Jump to content


Photo

Wild Ocean


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Frank Barrera

Frank Barrera
  • Sustaining Members
  • 464 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 18 October 2009 - 06:17 PM

I haven't seen an Imax film in many years. Took the kids to the Natural History Museum here in NYC to see "Wild Ocean". Wowie zowie. I cant put into words how beautiful it was. I mean on one hand it seems like you really can't go wrong. The Imax format recording from a helicopter off of cliffs as dolphins, sharks, seals and diving birds all go for giant "bait balls" of swarming sardines. Its just incredible. The clarity of all the images is just breathtaking.

Oh yeah and the kids (ages 3 and 5) really loved it too.

If you are in NY and have 40 minutes to kill its worth seeing.

f
  • 0

#2 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 18 October 2009 - 06:57 PM

On my list, thanks. I doubt I will live to see the day when any video format can beat IMAX. I've been watching IMAX movies from childhood when it all started in Toronto.

R,
  • 0

#3 Tom Lowe

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

Posted 28 October 2009 - 08:55 AM

Unfortunately, the IMAX near me plays nothing but up-rezed Hollywood crap. :angry:
  • 0

#4 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 29 October 2009 - 05:41 AM

I have to say that Wild Ocean was one of the less impressive IMAX films I've seen recently. I'm pretty sure that most of the film was shot in the smaller 10/70 and 8/70 formats as well. Now, I'm not saying that negative size is everything, but I would still recommend a true 15/70 film like Deep Sea or Under the Sea over this one for sheer visual experience.

Although I still wish they made an IMAX film one day without cheesy narration and ridiculous music. I guess I'm putting my hopes on Terrence Malick and Voyage of Time...
  • 0

#5 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 29 October 2009 - 04:59 PM

I think the original 65mm Todd A-O film format blows IMAX out of the water.
  • 0

#6 Ruairi Robinson

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

Posted 30 October 2009 - 05:41 PM

I think the original 65mm Todd A-O film format blows IMAX out of the water.



Uhhmm...

I'm trying to comprehend what criteria you are using as a basis for judgment. Please. Explain. I'm curious if you also feel that 16mm blows 35mm out of the water, or that 8mm blows 16mm away, or that shooting on miniDV is better than shooting on red, or pixelvision kicks the F35s ass...? Is VHS better than blu-ray? Is a 286 processor better than an 8 core I7? Which are better, ninjas or pirates?

R.
  • 0

#7 Mathew Rudenberg

Mathew Rudenberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 October 2009 - 06:11 PM

Uhhmm...

I'm trying to comprehend what criteria you are using as a basis for judgment. Please. Explain. I'm curious if you also feel that 16mm blows 35mm out of the water, or that 8mm blows 16mm away, or that shooting on miniDV is better than shooting on red, or pixelvision kicks the F35s ass...? Is VHS better than blu-ray? Is a 286 processor better than an 8 core I7? Which are better, ninjas or pirates?

R.


Dude, a ninja could totally kick a pirate's arse any day of the week, as long as they don't have to fight on a boat (ninjas get seasick)
  • 0

#8 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 30 October 2009 - 06:49 PM

The Original Todd-AO 65mm film format which is shot at 30 frames per second has 25 percent better temporal resolution than IMAX. And yes as a general rule smaller formats can indeed go up against the bigger formats. For example NFL films uses the 16mm format shot at 120 frames per second which blows away 35mm film shot at 30 frames per second.
  • 0

#9 Ruairi Robinson

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

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:46 PM

The Original Todd-AO 65mm film format which is shot at 30 frames per second has 25 percent better temporal resolution than IMAX. And yes as a general rule smaller formats can indeed go up against the bigger formats. For example NFL films uses the 16mm format shot at 120 frames per second which blows away 35mm film shot at 30 frames per second.



So two films, ever have been shot in this format... two not particularly GOOD films I might add. (Have you seen Around the World in 80 days, or Oklahoma projected in 70mm at 30fps?) And every single film shot in this format subsequently was shot at 24fps. If you have NOT seen them projected in this format, then you are not qualified to make a judgement call on what blows away what. Have you? Your imagination of what you reckon they might have looked like does not count.

For starters I reject the basic premise/assumption you make in your arguments. You are coming from the point of view that faster frame rates are necessarily better. No they **(obscenity removed)**ing aren't. 24fps has been fine for the last 100 bloody years. I never heard anyone say "yeah the action scenes in Saving Private Ryan were okay... but they would have been better at 30 fps...."

