actually, I should provisionally extend the definition of liemax:
... maybe they go so far as to simply project from any projector (35mm, digital) onto a IMAX screen and thereby still call it IMAX.
Can anyone confirm this has happened to them ?
I watched Indy 4 at the Imax in Siam Paragon in Bangkok Thailand in 2008 and that was 35mm simply blown up to fill the Imax screen it was softer than a babies ass.Walked away very disappointed.
I watched Indy 4 at the Imax in Siam Paragon in Bangkok Thailand in 2008 and that was 35mm simply blown up to fill the Imax screen it was softer than a babies ass.Walked away very disappointed.
Sure the 35mm shots were put through DMR after being scanned at 4K resolution from the timed master positive. The IMAX shots were probably 15-20 minutes worth of footage 2nd generation contact prints at all IMAX theatres, or scanned at it was at least 8K for SFX work and then output back to film and contact printed.
This latest "Dark Knight" installment is supposed to have more IMAX.
While some IMAX theatres are running a smaller frame size, believe it is 8-perf., the vast majority of real film installations run 70mm 15-perf. It certainly is up to the cinematographer (and those over him) what is put onto IMAX film. It can only resolve 12K+ if it is in-focus and shot on IMAX negative.
Even 4K DMR onto film, this should look far better than a pair of 2K projectors. At 3.6K+ (probably really close to 4 even through two film generations considering the 12x area of an IMAX frame compared with 4-perforation 35mm), this is still almost double the resolution at any digital equivalent.
Consider also screen size and brightness, even against true 4K projectors, which often have brightness issues.
Sure the 35mm shots were put through DMR after being scanned at 4K resolution from the timed master positive. The IMAX shots were probably 15-20 minutes worth of footage 2nd generation contact prints at all IMAX theatres, or scanned at it was at least 8K for SFX work and then output back to film and contact printed.
Brian was talking about Indy 4. There never were IMAX prints of that one, so when he said ”35mm simply blown up”, he probably meant actual 35mm projection on an IMAX screen. No wonder that was soft; it was just a 2K DI film, to make matters worse.
While some IMAX theatres are running a smaller frame size, believe it is 8-perf., the vast majority of real film installations run 70mm 15-perf.
All film-based IMAX projectors are 15/70mm. 8/70mm is a separate format, used in science centres etc. and not branded by IMAX, even though a lot of 15/70mm ”science/ride” films also had 8/70mm reduction prints made.
Most of the DMR releases of Hollywood blockbusters were always 15/70mm only. Disney made 8/70mm prints of The Beauty and the Beast, Treasure Planet and The Lion King, but those are the only feature films for that format as far as I know.
Regarding The Dark Knight Rises, the producer said in December that there will be 40–50 minutes of IMAX-shot footage. Also, there was some talk earlier that Nolan is considering shooting the rest of the film in 5-perf 65mm – I don’t know what’s the latest news on that but it sounds good.
Most of the DMR releases of Hollywood blockbusters were always 15/70mm only.
Actually, I suppose that there never was such a thing as a 8/70mm DMR. IMAX DMR is a trademarked process which has only been used for making 15/70mm prints and digital IMAX DCP’s (although I suppose those are two quite different processes really). So the Disney 8/70mm blowups were just… well, blowups.
Edited by Antti Näyhä, 23 January 2012 - 01:18 PM.
Brian was talking about Indy 4. There never were IMAX prints of that one, so when he said ”35mm simply blown up”, he probably meant actual 35mm projection on an IMAX screen. No wonder that was soft; it was just a 2K DI film, to make matters worse.
I thought he was talking about an IMAX print, regardless of the movie there should be a 70mm projector in an IMAX booth (well unless it is "IMAX" digital. . .)
No offense, but I really think you are nitpicking me.
The point I was trying to make is that an IMAX blowup of a 35mm movie should look really good, but from an IMAX neg will look a lot better, and, either way, a film IMAX presentation will look better than just a couple of crummy 2K projectors with an IMAX logo stamped on them
That's optical DMR, 8 perf. 15 perf., whatever. 70mm blowups look better than 35mm, unless the projector's out of focus during the duplicating process.
Personally, I was never a fan of the 35mm-to-15/70mm DMR process. If the film was shot on 35mm, I’d rather watch a good 35mm projection of a good print. Or a 4K digital projection.
That said, some of the optical, non-DMR 35mm-to-5/70mm blowups I’ve seen have looked really good. When IMAX came up with DMR, they introduced all sorts of digital grain reduction and sharpening. I understand that those things might be unavoidable to make the footage watchable on a 130-foot screen, but I still prefer it on a smaller screen – with nice, natural grain instead of DMR artifacts.
A 35mm print loses roughly 30% of the negative (not to mention the dynamic range in the highlights, shadows that are obliterated in a high-contrast print), in a 4th generation contact print.
I'd say that a 4K DMR is less than 5%, maybe more like 2-3% because the resolution of the negative far exceeds the information that has been blown up on it. I'd say IMAX blowups, optical or digital, come close to 4K projection, definitely with better colors and contrast ratios.
Just FYI most "4K projectors" show movies through 3D lenses (less than 2K resolution) or only have 2K files even if they DO have the right lens. For practical purposes film IMAX decimates its current digital competition.
I personally dislike grain reduction, but that is another can of worms. It can be applied just as oppressively to a 4K DI master.
Brian was talking about Indy 4. There never were IMAX prints of that one, so when he said ”35mm simply blown up”, he probably meant actual 35mm projection on an IMAX screen. No wonder that was soft; it was just a 2K DI film, to make matters worse.
The cinema actually advertised that this was a special Imax Presentation, f@cking insult more like.
I'm generally not into the batman movies that much but so far this is looking like the best thing in cinemas after all (with the exception of perhaps Anna Karinna and that Danish film with a similar plot, both of which look interesting)
My one criticism of what I have seen so far is that the whole "Theres a storm coming" line which was in so many movies in about 2006/2007 is maybe starting to look a bit old. Probably unfair tho as it might hold more true now than it did back then. Depends on what you call a storm and what you call a bit of a nasty squall or something. Anyway the plot is looking a bit interesting with a Gotham where everything looks sort of okay from the outside but which is actually rotten to the core. I like the whole hidden just below the surface corruption thing and think it would be interesting if the "Villian" is looking to bring change to the corrupt and nasty society whereas wealthy socialite batman is out to preserve the existing order.
What really makes me interested is the way Christopher Nolan talks about making the film. I get the impression the guy is sick of making batman films, but at the same time he doesn't seem like someone about to throw away a big opportunity. He is approaching the film positively and looking at it from the point of view of how he can get a positive experience out of actually making the film as opposed to just a huge paycheck at the end.
When he talks about the project he talks about it in terms or art and wanting to make something visually stunning, and thinking in terms of great silent cinema from the past. The visual spectacle captured. He seems very concerned about what is happening in front of the lens and the art of that, as opposed to the technology sitting behind the lens.
To be honest I'm a bit sick of seeing people who aren't really that interested in cinema, and seem to be just going through the motions for a job, or who are interested in some aspect of the technology or some other thing but not the art of cinema itself. Christopher Nolan seems like someone who has a real care about things.
Strange that he is British. The land of "bounce a 2k off the ceiling an call it lit". Maybe that is part of the reason tho!
Anyway I'm actually sort of looking forwards to this in spite of the fact it's not obviously my sort of thing.
“We spent about six months working with Panavision and Imax to retool the viewfinder on the cameras and craft new lenses, which allowed us to shoot in very low-light conditions,”
source: wired.com
What new lenses? Has Panavision actually designed faster lenses for IMAX!? The fastest commercial medium-format lenses are usually f2 - no matter from which vendor!?
