70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak)

[in2video2]

I've noticed that many of the new IMAX presentations in the end technical credits include the credit:
70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak)
Wondering if a few of our technically-minded forum members may be able to help me out with an explanation of what this means. Star Trek (2009) and 2012 (2010) are two recent examples. I am thinking this means that the original 35mm Panavision film stock is blown-up to make a 70mm Panavision master which is then used towards the final IMAX prints which are then distributed for presentation. Original Aspect Ratio for IMAX is 1.44; 35mm Panavision has an Original Aspect Ratio of 2.35 or 2.39 and the 70mm Panavision would have an Original Aspect Ratio of 2.20.
Might be wrong here but wouldn't it make more sense economically to shoot in 70mm (65mm negative) to begin with? Wouldn't the quality be better, too? And the end result for us, the Blu-Ray consumer, wouldn't the image be more impressive? Seems to me we are seeing the 70mm catalogue releases being systematically short-listed and rushed to Blu-Ray with impressive results. Hope someone can bring me up to speed on this. Thank you.

[42041]

Shooting 65mm would be certainly be great, but not more economical. There are interviews online with Cristopher Nolan and his DP where they discuss the logistical issues in shooting a regular feature with IMAX cameras, which are not limited to just the cost.

They're still working from the same 2K or 4K master they use for the 35mm prints, but the IMAX techs filter the grain and enhance the image for the IMAX screen.

I've never seen an IMAX DMR blowup so I can't say what the quality is like.

[vveksuvarna]

Certainly not less economical, 65mm film is expensive, and 70mm IMAX is not only expensive, but logistically difficult, since only 3 imax cameras exist.

and the aspect ratios of the DMR'ed films are maintained, they are letterboxed to fit the IMAX ratio,

and I doubt they do any DNR on the 35mm masters, since the grain are huge on the IMAX screen,

I have seen DMR'ed movies one more than one instance, and I hate the quality,

the size of the image is great, but the quality is bad, the sharpness of the image is lost, and the details are lost in grain.

not the best experience, I often choose a 35mm or a 4k showing of a film in oppostion to a DMR'ed show.

[in2video2]

I appreciate your responses. I agree - I, too, am not a fan of IMAX presentations. Too many fond memories of 70mm roadshow presentations growing up in Australia are hard to forget. Sadly we will probably not be in a position to reverse gears into that 70mm direction again here in the USA; even though it seems the movie studios would like to see more audience numbers in theaters instead of at home. And yet 70mm blow-up now seems a vital step in preparing an IMAX print for distribution? 70mm catalogue feature films certainly look fantastic on Blu-Ray compared to their 35mm cousins.

[Suntory_Times]

If you want to see what a dmr'ed image looks like on blu look at the non imax scenes of the dark knight transfer. It was sourced from the imax print. Some DNR and heavy edge enhancement.

[jc480]

Are there any BDs that are 100% filmed in IMAX? I'm guessing the IMAX documentary specials?

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by jc480

Are there any BDs that are 100% filmed in IMAX? I'm guessing the IMAX documentary specials?

Baraka is one that comes to mind. (not sure if it used imax camera, but I know it used 70mm film).

Also look here.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

If you want to see what a dmr'ed image looks like on blu look at the non imax scenes of the dark knight transfer. It was sourced from the imax print. Some DNR and heavy edge enhancement.

Suntory Times is right, if you want to see what IMAX DMR looks like just look at The Dark Knight. I think they are getting better at it though because when u went to IMAX Sydney for Iron Man 2 I noticed that even though the grain is still wiped clean it's still got a good amount of detail and the edge enhancement is a lot harder to notice.

[vveksuvarna]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

If you want to see what a dmr'ed image looks like on blu look at the non imax scenes of the dark knight transfer. It was sourced from the imax print. Some DNR and heavy edge enhancement.

The Dark Knight BD is not an accurate representation of what the image looks like after being DMR'ed, even though the BD was sourced from an IMAX 70mm horizontal print.

the size of the projection is vital in noticing the artifacts,

it is undebatable fact that the bigger the display gets, the higher resolution it commands,

same theory goes for IMAX, in which 35mm film is scanned and printed on IMAX 70mm, which is larger than the regular 70mm scope film.

One has to see a DMR'ed show to really below average quality projected on a giant screen.

However, the sound is superior in these showings.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

The Dark Knight BD is not an accurate representation of what the image looks like after being DMR'ed, even though the BD was sourced from an IMAX 70mm horizontal print.

the size of the projection is vital in noticing the artifacts,

it is undebatable fact that the bigger the display gets, the higher resolution it commands,

same theory goes for IMAX, in which 35mm film is scanned and printed on IMAX 70mm, which is larger than the regular 70mm scope film.

One has to see a DMR'ed show to really below average quality projected on a giant screen.

However, the sound is superior in these showings.

It's all got to do with veiwing distance, the problems related are just as viewable at home as they are in imax.

[vveksuvarna]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

It's all got to do with veiwing distance, the problems related are just as viewable at home as they are in imax.

you know, I kinda agree with you,

but think in terms of field of view, the projected image will always have an advantage.

[42041]

Originally Posted by jc480

Are there any BDs that are 100% filmed in IMAX? I'm guessing the IMAX documentary specials?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Many of the older ones have shoddy transfers though.
Some of the recent ones look great, like Grand Canyon Adventure, The Alps, and Wild Ocean.

And Baraka is not IMAX. It's regular vertical 70mm where each frame is 5 perforations high. IMAX cameras feed the 65mm film horizontally and each frame is 15 perforations wide.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by 42041

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Many of the older ones have shoddy transfers though.
Some of the recent ones look great, like Grand Canyon Adventure, The Alps, and Wild Ocean.

And Baraka is not IMAX. It's regular vertical 70mm where each frame is 5 perforations high. IMAX cameras feed the 65mm film horizontally and each frame is 15 perforations wide.

I didn't think it was Imax, that bieng said, it's still a stunner to look at on blu.

[jc480]

Originally Posted by 42041

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Many of the older ones have shoddy transfers though.
Some of the recent ones look great, like Grand Canyon Adventure, The Alps, and Wild Ocean.

And Baraka is not IMAX. It's regular vertical 70mm where each frame is 5 perforations high. IMAX cameras feed the 65mm film horizontally and each frame is 15 perforations wide.

Thanks...good info on Baraka btw.

[in2video2]

Following up on Baraka - it was filmed in 65mm Todd-AO and scanned at 8K. The same film director and crew are soon to release Samsara which is being filmed in Super Panavision 70 and after its initial theatrical release will reach Blu-Ray with the same results. So 70mm is not exactly dead and buried. It keeps on coming back. Look at the recent restoration of The Sound of Music (1965) also produced in Todd-AO and scanned from the original 65mm negatives at 8K resolution. Really, who needs IMAX? 70mm photography is definitely more expensive than 35mm Super 35 or 35mm anamorphic Panavision. A feature film in IMAX is not only cost prohibitive and impossible as the IMAX camera when in use is so loud and noisy it would become a distraction for actors and film crew and a nuisance as live sound recording would have to be ruled out and replaced with dubbed dialogue. 70mm (actually 65mm negatives) could be selectively used in productions which lend themselves to epic storytelling and extra clarity would benefit the film as a whole. Bypassing the theatrical distribution of 70mm movies at exhibition for the lack of venues available could be compensated in possible addition benefits of Hi Def cable and Blu-ray releases. 70mm movies being restored for Blu-Ray are being well received now that the crucial investments in technical support software have now been developed. Those same results could be taken advantage of by today's moviemakers. Excuse me as I ramble on here, but, it could happen... and should happen.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by vveksuvarna

Certainly not less economical, 65mm film is expensive, and 70mm IMAX is not only expensive, but logistically difficult, since only 3 imax cameras exist.

and the aspect ratios of the DMR'ed films are maintained, they are letterboxed to fit the IMAX ratio,

and I doubt they do any DNR on the 35mm masters, since the grain are huge on the IMAX screen,

I have seen DMR'ed movies one more than one instance, and I hate the quality,

the size of the image is great, but the quality is bad, the sharpness of the image is lost, and the details are lost in grain.

not the best experience, I often choose a 35mm or a 4k showing of a film in oppostion to a DMR'ed show.

for me, the quality of DMR'ed film in IMAX are mixed bag, some look great sometimes not. Spiderwick Chronicles looked hazy and quite frankly terrible. The latest Star Trek looked amazing and of course sounded incredible. Inception on the big IMAX screen was impressive, but for a film where certain scenes were shot in 70mm - I couldn't tell, the image again looked hazy and didn't have that 'pop' sheen look that IMAX-Digital conveyed.

Technically there shouldn't be any, or let me restate very little, grain on an IMAX (film) print. Films that are transferred for IMAX-Digital, DLP and Sony LCoS '4K' use the intermediate negative or digital capture where very little grain is actually captured on film, if you see a film festival or premier engagement those prints are also truer to what was originally shot, mass produced 35mm prints actually look far worse than what was shot by the Director of Photography, unless he/she wants the movie to purposely have a grainy appearence (i.e, the Saw films sans 'Saw 3D')

The plus side of IMAX - is that the majority of the films soundtracks are remixed to Sonics DDP sound

Originally Posted by 42041

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Many of the older ones have shoddy transfers though.
Some of the recent ones look great, like Grand Canyon Adventure, The Alps, and Wild Ocean.

