August 12, 2015

Here's Our First Taste of Anamorphic 65mm in Years with Trailer for Tarantino's 'The Hateful Eight'

It may have fallen out of use almost completely, but Quentin Tarantino is bringing back 65mm film (projected at 70mm) in a big way. He's been a big proponent of film his whole career (and has called digital cinema like TV in public), and he's shot his most recent film The Hateful Eight completely in 65mm with anamorphic lenses, giving us the first Ultra Panavision 70 film in years. Here's the first trailer:

Here are the specs for this shoot:

  • Panavision 65 HR Camera and Panavision Panaflex System 65 Studio
  • Panavision APO Panatar Lenses 
  • 65mm: Kodak Vision3 200T 5213, Vision3 500T 5219
  • Aspect Ratio: 2.75:1

This film is getting a full release in Ultra Panavision 70, which means that we're going to see the first fiction feature film screened in anamorphic 70mm with a single-projector Cinerama system since Khartoum in 1966 (movies like Ben-Hur and Mutiny on the Bounty also used this format). Talk about making some history.

You might remember that the last major Hollywood film to shoot on 65mm and project in 70mm was Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, but while that film shot 5 perf 65mm (2.20:1 native aspect ratio), they center cropped that frame to get to the standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and shot a handful of bits on 35mm. The Hateful Eight, on the other hand, is taking that native 2.20:1 aspect ratio and shooting with 1.25x anamorphic lenses, which is later unsqueezed to a super-wide 2.75:1 aspect ratio — much wider than the normal widescreen in cinema today, which is 2.39/2.40:1. To jog your memory, here's a trailer for The Master:

To make that a bit more clear, here is a look at The Master from Twitch Film:

And here's how the projection actually looked on 70mm:

As you can see that center-cropped 1.85:1 frame has a bit of black on the left and right. From The American Widescreen Museum, here's what's going on with The Hateful Eight, which is going to end up being a much wider image:

The 65mm/70mm era was a bit confusing to say the least, but for the most part shooting on 65mm is pretty rare these days (though a handful of films have shot scenes on it). A few fiction films have also shot with the IMAX format for certain scenes, most notably Christopher Nolan with the Batman films. While that's a 65mm negative, it runs through the camera horizontally, instead of vertically, giving you a giant 15 perf negative with a much narrower 1.43:1 aspect ratio:

And that's your aspect ratio lesson for the day. The Hateful Eight will be screening in a handful of theaters in 70mm on December 25th, which will then be followed by a much wider release in digital. Since most theaters no longer have film projectors, that isn't much of an option at this point for Tarantino if he wants to get a wide release. Either way, seeing Ultra Panavision 70 projected in theaters is probably going to be something you don't want to miss, as it could very well be the last new film to ever use the format.       

Your Comment

28 Comments

I feel like I just sat through an algebra class after reading that. Regardless of what he filmed it on, I'm always excited to see what Tarantino does. Whenever he works with Sam Jackson, the outcome is always a joy to see.

August 12, 2015 at 3:02PM

1
Reply
Jay Kilburn
Production Manager
186

I like algebra. Joe Marine, thanks for this, because for the first time in a long time, I learned something on NoFilmSchool...pretty neat. Love the diagrams.

August 12, 2015 at 9:41PM

0
Reply
avatar
Scot Yount
Director/Editor/Photographer/Motion Graphic Artist
387

I wonder when the double post bug will get fixed btw.

August 12, 2015 at 9:41PM, Edited August 12, 9:41PM

0
Reply
avatar
Scot Yount
Director/Editor/Photographer/Motion Graphic Artist
387

I watched this on my phone the first time and thought Christoph Waltz was in it. Watched a second time on my big monitor and saw that it was Tim Roth.

August 12, 2015 at 3:54PM

3
Reply

I feel like that was a part written for Christoph Waltz, and then he wasn't available and they tried to make Time Roth fit into that.

