04:27 AM.

  • 0

#34 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 08 March 2016 - 12:27 PM

What?

An entire warehouseful of projectors and 1.25x lenses was refurbished for "Hateful 8".

http://www.blsi.com/...atefuleight.php

Great! But I somehow doubt that the few 70mm projections of "Hateful 8" here in Europe (heard about one in Karlsruhe, Germany - it simply said: "on 70mm film") are made with the complete Ultra Panavision 70 format. The article (thanks for the link BTW!) clearly states "nationwide" (US-wide). Perhaps some of these machines went overseas at the same time. Cinemas tend to not bother the audience with full tech detail in their posters and pamphlets/programmes and existing theater screens are only so wide (all mechanics nowadays are usually meant for 1:1.66, 1:1.85 and 2.35:1 ratio max) so even with the 1.25x anamorphic lenses there are only two choices: don't crop and you will get a thin stripe within the 35mm CinemaScope/Panavision dimensions, or crop the sides to fit into the image height. I read about the problem in an article (because all local cinemas nearby where I live just show this movie in digital - not interested).

Well if some of these machines actually were shipped to overseas (together with maintenance guys and specialized projectionists etc. - just imagine the cost and logistics involved either sending over an American team or assembling a local team!) and installed: awesome! I never read or heard about any of this outside the US. It's already great seeing this effort being made on such a grand scale anyway. I might be wrong about the above. I follow guys like Mark Kermode for years and of course official advertising material. The former would have said something about true 70mm Ultra Panavision screenings: he loves screenings with true film and goes a great deal more into tech detail than the average film "critic". Perhaps I missed it.

 

Thanks again,

Christian


  • 0

#35 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 08 March 2016 - 12:48 PM

 

 

A 20 year old might like the jitter and not have the same issues and associations with it that you have.

 

Just to get this 100% clear: I'm not a purist or elitist or a snob. Not at all. I just do what every single serious film enthusiast (including Super 8mm) does: trying to get the best out of an existing format and minimizing undesired artifacts. Super 8mm vertical jitter is unpredictable because of the Cartridge design. Many people do something about it (or at least try). These are not purists or elitists, but hands-on people who actually do something about issues.

Vinyl collectors don't collect vinyl because of the crackles and pops or surface noise. They collect it because it's vinyl, because of the equipment, the look and feel - and the unique silky sound - and most collectors prefer high quality editions in mint condition.

As soon as anything "retro" comes into the equation, it will be a passing trend, because eventually people will get tired of it. I like some light image floating and grain on certain older movies but frankly: the vertical jitter and focus pumping on a lot of Super 8mm scans (or projection) simply are too much and distracting. Super 8mm enthusiasts wouldn't talk about it and do something about it all the time if they loved it.

 

Christian


Edited by Christian Schonberger, 08 March 2016 - 12:50 PM.

  • 0

#36 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4297 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 March 2016 - 12:50 PM

Hey Christian,

The Hateful Eight was screened in 70mm all over Europe and it coming to Barcelona soon: http://in70mm.com/no...ng/index.htm...time to get a plane ticket! :)

The film can't be presented without the anamorphic lenses, so they are shipped with the film. Most theaters in the states did nothing to the top and bottom screen matte. The difference between 2.40:1 and 2.75:1 isn't that huge, there would simply be bar top and bottom of the screen.

From my understanding, no machines were shipped to Europe. There are quite a few "art houses" in Europe, so the projection equipment does exist. The European premiere was at a theater in France, they had to build a projection booth IN THE THEATER to house the equipment. So in that case, there was a team from America involved.
  • 0

#37 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 08 March 2016 - 01:02 PM

Christian Schonberger, on 08 Mar 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

 

I follow guys like Mark Kermode for years and of course official advertising material. The former would have said something about true 70mm Ultra Panavision screenings: he loves screenings with true film and goes a great deal more into tech detail than the average film "critic". Perhaps I missed it.

 

Thanks again,

Christian

 

 

http://www.theguardi...no-mark-kermode

http://www.odeon.co....ltrapanavision/

http://in70mm.com/ne...ful_8/index.htm

 

Looks like Barcelona's your nearest and you haven't missed it

http://www.phenomena...iosos-ocho.html

Much cheaper than here, it was £25!


Edited by Mark Dunn, 08 March 2016 - 01:08 PM.

  • 0

#38 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 08 March 2016 - 01:02 PM

O.K. thanks for the information. Link doesn't work :-(

 

Yep, the screening I heard of in Germany was also at an "art house" where a 70mm projector still exists from back in the day. Good to know the prints come with the anamorphic lens (in the age of the digital intermediate, it wouldn't be hard to make an "unsqueezed", or Panavision 35mm type (needs 2x lens) print. After all most screenings are digital.

 

Thanks again for the details and information.

 

Christian


  • 0

#39 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 10 March 2016 - 05:38 AM

Here's a short doco on the behind the scenes work at my local cinema, in preparation for a screening of the Hateful Eight:

 

 

And Tarrantino, Jackson and Russel even made an impromptu visit to the cinema a few days after the premiere, shocking the audience. Unfortunately I missed it. Was just the luck of the draw really. A friend texted from the cinema saying he was there. I almost thought of running down the road to the cinema to see them - but was otherwise engaged in some work I needed to get done.

 

http://www.smh.com.a...119-gm8moz.html

 

We're lucky here in Australia. Tarrantino likes our movies. And we like his.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 10 March 2016 - 05:46 AM.

  • 0

#40 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 10 March 2016 - 06:13 AM

 

Christian Schonberger, on 08 Mar 2016 - 05:24 PM, said:

 

I follow guys like Mark Kermode for years and of course official advertising material. The former would have said something about true 70mm Ultra Panavision screenings: he loves screenings with true film and goes a great deal more into tech detail than the average film "critic". Perhaps I missed it.

 

Thanks again,

Christian

 

 

http://www.theguardi...no-mark-kermode

http://www.odeon.co....ltrapanavision/

http://in70mm.com/ne...ful_8/index.htm

 

Looks like Barcelona's your nearest and you haven't missed it

http://www.phenomena...iosos-ocho.html

Much cheaper than here, it was £25!

 

Mark,

 

Thanks a lot for the links!

Barcelona still is quite far away from me and would be very expensive (I would need to book a hotel for the night etc). In Germany it was one of those rare screenings in the original language. So there's hope it will be the same in Spain (even though the main language in Barcelona is Catalan, not Castilian(=Spanish) - you know that of course). But I'm afraid I can't make it.

 

Anyway: good to hear (which I was unable to clearly get out of any article) these are true 1:1.25x anamorphic 70mm prints with the correct lenses supplied and in the original language (subtitles probably not even printed-in because of logistics). Great to know those old 70mm projectors are being fired up again all over the globe! Love Tarantino's "take no prisoners" - "I make it happen: big time!" approach. He does make it all happen: Morricone and true Ultra Panavision camera 65. Way to go!

 

Thanks anyway,

Christian


  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

The Slider

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Glidecam

CineLab

Wooden Camera

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks