IMAX Quality for whole film - Blu-ray Forum

harry_hman18 · 08-14-2009, 07:22 AM

Hi guys,

Im kinda new to these forums as I have been viewing this website for a long time and u guys definetlly know wat ur talking about here. So I have a question that has been in the back of my mind for sometime and I apologise if this is a silly question. After watching The Dark Knight on blu-ray, the IMAX shots for the action scenes have the best PQ I ever seen, so why dosent the whole film be shot with IMAX cameras and be put on blu-ray as it is? If they can film the action scenes, Im sure they can film all the dialoge scenes with those cameras too.

Thanks guys

MOONPHASE · 08-14-2009, 07:24 AM

The Imax scenes were the only scenes that were filmed with Imax cameras and the rest was not

Happy_Evil_Dude · 08-14-2009, 08:04 AM

To complete Moonphase's answer:

The reason why the whole film wasn't shot in IMAX are numerous:

-IMAX cameras are "big and clunky" and thus impractical and difficult to handle.

-Two types of IMAX cameras exist, one of which has a load time of 2 and a half minutes, the other 30 seconds, which means you can only film for that amount of time.

-Finally "the IMAX camera is so noisy that any dialogue needs to be looped in post production", which means no sync sound.

Don't worry though there's still directors ou there like Nolan, Favreau, McG etc who want to film a whole big movie in IMAX.

syncguy · 08-14-2009, 08:37 AM

One of the key reasons is the difficulties related to IMAX cameras as described above.

Other difficult-to-fix key problem is lack of IMAX theaters around the world. I think 99.9% theaters are non-IMAX and Scope (i.e. 2.39:1). Therefore IMAx aspect need to be cropped when shown in 99.9% theaters around the world. There is no commercial advantage to film the entire movie in IMAX format since it cannot be shown in that format in almost all cinemas. Hence only few scenes are shot in IMAx format (while framing for the Scope aspect) to attract people to IMAX cinemas.

harry_hman18 · 08-14-2009, 10:10 AM

Thanx guys that makes a lot of sense now, hopefully soon they will develop the technology to film entire movies with IMAX quality!

RiseDarthVader · 08-14-2009, 10:50 AM

Reason's why you can't shoot a whole 'hollywood' movie in IMAX.
IMAX cameras hold about 3 mins of film.
Large and heavy making it difficult to work with.
Takes a week to get the 'dailies' back so that means you don't know if you need to go back and re-shoot a scene for a week which can add costs.
Because of the noise of the cameras all audio needs to be foleyed and ADR done which is actors re-recording their lines and performances in post production.
Much higher resolution that you need to render at for visual effects leading to more costs and time.

4Dblu · 08-14-2009, 11:19 AM

I work at a "REAL" IMAX theater so i can answer all ur questions, but all said true from the other guys here but some key issues were still left out.

1. expense - studios need a ton of cash to produce a film in IMAX. Walt Disney was the first company to remaster an entire film in IMAX and cost $80mil. and thats for a REPRINT. fantasia 2000 made back in 2002 and it was 1hr 20mins which is the limit for the film platters.

2. projector - the projector bulb can't run for a 2 1/2hr movie. if anybody ever seen a IMAX projector there almost 6ft tall, 3 1/2ft wide. and the bulb is water cooled.

to run movies running almost 3hrs long requires 3 platters and u will need to change out the first platter to show the ending. remember back in the day when movies had intermissions that will also return. and don't forget bulb cool down periods. it would be nice to see a entire blockbuster shown in IMAX but will it really really be worth it. it will b a HUGE expense and not worth it...

RiseDarthVader · 08-14-2009, 11:26 AM

What area of the IMAX cinema do you work in? Box? Candy? Floor? Projection?

4Dblu · 08-14-2009, 11:33 AM

i do the maintenance on the projector like i cleaning, change the bulb and constantly repairing those darn "chillers". there good when they work but a pain

when they stop.

RiseDarthVader · 08-14-2009, 01:50 PM

How often do IMAX prints get replaced? Especially if they are documentures like Space Station 3D?

raskal66 · 08-14-2009, 02:00 PM

I've noticed that the XD theaters at various Cinemark have been giving me a better experience than IMAX lately. It's bigger than many of the newer IMAX theaters and when it's actually different than a standard theater, I don't mind paying the extra $$.

IMAX has let me down the last few times I've been.

Moefiz · 08-14-2009, 02:07 PM

You learn something new everyday on this board...

Keep it up, I was also curious about some of the points made in here...

4Dblu · 08-14-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

How often do IMAX prints get replaced? Especially if they are documentures like Space Station 3D?

they try every 3 months to change films but sometimes depending on the crowd they can last to 6 months

i don't run the films like i used to i only go there once or twice a month to do the maintenance and i'm out.
and of course on-call for EMERGENCIES

Lol......

just in case anyone wants to know it can take up to 6hrs to change the bulb. but that includes the 2hr cool down time. so its really 4hrs and thats with 2 people.

syncguy · 08-15-2009, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Dblu

they try every 3 months to change films but sometimes depending on the crowd they can last to 6 months

i don't run the films like i used to i only go there once or twice a month to do the maintenance and i'm out.
and of course on-call for EMERGENCIES

Lol......

just in case anyone wants to know it can take up to 6hrs to change the bulb. but that includes the 2hr cool down time. so its really 4hrs and thats with 2 people.

Wow. Interesting information. It looks like this technology needs lot of effort in maintenance. Hope they get sufficient commercial return for the investment. Otherwise, end of IMAX could come soon!

Ernest Rister · 08-15-2009, 05:39 PM

Fantasia / 2000 premiered in December of 1999, and the Fantasia 2000 Imax Experience premiered 12/31/1999, not 2002. And the $80 million cost was also for the revision of the Imax platter system to allow the format to show a film longer than 45 minutes. Disney and IMAX teamed up to figure out that bug-a-boo, and so Fantasia/2000 made film history and IMAX engineering history.

Blu Titan · 08-15-2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy_Evil_Dude

To complete Moonphase's answer:

The reason why the whole film wasn't shot in IMAX are numerous:

-IMAX cameras are "big and clunky" and thus impractical and difficult to handle.

-Two types of IMAX cameras exist, one of which has a load time of 2 and a half minutes, the other 30 seconds, which means you can only film for that amount of time.

-Finally "the IMAX camera is so noisy that any dialogue needs to be looped in post production", which means no sync sound.

Don't worry though there's still directors ou there like Nolan, Favreau, McG etc who want to film a whole big movie in IMAX.

Good information here^^^. I will agree with the op that the PQ os the IMAX scenes in TDK equals Nirvana. Maybe Nolan would take the risk of doing an entire movie in IMAX.

4Dblu · 08-15-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Fantasia / 2000 premiered in December of 1999, and the Fantasia 2000 Imax Experience premiered 12/31/1999, not 2002. And the $80 million cost was also for the revision of the Imax platter system to allow the format to show a film longer than 45 minutes. Disney and IMAX teamed up to figure out that bug-a-boo, and so Fantasia/2000 made film history and IMAX engineering history.

no, i did not mean it permiered in 2002, i'm saying thats when i showed it. and your right we did have bigger platters but, hey, $80m is $80m. and trust me those platters didn't put a dent in that $80m. cause there was no other adjustments that needed to be made just 2 BIG A$$ platters......

SkillzthatKillz · 08-16-2009, 12:06 AM

Transformers 2 was the first movie i had seen in IMAX and i gotta say, the IMAX scenes were incredible, they blew my mind lol. can't wait for that movie to come to blu-ray

RiseDarthVader · 08-16-2009, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Good information here^^^. I will agree with the op that the PQ os the IMAX scenes in TDK equals Nirvana. Maybe Nolan would take the risk of doing an entire movie in IMAX.

Nolan might want to but Warner Bros. would say hell no. Especially because they destroyed 1 IMAX camera already and would of had to pay several millions for that.

mjbethancourt · 08-16-2009, 06:06 PM

If the market demands it, then the studios will invest in the R & D necessary to make it happen. It's not a static technology, it has already seen some advancements (see Rister's Disney comment), it is bound to see more. Most of the current cameras are fairly old, they could benefit greatly from a new generation of Imax camera. And two-week processing times for dailies would disappear if enough people are using it that capacity is increased by that end of the market (and besides, there's nothing to stop them from having a redundant camera in the rig specifically for making dailies, just a simple digital camera or something... dailies aren't final cut quality anyway, what difference would it make). Imax is not an endangered species, "Imax-lite" feature films are increasing the public's interest in the format. As digital gets better, eventually 70mm will have to become the standard to keep up and compete. And sooner or later one of these mogul producers is going to tackle a project with a virtually unlimited budget and give Imax a shot.

These things happen one step at a time.

08-14-2009, 07:22 AM	#1
harry_hman18 New Member Member since:Sep 2008	IMAX Quality for whole film Hi guys, Im kinda new to these forums as I have been viewing this website for a long time and u guys definetlly know wat ur talking about here. So I have a question that has been in the back of my mind for sometime and I apologise if this is a silly question. After watching The Dark Knight on blu-ray, the IMAX shots for the action scenes have the best PQ I ever seen, so why dosent the whole film be shot with IMAX cameras and be put on blu-ray as it is? If they can film the action scenes, Im sure they can film all the dialoge scenes with those cameras too. Thanks guys

08-15-2009, 05:39 PM	#15
Ernest Rister Blu-ray Prince Member since:Jan 2008 4K collection:100 Blu-ray collection:590 Blu-ray reviews:1 Trading Score:1	Fantasia / 2000 premiered in December of 1999, and the Fantasia 2000 Imax Experience premiered 12/31/1999, not 2002. And the $80 million cost was also for the revision of the Imax platter system to allow the format to show a film longer than 45 minutes. Disney and IMAX teamed up to figure out that bug-a-boo, and so Fantasia/2000 made film history and IMAX engineering history. Last edited by Ernest Rister; 08-15-2009 at 05:44 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Is IMAX better than 1080p? what resolution are they film?	Blu-ray Movies - North America	mugupo	113	08-22-2011 08:36 PM
TDK video quality praised yet the non-Imax majority looks poor.	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Tru-way	160	05-17-2009 07:46 PM
Topic: Imax Film vs Imax Digital	Movies	Neil_Luv's_BLU	7	03-24-2009 04:36 PM
Any IMAX (70mm Film) Transfer to HD ?	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	JimPullan	5	09-27-2006 04:45 PM

08-14-2009, 07:24 AM	#2
MOONPHASE Blu-ray Duke Top contributor Member since:Jun 2007 Location:California 4K collection:8 Blu-ray collection:520 DVD collection:820 Blu-ray reviews:18 Trading Score:29	The Imax scenes were the only scenes that were filmed with Imax cameras and the rest was not

08-14-2009, 08:04 AM	#3
Happy_Evil_Dude Senior Member Top contributor Member since:May 2009 4K collection:2 Blu-ray collection:138 Blu-ray reviews:3	To complete Moonphase's answer: The reason why the whole film wasn't shot in IMAX are numerous: -IMAX cameras are "big and clunky" and thus impractical and difficult to handle. -Two types of IMAX cameras exist, one of which has a load time of 2 and a half minutes, the other 30 seconds, which means you can only film for that amount of time. -Finally "the IMAX camera is so noisy that any dialogue needs to be looped in post production", which means no sync sound. Don't worry though there's still directors ou there like Nolan, Favreau, McG etc who want to film a whole big movie in IMAX.

08-14-2009, 08:37 AM	#4
syncguy Blu-ray Guru Member since:Mar 2008	One of the key reasons is the difficulties related to IMAX cameras as described above. Other difficult-to-fix key problem is lack of IMAX theaters around the world. I think 99.9% theaters are non-IMAX and Scope (i.e. 2.39:1). Therefore IMAx aspect need to be cropped when shown in 99.9% theaters around the world. There is no commercial advantage to film the entire movie in IMAX format since it cannot be shown in that format in almost all cinemas. Hence only few scenes are shot in IMAx format (while framing for the Scope aspect) to attract people to IMAX cinemas.

08-14-2009, 10:10 AM	#5
harry_hman18 New Member Member since:Sep 2008	Thanx guys that makes a lot of sense now, hopefully soon they will develop the technology to film entire movies with IMAX quality!

08-14-2009, 10:50 AM	#6
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	Reason's why you can't shoot a whole 'hollywood' movie in IMAX. IMAX cameras hold about 3 mins of film. Large and heavy making it difficult to work with. Takes a week to get the 'dailies' back so that means you don't know if you need to go back and re-shoot a scene for a week which can add costs. Because of the noise of the cameras all audio needs to be foleyed and ADR done which is actors re-recording their lines and performances in post production. Much higher resolution that you need to render at for visual effects leading to more costs and time.

08-14-2009, 11:19 AM	#7
4Dblu Power Member Member since:Aug 2008 Location:Big Small State Home Theater Gallery:15 4K collection:264 Blu-ray collection:1566 DVD collection:113 Blu-ray reviews:3 Trading Score:31	I work at a "REAL" IMAX theater so i can answer all ur questions, but all said true from the other guys here but some key issues were still left out. 1. expense - studios need a ton of cash to produce a film in IMAX. Walt Disney was the first company to remaster an entire film in IMAX and cost $80mil. and thats for a REPRINT. fantasia 2000 made back in 2002 and it was 1hr 20mins which is the limit for the film platters. 2. projector - the projector bulb can't run for a 2 1/2hr movie. if anybody ever seen a IMAX projector there almost 6ft tall, 3 1/2ft wide. and the bulb is water cooled. to run movies running almost 3hrs long requires 3 platters and u will need to change out the first platter to show the ending. remember back in the day when movies had intermissions that will also return. and don't forget bulb cool down periods. it would be nice to see a entire blockbuster shown in IMAX but will it really really be worth it. it will b a HUGE expense and not worth it...

08-14-2009, 11:26 AM	#8
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	What area of the IMAX cinema do you work in? Box? Candy? Floor? Projection?

08-14-2009, 11:33 AM	#9
4Dblu Power Member Member since:Aug 2008 Location:Big Small State Home Theater Gallery:15 4K collection:264 Blu-ray collection:1566 DVD collection:113 Blu-ray reviews:3 Trading Score:31	i do the maintenance on the projector like i cleaning, change the bulb and constantly repairing those darn "chillers". there good when they work but a pain when they stop.

08-14-2009, 01:50 PM	#10
RiseDarthVader Power Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Australia Blu-ray collection:136	How often do IMAX prints get replaced? Especially if they are documentures like Space Station 3D?

08-14-2009, 02:00 PM	#11
raskal66 Senior Member Member since:Sep 2008 Location:Dallas, TX Blu-ray collection:16	I've noticed that the XD theaters at various Cinemark have been giving me a better experience than IMAX lately. It's bigger than many of the newer IMAX theaters and when it's actually different than a standard theater, I don't mind paying the extra $$. IMAX has let me down the last few times I've been.

08-14-2009, 02:07 PM	#12
Moefiz Blu-ray Knight Member since:Jul 2007 Blu-ray collection:288 DVD collection:20 Blu-ray reviews: 15 Trading Score:70	You learn something new everyday on this board... Keep it up, I was also curious about some of the points made in here...

08-16-2009, 12:06 AM	#18
SkillzthatKillz Special Member Member since:Feb 2008 Location:Cincinnati, OH Blu-ray collection:214 DVD collection:2 Trading Score:1	Transformers 2 was the first movie i had seen in IMAX and i gotta say, the IMAX scenes were incredible, they blew my mind lol. can't wait for that movie to come to blu-ray

08-16-2009, 06:06 PM	#20
mjbethancourt Blu-ray Samurai Member since:May 2008 Location:suburban fly-over USA 4K collection:15 Blu-ray collection:876	If the market demands it, then the studios will invest in the R & D necessary to make it happen. It's not a static technology, it has already seen some advancements (see Rister's Disney comment), it is bound to see more. Most of the current cameras are fairly old, they could benefit greatly from a new generation of Imax camera. And two-week processing times for dailies would disappear if enough people are using it that capacity is increased by that end of the market (and besides, there's nothing to stop them from having a redundant camera in the rig specifically for making dailies, just a simple digital camera or something... dailies aren't final cut quality anyway, what difference would it make). Imax is not an endangered species, "Imax-lite" feature films are increasing the public's interest in the format. As digital gets better, eventually 70mm will have to become the standard to keep up and compete. And sooner or later one of these mogul producers is going to tackle a project with a virtually unlimited budget and give Imax a shot. These things happen one step at a time.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals