Jump to content


Photo

Dark Knight 8K scope scans


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 23 June 2008 - 01:39 PM

Saw that the Scope portions of "The Dark Knight" were scanned at 8K does anyone know which scanner? Northlight? The Arriscan is 6K max according to the brocure. Also the 15-perf Imax will be full app in Imax theatres and the Scope will be 2.39? so the aspect ratios will change if you watch it in the Imax theatre, I think this sounds cool but unusual how will general audience react?

Was the film conformed at 8K for general theatres? I know the 15-perf was scanned to re position the shots for 2.39 and the Scope was 8K, I assume the 15perf was 8K and the DI 8K or 4K?


-Rob-
  • 0

#2 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 23 June 2008 - 03:27 PM

Saw that the Scope portions of "The Dark Knight" were scanned at 8K does anyone know which scanner? Northlight? The Arriscan is 6K max according to the brocure. Also the 15-perf Imax will be full app in Imax theatres and the Scope will be 2.39? so the aspect ratios will change if you watch it in the Imax theatre, I think this sounds cool but unusual how will general audience react?

Was the film conformed at 8K for general theatres? I know the 15-perf was scanned to re position the shots for 2.39 and the Scope was 8K, I assume the 15perf was 8K and the DI 8K or 4K?


-Rob-

Hi Rob,

I went to Wally Pfister's "Dark Knight" seminar at Cine Gear on Saturday so I can answer some of your questions. Don't know which scanner they used. You're correct that IMAX portions will be full app at IMAX theaters, while scope portions will be 2.39. Pfister said that although the idea of changing aspect ratios sounds like it might be distracting, he felt after watching the print that some of the cuts from 2.39 to IMAX were almost invisible. I guess it's something you get used to.

He also did not mention how the regular scope prints were made, but I suspect it was done photochemically (except for the fx and IMAX portions which were scanned, cropped, and repositioned in post). This is because he mentioned that he had an IP made photochemically before the film was scanned at 8K for IMAX. He also said said that portions of the film were scanned at "5.6K". I don't know if this is standard or not, it sounds like a weird number. I surmised that this was done for the fx shots but I don't really know for sure.
  • 0

#3 Ronney Ross

Ronney Ross
  • Guests

Posted 23 June 2008 - 05:14 PM

According to July American cinematographer magazine : " After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith."
  • 0

#4 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 24 June 2008 - 12:03 AM

According to July American cinematographer magazine : " After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith."



Can't wait to see it in IMAX nothing can beat contact printed 70mm 15 perf....

-Rob-
  • 0

#5 Tom Lowe

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

Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:12 PM

According to July American cinematographer magazine : " After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith."


So it was the IMAX that was scanned at 8K, not the 35mm?

Satsuki Murashige seems to be reporting something different than AC?
  • 0

#6 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 12 July 2008 - 02:07 AM

So it was the IMAX that was scanned at 8K, not the 35mm?

Satsuki Murashige seems to be reporting something different than AC?

I haven't read the AC article yet, but it's possible that I misunderstood what Pfister was saying. Daryn Okada and Richard Crudo were there at the same seminar I was, so maybe David M. or someone else who knows them could check the facts with them. Or better yet, ask Pfister directly. I thought he was clearly saying the 35mm scope portions were scanned at 8K. But maybe I was wrong.
  • 0

#7 Scott Fritzshall

Scott Fritzshall
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 July 2008 - 03:56 AM

My impression from talking to the VFX sups was that the 35mm Scope sections would be scanned at 4k and that the IMAX sections would be done at 8k, but that was almost a year ago that I talked to anyone so I don't even know what I remember anymore. I'll wait for the Cinefex article in a few months. I don't even remember what they were going to do with the VistaVision plates- 4k or 8k across...

Edited by Scott Fritzshall, 12 July 2008 - 03:57 AM.

  • 0

#8 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 12 July 2008 - 02:49 PM

So it was the IMAX that was scanned at 8K, not the 35mm?



The Imax was scanned at 8K for the 35mm release so it could be re framed for the 35mm DI. The 15 perf 65mm was contact printed for the imax release, the 35mm scope was scanned at 8K to be film recorded for inter cutting with the Imax answer print.

This according to someone at Filmlight...

-Rob-
  • 0

#9 Tom Lowe

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

Posted 12 July 2008 - 07:46 PM

Rob, I did understand that part. What I was referencing was a post Satsuki made about 2 weeks ago. He was under the impression that the 35mm had been scanned at 8K, which seemed kind of odd at the time. Not impossible, but definitely noteworthy.

It's possible that Satsuki's information directly from Pfister was more recent than AC's article, or perhaps there was a misunderstanding of some kind.
  • 0

#10 Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 July 2008 - 11:37 PM

Rob, I did understand that part. What I was referencing was a post Satsuki made about 2 weeks ago. He was under the impression that the 35mm had been scanned at 8K, which seemed kind of odd at the time. Not impossible, but definitely noteworthy.

It's possible that Satsuki's information directly from Pfister was more recent than AC's article, or perhaps there was a misunderstanding of some kind.


The 35mm anamorphic shots were scanned at 4k, and the Imax were scanned at 5.6k and 8k.

That is, if American Cinematographer is to be believed.
  • 0


CineLab

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Opal

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Opal

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC