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

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

We missing a post? What movie are you talking about? Black Panther?

Oops yes i was talking about Black Panther Imax. Hard to say if its worth a second viewing in real Imax. Infinity War for surah!!

[Amar1]

http://variety.com/2018/film/in-cont...rk-1202698342/

Christopher Nolan on why he hasn't used Dolby Atmos, sound mixing for IMAX and why he doesn't use 3D.

From the 27 min mark.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Merkur]

Now we know the logic behind his decision. His mixes are front heavy anyway he might as well stick with 3.1 (Just kidding).

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by testmon112

The 65 already matches closely the IMAX MSM 9802 in fidelity and detail resolution. I mean Deakins even said when he was testing the Alexa 65 for BR2049 it was too damn sharp for him lol!

And with that much resolution, you can get away with composing an image however way you want.

I can imagine people having a hard time with 15/70 equivalent digital senors if Arri did decide to stitch three A3X sensors and tilt it sideways. The amount of data captured would be enormous and the cameras would overheat if shooting open gate. Hopefully Arri has clever engineers to work around that sort of hardware dilemma.

[Geoff D]

I didn't think of that w/ref to the technical challenges, but a man can dream. Given how actual 1.44 capture in that sort of resolution isn't really being pushed by IMAX at the display end, not even in new auditoria which are invariably 1.90 installs even for 4K laser, then it may never happen anyway. Looks like the Alexa 65 will be the primo digital IMAX taking format for a while, and if they desperately need a 1.44 option then I reckon they'll come up with an anamorphic lens to achieve that (albeit one in the reverse of the current cinematic convention, needing to squeeze tall into wide rather than wide into tall).

[GLaDOS]

I would be sad if they kill the 1.44 exhibitions. A reverse anamorphic lens for IMAX would be interesting and very efficient if they chose not to opt for a proper 1.44 sensor.

[Merkur]

Reverse anamorphic is very interesting but one of the characteristics of 15/65 is it being spherical. I actually would like to see (even thought it might be useless) an anamorphic lens on an IMAX film camera.

I hope they do develop a digital 15/65 camera but I think it's great that we're in no rush. Directors who need/demand 15/65 are using the film cameras and some cinematographers intentionally choose cameras with relatively less resolution and latitude instead of the prestigious options available.

[Geoff D]

The image that gets put on the film is no less spherical or anamorphic based on the gauge of the film, it's all about dem lenses. What intrigues me is what would happen to the bokeh with a reverse anamorphic image on 1.44 squeezed into a 1.90 capture, would it become all fat and wide rather than thin and elliptical?

Anamorphic widescreen on a 15-perf IMAX camera? I like that for how insane it would be but I doubt it'd ever happen because the Hasselblad glass is chunky enough as it is, adding in an anamorphic element big enough to cover that image circle would also cut down on the speed of the lens (they're plenty slow already in spherical) and the DOF (already very shallow as it is), it would be impractical in almost every possible way.

You're right though, as long as 15-perf is still catered for as a taking format then there's no need for a digital option.

[The Debts]

What about those new Hawk65 lenses?

[Merkur]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[Show spoiler]The image that gets put on the film is no less spherical or anamorphic based on the gauge of the film, it's all about dem lenses. What intrigues me is what would happen to the bokeh with a reverse anamorphic image on 1.44 squeezed into a 1.90 capture, would it become all fat and wide rather than thin and elliptical?

Anamorphic widescreen on a 15-perf IMAX camera? I like that for how insane it would be but I doubt it'd ever happen because the Hasselblad glass is chunky enough as it is, adding in an anamorphic element big enough to cover that image circle would also cut down on the speed of the lens (they're plenty slow already in spherical) and the DOF (already very shallow as it is), it would be impractical in almost every possible way.

You're right though, as long as 15-perf is still catered for as a taking format then there's no need for a digital option.

That's what I meant with IMAX being spherical (the use of spherical lenses). A replacement for 15/65 should have a similar look. A reverse anamorphic will have a specific look to it, bokeh and maybe interesting looking lens flares. I'd really love to see experiments. Can't it be done just by simply rotating the lens to squeeze vertically instead of horizontally? I found this video but it's not satisfying at all
https://vimeo.com/61184180

Anamorhpic 15-perf... only in dreams. We have 5-perf 65 with Ultra Panavision 70 lenses which I think should be used more often (if possible).

I thought 15/65 with spherical lenses were faster and would let more light in. Guess I was wrong.

[Dubstar]

this is more of an update than actual 'news' per say: but with the closing of the IMAX screen at the Smithsonian's Natural History museum - the nature movies have all basically migrated over to American History on a much much smaller screen [so sad] ~ I'll be so glad when the director of Natural History's term is over. In the realm of space and an auditorium that could be upgraded in height and reconfigured to be a more pseudo like IMAX-lite theater is the one at the Smithsonian's National Zoo. The new IMAX feature 'America's Musical Journeys' opened last Friday at Lockheed (Air & Space) and Udvar Hazy, as well as the Warner Bros. Theater (American History)

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Merkur

I thought 15/65 with spherical lenses were faster and would let more light in. Guess I was wrong.

They are, but not all spherical lenses are the same in terms of speed. Anamorphic lenses would be even slower. I suspect the large film size limits how fast the lenses can be.

For example, I own both medium format (6x4.5cm) and 35mm (8-perf) film cameras. It's not difficult to find 35mm lenses that go down to f/1.8 or even f/1.6.

For my big MF Pentax, the largest aperture I can find is f/2.8. When you're shooting with less light, those few stops make a big difference.

I haven't researched lens options on the Alexa 65 vs the XT for example, but I imagine the 65 generally has slower lenses as the more/larger the glass you have, the less optically efficient the lens becomes in general. That's why prime lenses are used when you want a fast lens.

[Geoff D]

Absolutely right, just because a lens is spherical doesn't mean that it'll give the same performance across all gauges. The bigger the image circle you need to cover then the more glass you need, and the bigger the lens the slower it is. So while a theoretical anamorphic for 1.44 IMAX would indeed be slower compared to the IMAX sphericals, those sphericals themselves are not as fast (nor do they import the same depth of field, being considerably shallower) as spherical lenses for 35mm, with 2x anamorphics being slower again, and the same is true again for comparing 35mm to 16mm.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I'm a die hard film fan. I shoot it almost exclusively and just developed another roll of 120 format Tri-X at home this evening.

I love the look of it, especially in movies when finished photochemically. From gritty 16mm to 35mm to Lawrence and 2001 in 70mm (damn) and Dunkirk in ****ing 15/70, I can't get enough. I even got to see an IB Tech print of the Wizard of Oz and it was a genuinely moving experience. I hope film will be around for a long time for those who want to shoot on it and despite the advances in digital technology, it still has a unique look and a lot to offer. It's also the best archival medium for motion pictures.

That being said, I'm a huge fan of the Alexa series of digital cameras, especially the 65. Just breathtaking. When combined with Dolby Cinema, for example, I can honestly say that I enjoy seeing digitally sourced and projected movies for the first time.

If we get 8K or higher digital laser projection we may even have a worthy digital substitute for the holy grail that is 15/70 IMAX. Isn't that something to celebrate and look forward to? ...I am such a big proponent of presentation quality. The better it is, the more lifelike it feels and the more impactful the story and overall experience.

Digital technology is getting better on the capture and presentation side. That is undoubtedly a good thing, especially considering that it's here to stay.

I understand and respect your opinion. I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis (and firsthand experience) of celluloid film. However, digital, so far, has left me unmoved. I find it looking exceptionally clear but also quite artificial, lacking the warmth and grit of film. It's just too stable/fixed and too perfect looking; to the point that it starts feeling fake. Cinematography is its own thing. I cannot confuse the choice of lighting, framing and colour with the quality of the image itself. While film feels more earthy to me; more emotionally engaging, a digital image almost always feels plastic in comparison.

