Jump to content


Photo

Fast Five / IMAX questions


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Enrique Lombana

Enrique Lombana
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • presently Teaneck, N.J.

Posted 30 April 2011 - 03:02 PM

From my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, many IMAX movies are not true IMAX movies, the negative is just blown up from the 35mm negative. I just saw Fast Five in the IMAX theater last night, and it was entertaining, but am I right in thinking I'm still looking at the information captured by a 35mm negative? And not information captured by exposing a 65mm negative to the same information? I do understand that you can't shoot a movie like that, or even most movies in 65mm (cost/camera/stunts). Most scenes were nice and some even incredible, but there were a few were you really saw the soft focus(or enlargement giving the appearance of soft focus) I guess since blowing up from a 35mm negative. I did go to one of the other theaters, one of the standard size screens and the IMAX was ALOT better, in resolution, color. I imagine the movie is shot in 35mm, then edited, DI'ed with vibrant colors, and output to 65mm and 35mm, it's just the 65mm holds more vibrant color and information. Am I right? I'm kind of just going by reasonable deductions here.

Another question I have is...does IMAX theaters (such as AMC Theaters) project mostly film still or are they projecting from a digital file now? Is a digital file what they call D-cinema now?

The movie was fun, and it was a full theater, people were cheering and all that, had some great action scenes. It's great to see people still getting into movies. There were a couple parts that were a little over the top but you just go with it and enjoy it. Overall and all things considering, it was a fun movie.

Thanks for your input everyone,
Enrique
  • 0

#2 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 30 April 2011 - 08:55 PM

We shot the picture in Super 35mm, 2.40:1. Panavision.
  • 0

#3 Enrique Lombana

Enrique Lombana
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • presently Teaneck, N.J.

Posted 30 April 2011 - 09:35 PM

Pretty cool!
  • 0

#4 Enrique Lombana

Enrique Lombana
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • presently Teaneck, N.J.

Posted 30 April 2011 - 09:42 PM

I see you worked on The Fighter, how did you like working with 2-perf? Do you think 2-perf will start to get more popular? Thanks!

Have a great day,
Enrique
  • 0

#5 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:09 PM

I see you worked on The Fighter, how did you like working with 2-perf? Do you think 2-perf will start to get more popular? Thanks!

Have a great day,
Enrique

Two perf is very risky. Gate hairs are a common problem. One cannot avoid them. We were two perf solely to avoid shooting HD. The Fighter was also a gritty film and the two perf matched the style beautifully. HD will overtake the two perf market. There is not much evidence that supports the two perf format.
  • 0

#6 Brian Hulnick

Brian Hulnick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts
  • Sound Department

Posted 18 May 2011 - 08:08 AM

I once watched Indy 4 at an Imax cinema and I wasn't impressed. The image looked overly blown up and soft. Did Fast Five look similar?
  • 0

#7 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 18 May 2011 - 07:14 PM

I once watched Indy 4 at an Imax cinema and I wasn't impressed. The image looked overly blown up and soft. Did Fast Five look similar?


I have no idea. I saw it with digital projection here in Baltimore, MD at some downtown cinema (we are here on location filming another picture). It was scary sharp!
G
  • 0

#8 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 18 May 2011 - 09:23 PM

I have no idea. I saw it with digital projection here in Baltimore, MD at some downtown cinema (we are here on location filming another picture). It was scary sharp!
G



It was only scary sharp because you're so good at what you do! :)
  • 0

#9 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 19 May 2011 - 02:01 PM

It was only scary sharp because you're so good at what you do! :)

Thanks Brian. Thats very kind of you to say that. Cheers!
  • 0

#10 Brian Hulnick

Brian Hulnick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts
  • Sound Department

Posted 30 May 2011 - 01:31 AM

Films shot specifically for IMAX can look amazing, however the IJ4 was merely blown up to fill the screen, which was a pity.
  • 0


Technodolly

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Technodolly

CineLab

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport