IMAX Dome format versus Cinerama
Posted 09 October 2008 - 12:12 AM
Posted 09 October 2008 - 01:18 AM
Posted 09 October 2008 - 04:40 PM
Posted 10 October 2008 - 01:06 AM
I suppose that most businessmen would think that OMNIMAX must be just a gimmick and so these bean counters probably think that the future of cinema will simply be 4K digital video projcected up to 60 frames per second on a flat screen with a 2 to 1 aspect ratio will be all the market requires or at least all that they will be willing to pay for but I dare say that these businessmen cannot call themselves artists because they are just in the business for the money.
Dome has its place, in fact, it is unbeatable at certain styles of stories/cinema but after having the artist beaten out of me while making 8k stereo dome (2 x 8k) I can tell you that the bean counters are wise to be counting. dome gets real expensive real quick. Incidentally, not that anyone asked, a 4k camera does not equal a 4k dome camera...
part of the problem with these formats, is the clarity of story is difficult to impart. you lose the directional cues of traditional movies so narrative becomes difficult. Immersivity is good in some scenarios, but maintaining audience focus is hard enough on a typical film where the norms are well established, and with dome you are giving them the choice to look around, potentially at key moments when you don't want them to look around. As a result most narratives on domes tend to adhere to traditional cinema concepts, only to use the dome as a gimmick in certain scenes (as you said) but given the immense technical difficulty of achieving dome shots properly and given the high likelihood that the immersive screen will actually dilute the intent of shots, it begs the question why bother on such projects.
In terms of the future of cinema, its all about risk, why reduce the cinemas you film could play in, increase the cost of production, negate DVD sales, all for a film that doesn't use the dome effectively anyway? Worse there are competing dome standards, so what you make for one dome, might not work in another...
Posted 10 October 2008 - 02:26 AM
Posted 07 April 2009 - 11:25 AM
Unless you are sitting in the exact centre of the 'dome' the image is severally distorted. The fact that the screen allows light to pass through it also means some is not all reflected back to the viewer causing a dimmer image. I don't like the color either, washed out compared to other films.
I also don't like that any bright areas show up the frame that holds the screen (looks like dropped ceiling frames!)
The angle to is uncomfortable. It gets back to where you are sitting in the theatre. Too low or high and unless you crank your head around you end up looking at the periphery - not the main subject. That can't be what the director intended.
Ditch the screen, change the aspect back to wide screen and keep the neg size - that would be a better use of the technology.
Posted 07 April 2009 - 01:31 PM
When color motion picture photography was first introduced I am sure a lot of people hated it. First of all we had only 2 colors which were red and green which was probably very annoying because without the color blue we ended up with green skies which looked horrible. And we had terrible chromatic aberations were the colors would not line up. Many people dismissed color films as a gimmick and rightfully so.
Posted 07 April 2009 - 06:51 PM
........ I suppose that most businessmen would think that OMNIMAX must be just a gimmick and so these bean counters probably think that the future of cinema will simply be 4K digital video projcected up to 60 frames per second on a flat screen with a 2 to 1 aspect ratio will be all the market requires or at least all that they will be willing to pay for but I dare say that these businessmen cannot call themselves artists because they are just in the business for the money.