The real reason why digital acquisition took off was never about image quality, but about convenience of capture and processing. Convenience it seems, has won over quality. Most directors who shot film have now switched overnight to digital. There are only a handful few who still shoot film and barring Nolan, Tarantino and PT Anderson, no other filmmaker seems to be actively fighting to save the format from extinction. It's sad to see that very few are bothered.

How many filmmakers apart from Nolan have spoken up, time and again, about the need to save a format for future generation of filmmakers such as ourselves? They are all rather too busy with their shiny new digital tools to keep options open for aspiring filmmakers.
I've seen almost all major films using the Alexa65 and I've also seen major films using the IMAX 15/65 film camera. To me, there is a timeless beauty in the 15-perf footages I've seen so far. On the Alexa 65, that poetic beauty isn't present. It feels like a very clean, sharpened, 100% stabilised piece of digital imitation.

These are two very different formats that look quite different. One is a organic medium and the other is digital (mathematical precision). I never liked maths by the way. I was always an Arts student. And there is no doubt in my mind that film/analog represents the poetic beauty of life in a much more aesthetically pleasing manner than digital formats do.

[PeterTHX]

Reminds me of those hipsters who clung to their vinyl to the bitter end.


It's made somewhat of a comeback but for stupid reasons.

[GLaDOS]

Riddhi, you severely underestimate the number of people who still use film today.

Kodak is in business, IMAX cameras are getting used in Hollywood production, and rare formats like 70mm film are making a comeback, even if digital cameras are enjoying their renaissance. With a wider range of tools to use for shooting movies, there's no better time to be a filmmaker/cinematographer.

[Riddhi2011]

^ Is it though? The sheer number of filmmakers, fresh and experienced, who are choosing digital, far outnumber those choosing film.
Film has made somewhat of a comeback, yes and primarily due to the efforts of Chris Nolan. The IMAX film format is still alive because Nolan continues to use it and make it available on home video, which helps create an awareness as well. Most other directors despite using it don't make it obvious that they did.

In India, 99.9% of productions are digital. There was only one film shot on Super 16mm last year, called 'The Dark Wind' by Neela Madhab Panda. I feel sad knowing that when I make my first feature, I might not even have the option of using it. I am working on translating the script of a feature and polishing the english dialogues at the moment. The director told me that there's just so much politics and lobbying that you have very little options. Either you use what is being offered or don't make a movie. It's all about convenience in terms of shooting.

Today, the situation is such that except for really influential filmmakers and big Hollywood productions, one would be hard pressed to find productions shot on film all across the world. Arguably the largest/most successful production house, Disney/Marvel has more or less abandoned film. There are still a few who stick to film but they are exceptions.

I hope the balance becomes more healthy in the coming years. I want to be hopeful.

[Riddhi2011]

Now THIS is a true IMAX 3D camera. Records dual strip 15 perf 65mm film, What a beast!

Dream Big - The Solido IMAX Camera - YouTube

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Now THIS is a true IMAX 3D camera. Records dual strip 15 perf 65mm film, What a beast!

Dream Big - The Solido IMAX Camera - YouTube

But the problem with using this camera is that you cannot shoot sync sound with it since it so loud. It's the reason why Nolan shot dialogue scenes on 65mm Panavision cameras.

[Riddhi2011]

Not being able to shoot sync sound did not stop the filmmakers from shooting something like "Born to be Wild" on this camera. Nolan doesn't even use 3D, so this camera is not in his radar anyway. But Dual strip 15-perf 3D is like the holy grail of 3D in terms of the sheer resolution, clarity of IMAX. The Alexa IMAX camera does not even come close to the level of detail that this format can resolve.