August 12, 2015 at 4:11PM

0
Reply
avatar
Derek Mindler
Cinematographer
246

Tim Roth is an OG though. He's always good in Tarantino movies as well.

August 12, 2015 at 4:28PM

0
Reply
Ian Mora
Writer, Director, Editor, Camera Operator
122

Yeah I think it's the accent and cadence that makes it sound like a Christoph Waltz impression.

August 12, 2015 at 5:06PM

1
Reply

Pretty surprised by all the blue pushed into the shadows on this. I hope the final film isn't so obviously graded.

August 12, 2015 at 4:03PM

4
Reply
avatar
Corey C. Waters
Cinematographer
352

I'll need to do more research but I'm almost sure there is no "grading" going on here. I think this movie is being finished photochemically.

August 12, 2015 at 7:30PM

0
Reply
avatar
Jerome Stolly
1st. Assistant Camera
440

Yvan Lucas is the colorist. He's done Inglorious Basterds, Django, and Wolf of Wall Street. I really enjoy his work but this felt heavy handed.

August 12, 2015 at 7:39PM

3
Reply
avatar
Corey C. Waters
Cinematographer
352

Welp, if a random stranger in a floppy hat writing on the internet doesn't like it, I suppose that's all I need to know.

Not buying a ticket, too much color in the film, apparently. Guess I'll stay home and watch Netflix.

August 12, 2015 at 8:36PM

0
Reply

I didn't say anything about the film itself haha. In fact, I'm pretty excited about seeing it!

I'm sorry that my floppy hat bothers you so much, Harvey. I use it to pretentiously keep the sun out of my eyes and off the monitor while I'm shooting. But now that you've caught on to my game, I guess I have to stop wearing it so that I don't upset you anymore.

From now on I promise to keep my opinions about filmmaking to myself on this website aimed to encourage discussion and opinions on filmmaking.

Side note. I didn't say there was too much color. I was merely commenting on the color shift.

Side side note. We don't have to be strangers;) Why don't you come over to my place and I can piss you off with some other opinions I have. I hope you like talking politics.

Side side side note. I noticed your comment the other day throwing some shade at the crew working on The Revenant. Nice comment bro.

K BYEEEEEEEEEE

August 12, 2015 at 8:50PM, Edited August 12, 8:50PM

0
Reply
avatar
Corey C. Waters
Cinematographer
352

Thanks for setting me straight. I thought I had read that they were going straight photochemical on this. Weird that tarantino is such a film only guy but allows a DI. I was hoping all the blue was baked in by using tungsten stock outside. (I could be wrong again but I thought I read they only used 5213 and 5219 on this).

August 12, 2015 at 11:19PM

2
Reply
avatar
Jerome Stolly
1st. Assistant Camera
440

That's "brah" to you, bro ;-)

Nothing against you personally or your floppy hat. I have one too. But NFS sometimes rubs me wrong with all the contrarian comments about any film they post.

Seems like nothing is good enough anymore.

Everyone needs to get a barb in, as if it somehow mentioning something negative creates a worthwhile insight; nature of the inter tubes, I suppose.

August 14, 2015 at 8:00PM

2
Reply

Talking right out of my ass here and without doing any comparison - but could it be that trailers these days usually get a more pushed, more banal orange-teal look than the finished movies? Because the trailer is designed like fast food, for maximum sugar, fat and saltiness (visual stimulation) in an instant?

August 13, 2015 at 7:06AM, Edited August 13, 7:06AM

8
Reply

And they tend to tell the whole story in the trailer.

August 15, 2015 at 4:14PM

1
Reply
avatar
Einar Gabbassoff
D&CD at Frame One Studio
980

This being shot in a winter setting, I would expect cool shadows. Grading should be about context, not what's popular/unpopular. In the cabin shots it's a little warmer. But I expect this is a quick grade for the trailer, seeing as they are still shooting I believe.

August 13, 2015 at 9:20AM, Edited August 13, 9:20AM

3
Reply
avatar
Kyle Sanders
Editor
167

Repost

August 13, 2015 at 9:20AM, Edited August 13, 9:20AM

3
Reply
avatar
Kyle Sanders
Editor
167

they wrapped like 2 months ago or something like that

August 13, 2015 at 3:25PM

1
Reply
avatar
Peter Staubs
Camera Assistant
493

This movie doesn't look good tbh. Hope I will be positivly surprised. I like Tarantino's movies, but this seems a little off to me.

August 12, 2015 at 5:32PM

4
Reply
Andy Tokarski
Director, Editor, Colorist
1329

I still feel The Revenant looks better, and I'm a celluloid die hard.

August 12, 2015 at 6:31PM

3
Reply
avatar
Henry Barnill
Director of Photography
497

Apples, Oranges, Cocaine there are all good

August 13, 2015 at 2:00AM

0
Reply
avatar
Max Ciesynski
Gaffer
601

Haha, very true!

August 13, 2015 at 11:52AM

4
Reply
Tony
366

Nope.. not liking it.. the filmstock doesn't suit the scenes.. something out of early 90's late 80's would be ideal

August 12, 2015 at 6:35PM

0
Reply
Kokles
189

I agree, the grading on this is so off to me.
On another note, Joe, that was a great article. So informative on so many different things.

August 13, 2015 at 4:06AM, Edited August 13, 4:06AM

2
Reply

Tarantino could have shot this with an iPhone and I would still want to see it. I'm sure it will be a fun ride, and I honestly could not care less about what it was shot on...

August 13, 2015 at 8:30AM

0
Reply
Guy McLoughlin
Video Producer
32136

The irony of this entire practice of shooting Medium Format film today is so comedic.
So let's get this straight here:

1. digital cinema ushers in focus on resolution
2. Film purists stake the claims that COLOR and LATITUDE are king; decidedly more critical factors

Agreed.

3. digital cinema "upgrades" rapidly, bypassing celluloid film in latitude and equaling color depth, enabling digital shooters to modify their results to match film, making distinguishing between the two either very difficult or nearly impossible
4. Film purists claim that 35mm resolution of film exceeds that of digital; Projectors show otherwise

A few camera companies then release 65mm sensor bodies

5. To further cement their point, big-budget film purists begin shooting medium format film in an attempt to bypass digital's resolution advantage; attempting to keeping celluloid film relevant.
...
This entire story is hilarious to me. If shooting for resolution isn't a factor, then why are some [of the loudest] Directors so hell bent on committing to medium format film stock? Mind you, I have ZERO issue with this and personally I love the shallow depth that large film planes like Med. format and Vista Vision sizes allow.

This feels VERY similar to issues that occurred in the console racing simulation wars of yesteryear.
Gran Turismo was the king, Microsoft developers downplayed its significance dramatically claiming that Project Gotham was on the same level as GT. When it didn't prove so, they created Forza.

Talk about double standards. Sheesh.
Love for BOTH formats. That's the way to go in my book.

August 13, 2015 at 2:00PM, Edited August 13, 2:00PM

2
Reply

I'm sure the people who see this movie in one of the 50 theatres in 20 cities projecting the 70-mm film print will enjoy it. Most movie-goers will watch the digital print at their local multiplex -- and, of course, most movies are watched by most people on their home televisions at 1,920 x 1,080 pixels.

I think it's widely acknowledged that QT is a big weenie, and this smacks of stunt movie-making by a creator powerful enough to throw his weight around. Still, I like most of his movies, and I'll probably buy this on Blu-ray when it comes out.

August 14, 2015 at 11:41PM

0
Reply
avatar
Minor Mogul
Dilettante
540

No Thanks. Don't need 2 more Hours of Listening to Jackson's Blathering. His "acting" has gotten to be Very tiring.

August 16, 2015 at 12:26PM

5
Reply

Samuel L. Jackson acts?

oh, I looked again and see your quotes around "acting".

August 16, 2015 at 1:25PM

3
Reply
Gene Nemetz
live streaming
964