Large Format/"Premium" Theaters (IMAX 15/70, Digital IMAX, XD, ETX, RPX, etc.)

[Geoff D]

And as for Catching Fire, the 35mm bits looked so good that when the IMAX shots kicked in they didn't seem to be as impressively sharp as they otherwise are. But how can that be, when those 35mm segments were 4K and the TDKR/Interstellar 35mm scenes are done at 6K?

Remember, during the DI process they do all sorts of shenanigans to improve the look of the movie with subtle noise reduction and sharpening and whatnot, generally resulting in a cleaner, sharper image. But Nolan's photochemical finish retains a more glossier, velvety look to the film, and those 6K scans are done from a timed IP so you're already a generation removed from the negative, unlike Catching Fire's DI which was straight off of the camera negative.

[singhcr]

Damn. Oh well, it will still be a fun experience!

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I would like to see him frame the IMAX shots properly as well. I did not get a chance to see the last Hunger Games film but from what you described, the IMAX scenes were very nicely framed for a change.

Yes, they used the full frame (either 1.44:1 or 1.33:1, depending on film stock) for Catching Fire. This resulted in the scope version being compromised.

Check out this clip. The IMAX version does not have that crazy post-production upward tilt.

Catching Fire upward tilt - YouTube

[Geoff D]

Aye, there's a fair bit of that throughout CF's IMAX scenes. The director told the DP to use the full height of the frame and not to worry about the 2.35 extraction, whereas Nolan seems to line up the 2.35 extraction first and then the rest of the frame follows, like in that establishing shot of Aidan Gillen at the start of TDKR with the airplane behind him. The length of the plane perfectly fills the 2.35 frame, whereas we just get a lot more legs and feet in the taller 1.43 version.

It'd be great to see him spread his IMAX wings a bit more with Interstellar.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And as for Catching Fire, the 35mm bits looked so good that when the IMAX shots kicked in they didn't seem to be as impressively sharp as they otherwise are. But how can that be, when those 35mm segments were 4K and the TDKR/Interstellar 35mm scenes are done at 6K?

Remember, during the DI process they do all sorts of shenanigans to improve the look of the movie with subtle noise reduction and sharpening and whatnot, generally resulting in a cleaner, sharper image. But Nolan's photochemical finish retains a more glossier, velvety look to the film, and those 6K scans are done from a timed IP so you're already a generation removed from the negative, unlike Catching Fire's DI which was straight off of the camera negative.

Thank you, sir! That explains a lot.


I understand the desire to want to retain a photo chemical finish but when the IMAX process uses digitized 35mm footage, why not use the OCN? If I remember correctly, all digital versions of his films come from an IP. That makes as much sense to me as making a SACD from a second generation analog tape instead of the master one.

[theprestige85]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nolan does it like that because A) he's too big of a fan of 35mm anamorphic to just bin it, and B) if the non-IMAX shots were on regular 70mm then the 15/70 IMAX scenes wouldn't seem to be so startlingly clear and sharp in comparison, thereby reducing their impact.

I understand where youse guys are coming from - his 35mm shots really do look extremely soft on the biggest IMAX screens - but personally I like that contrast between the two formats. If only Nolan would then frame his 1.43 IMAX shots to use the full height instead of always keeping the 2.35 extraction in mind...

Absolutely man. Dramatic effect and all that.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Thank you, sir! That explains a lot.





I understand the desire to want to retain a photo chemical finish but when the IMAX process uses digitized 35mm footage, why not use the OCN? If I remember correctly, all digital versions of his films come from an IP. That makes as much sense to me as making a SACD from a second generation analog tape instead of the master one.

Indeed. But did you notice in the write-up of all those different ways that Interstellar will be presented that they kept making mention of the analog colour? The IP is the main record of how Nolan wants the film to look, and he doesn't trust a digitally timed version to deliver the same experience. He'll allow a digital representation of that version to be projected (the site gives credit where credit is due, saying that the DCPs will be the cleanest and most stable versions out of all of them) but actually grading it digitally to begin with is anathema to him. So that means that all versions have to start with the timed IP.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Indeed. But did you notice in the write-up of all those different ways that Interstellar will be presented that they kept making mention of the analog colour? The IP is the main record of how Nolan wants the film to look, and he doesn't trust a digitally timed version to deliver the same experience. He'll allow a digital representation of that version to be projected (the site gives credit where credit is due, saying that the DCPs will be the cleanest and most stable versions out of all of them) but actually grading it digitally to begin with is anathema to him. So that means that all versions have to start with the timed IP.

Gotcha. That makes sense. I guess a digitized capture of an analog color palette is more authentic than trying to digitize the color to begin with in his mind.

However, what about all of the restoration work that Sony and the like have done on classic films like Lawrence and Taxi Driver? They both came from the OCN and they retain a very film-like, analog color timing. Couldn't you use the IP as an answer print when grading the OCN-derived DI?

I've always been confused as to how one times a scanned negative. I should try that with some of my color still negatives and see how it goes.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Gotcha. That makes sense. I guess a digitized capture of an analog color palette is more authentic than trying to digitize the color to begin with in his mind.



However, what about all of the restoration work that Sony and the like have done on classic films like Lawrence and Taxi Driver? They both came from the OCN and they retain a very film-like, analog color timing. Couldn't you use the IP as an answer print when grading the OCN-derived DI?



I've always been confused as to how one times a scanned negative. I should try that with some of my color still negatives and see how it goes.

You're quite right, all of those restorations derived from the negatives have to encounter the same hurdles re: colour grading, which is why you gather as many reference materials as possible, go to the director or cinematographer for approval (if still alive) and use the talents of restorers who know just what the hell they're doing, like Robert Harris or Sony's Grover Crisp.

But Nolan's idiosyncrasies have carried him this far in 'the business', and as his influence has grown and digital has gained ever more traction, he's become more determined than ever to hang on to the photochemical process of film. However, those in charge of film restoration cannot afford to be so selective and must take a more pragmatic approach, hence the full embrace of digital restoration techniques. (I doubt that Mr Harris would've been able to salvage The Godfather were it not for digital.)

As for your last comment, they don't grade the negative in the negative domain. Once it's scanned the image is inverted to a positive and then the work is carried out.

[theprestige85]

Geoff how do you know so much about this? Have you worked with film and large formats before or something? You come across as some sort of insider.

[jscoggins]

He's actually Christopher Nolan.

[Geoff D]

Ha! I'm merely someone who listens when the real experts speak.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

My theater recently just put in a RPX theater not too long ago. And I'll most likely see Mockingjay part 1 in that. It's $14.00 for a matinee. Which is lie $5 more than a regular matinee. But I have movie money. So that should cost just about all of it.

[BaerGriggs]

I was very surprised to hear that my local Regal in Columbia, MO just installed an RPX theater screen. It's not a huge theater so I didn't think we'd ever get one to be honest..it figures that they'd wait until my senior year to install one . I've never gone to a Regal premium theater, but if it's anything like AMC Prime or the Wehrenberg Giant Screens that are in the Midwest, then I'm really glad to have a local option to see movies like The Hobbit and Mockingjay later this year. I'm thinking of going to catch Dracula Untold there just to see what the experience is like.

[jscoggins]

BoxOffice.com is predicting

Interstellar
Opening Weekend: $76 mil
Final Domestic Gross: $340 mil

Mockingjay Part 1
Opening Weekend: $155 mil
Final Domestic Gross: $393 mil

Interstellar is booked in Giant IMAX for a solid month. Most Digital IMAX screens will have it for a full month as well. IMAX will then show The Hobbit 3.

BoxOffice.com is predicting

The Hobbit 3
Opening Weekend: $68 mil
Final Domestic Gross: $297 mil

This makes no sense whatsoever. Mockingjay Part 1 will have the biggest opening weekend of the year (easily beating Transformers 4), and it might be the only movie to top $400 mil of any 2014 release. In fact, it might be the only movie to surpass $100 mil on opening weekend since no one actually believes that Transformers 4 achieved that metric.

Yet, IMAX is not going to carry this movie at all in America. Huh?

Look, I understand that Interstellar was shot with 15/70 film, but demand for this in Giant or Digital IMAX will burn off by the time that Mockingjay Part 1 bows.

I saw the first two in IMAX but can't see the third one in IMAX?

[Dubstar]

the Arclight Bethesda (Maryland) which has just opened, has two (!) Atmos equipped screens, one being the chain's "Widescreen" screen. This is exciting news since it seems that both AMC and Regal have become notoriously lazy and cheap in not installing Atmos (or Auro 11.1) in and around their Washington DC metro area theaters.

supposedly AMC is looking into upgrading in-town's Uptown theater to a better sound system - they aren't being specific but it sounds like they are eye-ing Auro 11.1 since the theater's balcony is posing a problem in how speaker placement would be implemented.

[Dubstar]

The two 'Xtreme' screens at Cinemark Fairfax 14 now both feature Auro 11.1 sound systems

[pappy97]

Just came back from Interstellar IMAX 70mm. Best cinematic experience of my life.

[HD Canuck]

Originally Posted by pappy97

Just came back from Interstellar IMAX 70mm. Best cinematic experience of my life.

Best one for me up to this point was TRON Legacy 3D on IMAX 70mm. I think that was the first and only time I had a smile on my face during the entire movie. And Daft Punk on those speakers... Raiders of the Lost Ark looked great too but it was at the theater that has the smaller IMAX screen.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by pappy97

Just came back from Interstellar IMAX 70mm. Best cinematic experience of my life.

Too bad the dialogue is George Lucas levels of bad. This is coming from a man who loves all of his previous films. Why do you think I have that avatar?