Well you might. But you are living in a cuckoo clock.

R.
  • 0

#10 Ruairi Robinson

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

Posted 30 October 2009 - 08:50 PM

Dude, a ninja could totally kick a pirate's arse any day of the week, as long as they don't have to fight on a boat (ninjas get seasick)


Correct. Ninjas rock, whereas on the other hand, pirates suck balls.

R.
  • 0

#11 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 30 October 2009 - 10:58 PM

When you get into large format 65mm cinematography 30 frames per second is mandatory because the higher resolution of each frame magnifies the motion artifacts which makes them more noticable. Also 30 frames per second is about as high as you can go without making the film look video like. When Michael Todd had control of his company all of his films were shot on 65mm film at 30 frames per second. Only when Michael Todd sold his company was the format butchered down to 24 frames per second. Therefore genuine Todd-AO is and will always be shot at 30 frames per second and anything else is a phony imitation not worthy of his name.

Perhaps the days of Todd-AO are gone forever but the spirit of Todd-AO lives on. Many high definition video cameras support progressive capture at 30 frames per second and this is a very popular consumer format. My Playstation 3 supports 30 fps as well as all Blu-Ray disc players. Music videos are traditionally captured at 30 frames per second. I have shot many hours of 30fps high definition footage and I always end up with a very filmic image even though the motion characteristics are very much different from 24 fps.
  • 0

#12 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 31 October 2009 - 06:59 PM

Music videos are traditionally captured at 30 frames per second.


Funny, they were, traditionally, shot at 24 fps on 35mm film, though a lot are digital these days. I can't think of a single 30 fps music video I have seen in the past year, not that I claim to have seen all of them.


All this crap about frame rates is so arbitrary. 24fps and 30fps are not "totally different". That is nonsense.

I used to shoot home movies at 16, at 18 fps, and they still looked like film.

Film looks like film. Frame rate is something completely different.

That being said, I am in favor of 25 and 30, but there is nothing that puts me in the position to say this is best done by scrapping film equipment and cameras.


I also really resent the notion that there is anything "wrong" with shooting 24fps or obsolete about it. You'd really do yourself a favor not bashing the format that many of the successful cinematographers on this forum are given the opportunity to work with.

Edited by Karl Borowski, 31 October 2009 - 07:00 PM.

  • 0

#13 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 01 November 2009 - 12:02 AM

The problem with shooting 65mm large format cinematography at 24 frames per second is that any motion artifacts that may be barely visible on 35mm film become that much more readily apparent on 65mm. Therefore when shooting 65mm film it is important to choose a frame rate optimized for 65mm film and a good choice would be to use the original Todd-AO format which is 65mm film shot at 30 frames per second. Indeed higher framerates such as 60 frames per second can be chosen but most cinematographers would object that this would make the footage to appear video like. At the present time since most cinematographers shoot 35mm film there is little incentive to switch framerates because the consensus is that 24 frames per second works just fine. However with all of this empahsis on high definition cinematography and the push for ever increasing resolution will eventually cause most film cinematographers to abandon 35mm film in favor of 65mm film.
  • 0

#14 Ruairi Robinson

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

Posted 01 November 2009 - 12:13 AM

The problem with shooting 65mm large format cinematography at 24 frames per second is that any motion artifacts that may be barely visible on 35mm film become that much more readily apparent on 65mm. Therefore when shooting 65mm film it is important to choose a frame rate optimized for 65mm film and a good choice would be to use the original Todd-AO format which is 65mm film shot at 30 frames per second. Indeed higher framerates such as 60 frames per second can be chosen but most cinematographers would object that this would make the footage to appear video like. At the present time since most cinematographers shoot 35mm film there is little incentive to switch framerates because the consensus is that 24 frames per second works just fine. However with all of this empahsis on high definition cinematography and the push for ever increasing resolution will eventually cause most film cinematographers to abandon 35mm film in favor of 65mm film.



Uhm... so have you ever seen either film shot in Todd AO 65mm projected at 30fps?

Still waiting.
  • 0

#15 Tom Lowe

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

Posted 01 November 2009 - 10:28 AM

I think the original 65mm Todd A-O film format blows IMAX out of the water.


Lol. Nothing "blows IMAX out the water" right now.
  • 0


CineTape

Opal

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Glidecam

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

CineLab

CineLab

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Technodolly

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Opal

Ritter Battery