Jump to content


Photo

Nolan shooting new Batman on IMAX


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 NathanCoombs

NathanCoombs
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Producer
  • Bath, UK

Posted 26 June 2007 - 05:09 AM

Does anyone have any idea why Nolan is shooting 'parts' of the new Batman film in IMAX?

What is the point of that? Surely you either go fully IMAX or DRM from 35mm? Any the scenes he was planning to shoot on IMAX are not even wide establishing shots.
  • 0

#2 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 26 June 2007 - 06:44 AM

Specific look he demands? Close-ups for detail? Not 100% sure, but I am trusting Nolan here.

My original theory was that he wanted to shoot it all on IMAX but the studio would not let him. 8)
  • 0

#3 Jan Weis

Jan Weis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Student
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 26 June 2007 - 06:48 AM

Some parts of Spider-man 3 were also shot on 65mm. It seems as though advance special effects
might need high resolution in order to look as good as they do...Thats my own little theory. Or maybe
the directors & DoP just feel like experimenting with IMAX? What do I know...
  • 0

#4 NathanCoombs

NathanCoombs
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Producer
  • Bath, UK

Posted 26 June 2007 - 07:11 AM

Some parts of Spider-man 3 were also shot on 65mm. It seems as though advance special effects
might need high resolution in order to look as good as they do...Thats my own little theory. Or maybe
the directors & DoP just feel like experimenting with IMAX? What do I know...


From what I have heard it is not the SFX sequences he is shooting on IMAX.
  • 0

#5 Jeff Clegg

Jeff Clegg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Other
  • Hudson, NH

Posted 26 June 2007 - 09:45 AM

From a couple or articles I have read Nolan seems to want those scenes to "pop" in traditional theaters and expand to the full IMAX size in the IMAX theaters. Here's a quote from Nolan"

"In continuing the story of such a great icon, I'm thrilled to be able to expand the scope of the film, not just in terms of its story, but in giving Batman and the Joker the largest possible canvas on which to face off. No existing technology compares with the Imax format in terms of its ability to throw the audience into the action, and we're very proud and excited to use this technology in a way that no one has before."

And I cant find the article now, but I do remember him saying he would have like to shoot the whole thing in IMAX. I am very interested to see how the scenes will look in non IMAX theaters though.
  • 0

#6 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 26 June 2007 - 12:44 PM

I have to admit I don't really understand what he's trying to do with this, but it's Nolan, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Is he literally saying that the screen size itself will expand in the middle of the movie?
  • 0

#7 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 26 June 2007 - 01:15 PM

Remember Brainstorm? The sequences depiciting the "Brainstorm" effect were shot in 65mm. An early precursor to Trumbels 65mm 60f.p.s. Showscan process.
  • 0

#8 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 26 June 2007 - 01:39 PM

It's not rocket science, guys.
The larger the format, the better the quality, even if it's downrezzed to 35mm or whatever. You can tell the difference.
And if he's planning on it being shown in IMAX, then those scenes are going to look as good as it's possible for anything shot to look.
I'm guessing the obvious reason the whole film isn't being shot IMAX is the extreme cost. He probably asked for it, and was refused, so he got this compoimise.
  • 0

#9 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 26 June 2007 - 02:09 PM

I am sure i read somewhere he was only using IMAX for close ups of the Joker first appearance .
  • 0

#10 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 26 June 2007 - 03:23 PM

It's not rocket science, guys.
The larger the format, the better the quality, even if it's downrezzed to 35mm or whatever. You can tell the difference.
And if he's planning on it being shown in IMAX, then those scenes are going to look as good as it's possible for anything shot to look.
I'm guessing the obvious reason the whole film isn't being shot IMAX is the extreme cost. He probably asked for it, and was refused, so he got this compoimise.


Why not just shoot the whole picture in 70mm? It should blow up OK for IMAX. That way the picture would have consistent quality.
  • 0

#11 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 June 2007 - 04:02 PM

There's also the difference in aspect ratio between the two formats. Though I guess the IMAX footage will simply be cropped top and bottom to match the 35mm.
  • 0

#12 Jeff Clegg

Jeff Clegg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Other
  • Hudson, NH

Posted 26 June 2007 - 04:12 PM

Is he literally saying that the screen size itself will expand in the middle of the movie?



From the articles I have read this seems to be exactly what will happen in IMAX theaters. This could either be great or one of the more distracting things you could do to an audience...
  • 0

#13 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 26 June 2007 - 06:01 PM

Why not just shoot the whole picture in 70mm? It should blow up OK for IMAX. That way the picture would have consistent quality.



Because that's very expensive and more cumbersome (very large cameras) than shooting 35mm with a couple scenes in IMAX. Remember, NOBODY gets an unlimited budget. There's always someone telling you how much to spend, no matter who you are, even Speilberg.
  • 0

#14 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 26 June 2007 - 06:56 PM

Because that's very expensive and more cumbersome (very large cameras) than shooting 35mm with a couple scenes in IMAX. Remember, NOBODY gets an unlimited budget. There's always someone telling you how much to spend, no matter who you are, even Speilberg.


Generally speaking, just how expensive is 70mm compared to 35mm, when all the costs are added up?
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 June 2007 - 07:09 PM

Generally speaking, just how expensive is 70mm compared to 35mm, when all the costs are added up?


You pay for real estate (physical amount of film). 5-perf 65mm is a little more than 2X the cost of 4-perf 35mm, since it is twice as wide and one-perf taller. So 15-perf 65mm (IMAX) is 6X the cost of 4-perf 35mm, 3X the cost of 5-perf 65mm (stock & processing.)

The camera rentals are not that bad actually -- you can probably rent a 5-perf 65mm Super Panavision-70 camera for less than a 35mm Panaflex Millenium. Don't know about IMAX cameras.

The post issues can get expensive though, finding a place to scan 65mm at 4K, 6K, or 8K, etc.

Personally, I'd be willing to shoot a feature in 5-perf 65mm and use less film if I had to, to help defray the costs.
  • 0

#16 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 June 2007 - 07:12 PM

Generally speaking, just how expensive is 70mm compared to 35mm, when all the costs are added up?


To a production like this, it's relatively insignificant. In more concrete terms:

65mm is about 2 feet per second of running time, 35mm is one-and-a-quarter feet per second of running time.

There's 33% more footage used right there.

Then you must figure that it's twice as wide as 35mm film and therefore raw stock will be twice as much and there will also be about twice the processing costs due to double the surface area.

So I would say it's at least 233% as expensive as regular 4-perf 35mm. I have no clue if a 65mm camera package is more expensive to rent; it probably is. Plus, if you're going to shoot 65mm you probably want a better quality transfer than for 35mm so more cash there as well. If there will be film prints each of those and associated processing will be more than 35mm as well.

Edit: Boy you're quick David. I'm glad you filled in the gaps in my post such as different 65 formats and rental issues. I guess I'm not too surprised that panavision keeps their 65 packages reasonable. They probably don't get much use.

Edited by Chris Keth, 26 June 2007 - 07:14 PM.

  • 0

#17 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 26 June 2007 - 07:35 PM

You pay for real estate (physical amount of film). 5-perf 65mm is a little more than 2X the cost of 4-perf 35mm, since it is twice as wide and one-perf taller. So 15-perf 65mm (IMAX) is 6X the cost of 4-perf 35mm, 3X the cost of 5-perf 65mm (stock & processing.)

The camera rentals are not that bad actually -- you can probably rent a 5-perf 65mm Super Panavision-70 camera for less than a 35mm Panaflex Millenium. Don't know about IMAX cameras.

The post issues can get expensive though, finding a place to scan 65mm at 4K, 6K, or 8K, etc.

Personally, I'd be willing to shoot a feature in 5-perf 65mm and use less film if I had to, to help defray the costs.


My only issue with 65mm is that my new 65mm cameras are 10-perf, not 5-perf. A pair of models for Japans "Astrovision" system based on my research.

Hoping Anandtech can get them converted to 5-perf tho.
  • 0

#18 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 26 June 2007 - 07:44 PM

You pay for real estate (physical amount of film). 5-perf 65mm is a little more than 2X the cost of 4-perf 35mm, since it is twice as wide and one-perf taller. So 15-perf 65mm (IMAX) is 6X the cost of 4-perf 35mm, 3X the cost of 5-perf 65mm (stock & processing.)

The camera rentals are not that bad actually -- you can probably rent a 5-perf 65mm Super Panavision-70 camera for less than a 35mm Panaflex Millenium. Don't know about IMAX cameras.

The post issues can get expensive though, finding a place to scan 65mm at 4K, 6K, or 8K, etc.

Personally, I'd be willing to shoot a feature in 5-perf 65mm and use less film if I had to, to help defray the costs.


Hmmm. I wonder why more features don't go for this? You would think that someone might give it a go at 65mm. Maybe for a big epic or something. The industry is well aware of how much cash can be raked in on IMAX screens with big-ticket feature films, and 5-perf 65mm film could probably be passed off to the public as "made for IMAX" or something like that. :lol: I assume the quality would be really good compared to a 35mm blow up?

I do understand how a 65mm 4K, 6K, or 8K scan would be super-duper expensive, though.

But with a budget of $150 million or whatever Batman is budgeted at, it seems like they could do: 5-perf 65mm>6K scan>DMR>print to 15-perf IMAX

In that case, what resolution would the special FX in done at?

Edited by Tom Lowe, 26 June 2007 - 07:45 PM.

  • 0

#19 Jan Weis

Jan Weis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Student
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 26 June 2007 - 08:09 PM

I'm sure that its not only the cost of the film that stopped it from being shot entirely on 65mm, wouldnt the crew have to be larger? Also dont forget that itll probably take more time to shoot it on 65mm.

/Jan
  • 0

#20 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 June 2007 - 08:17 PM

Hmmm. I wonder why more features don't go for this? You would think that someone might give it a go at 65mm. Maybe for a big epic or something. The industry is well aware of how much cash can be raked in on IMAX screens with big-ticket feature films, and 5-perf 65mm film could probably be passed off to the public as "made for IMAX" or something like that. :lol: I assume the quality would be really good compared to a 35mm blow up?

I do understand how a 65mm 4K, 6K, or 8K scan would be super-duper expensive, though.

But with a budget of $150 million or whatever Batman is budgeted at, it seems like they could do: 5-perf 65mm>6K scan>DMR>print to 15-perf IMAX

In that case, what resolution would the special FX in done at?


15 perf 65mm I suppose. :blink:
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products