And Baraka is not IMAX. It's regular vertical 70mm where each frame is 5 perforations high. IMAX cameras feed the 65mm film horizontally and each frame is 15 perforations wide.

what's the point/importance of perforations, I've never understood why that's such a major factor when frame/film stock is mentioned.

speaking of new IMAX blurays - I saw this on the IMAX screen and the review of the bluray is a 'must buy':

Van Gogh Brush with Genius

Originally Posted by in2video2

Following up on Baraka - it was filmed in 65mm Todd-AO and scanned at 8K. The same film director and crew are soon to release Samsara which is being filmed in Super Panavision 70 and after its initial theatrical release will reach Blu-Ray with the same results. So 70mm is not exactly dead and buried. It keeps on coming back. Look at the recent restoration of The Sound of Music (1965) also produced in Todd-AO and scanned from the original 65mm negatives at 8K resolution. Really, who needs IMAX? 70mm photography is definitely more expensive than 35mm Super 35 or 35mm anamorphic Panavision. A feature film in IMAX is not only cost prohibitive and impossible as the IMAX camera when in use is so loud and noisy it would become a distraction for actors and film crew and a nuisance as live sound recording would have to be ruled out and replaced with dubbed dialogue. 70mm (actually 65mm negatives) could be selectively used in productions which lend themselves to epic storytelling and extra clarity would benefit the film as a whole. Bypassing the theatrical distribution of 70mm movies at exhibition for the lack of venues available could be compensated in possible addition benefits of Hi Def cable and Blu-ray releases. 70mm movies being restored for Blu-Ray are being well received now that the crucial investments in technical support software have now been developed. Those same results could be taken advantage of by today's moviemakers. Excuse me as I ramble on here, but, it could happen... and should happen.

there's speculation that Samsara wont be released in 70mm due to the cost and lack of number of theatres that can still playback 70mm films. The trend of shooting certain scenes for films in 70mm seems odd since a full length film would make a lot more sense

The International
The New World
The Prestige
Quantum of Solace
Shutter Island
Inception

I think that 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (IMO) looks better than 'Sound of Music' where the colors seem waaay to saturated for my taste, CCBB looks exceedingly sharp and more natural

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

...if you see a film festival or premier engagement those prints are also truer to what was originally shot, mass produced 35mm prints actually look far worse than what was shot by the Director of Photography...

While that once held truth, the modern industry standard has radically "changed the game up". Since it's now standard for all digital/35mm release prints to be derived from a single 2/4k DI, the 'baseline' is now the same, thus what audiences see at a premiere is generally what audiences see in wide release (and extremely close to what is seen in a quality blu-ray encode). This is barring the obvious difference between, say, a 70mm premiere/standard 35mm release print of course. Digital projection has particularly made this a non-factor.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

While that once held truth, the modern industry standard has radically "changed the game up". Since it's now standard for all digital/35mm release prints to be derived from a single 2/4k DI, the 'baseline' is now the same, thus what audiences see at a premiere is generally what audiences see in wide release (and extremely close to what is seen in a quality blu-ray encode). This is barring the obvious difference between, say, a 70mm premiere/standard 35mm release print of course. Digital projection has particularly made this a non-factor.

some of that maybe true, but the quality of 35mm prints that theatres receive and project vary greatly - I saw 'Atonement' and 'Poseidon' in 35mm and they looked nothing like their bluray counterparts, the 35mm prints had a meshy high grain grade look, the blurays were much more sharper and considerably less grainy - I would suppose and hope the bluray's are far more representational of what the DP/Director originally intended.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

some of that maybe true, but the quality of 35mm prints that theatres receive and project vary greatly - I saw 'Atonement' and 'Poseidon' in 35mm and they looked nothing like their bluray counterparts, the 35mm prints had a meshy high grain grade look, the blurays were much more sharper and considerably less grainy - I would suppose and hope the bluray's are far more representational of what the DP/Director originally intended.

I was speaking only of theatrical screeenings, should have clarified I guess. 35mm release prints do become "battered" pretty quickly and often times the blu will provide a superior presentation over the 35mm prints that most people see. Not even to mention the varying conditions of projection equipment, etc. Often there's even a noticeable difference between seeing the same 35mm print in the first few days of release and after a few weeks. It's kind of ridiculous, actually.

[in2video2]

[QUOTE=Dubstar;4076969]for me, the quality of DMR'ed film in IMAX are mixed bag, some look great sometimes not. Spiderwick Chronicles looked hazy and quite frankly terrible. The latest Star Trek looked amazing and of course sounded incredible. Inception on the big IMAX screen was impressive, but for a film where certain scenes were shot in 70mm - I couldn't tell, the image again looked hazy and didn't have that 'pop' sheen look that IMAX-Digital conveyed.

Technically there shouldn't be any, or let me restate very little, grain on an IMAX (film) print. Films that are transferred for IMAX-Digital, DLP and Sony LCoS '4K' use the intermediate negative or digital capture where very little grain is actually captured on film, if you see a film festival or premier engagement those prints are also truer to what was originally shot, mass produced 35mm prints actually look far worse than what was shot by the Director of Photography, unless he/she wants the movie to purposely have a grainy appearence (i.e, the Saw films sans 'Saw 3D')

The plus side of IMAX - is that the majority of the films soundtracks are remixed to Sonics DDP sound



what's the point/importance of perforations, I've never understood why that's such a major factor when frame/film stock is mentioned.

speaking of new IMAX blurays - I saw this on the IMAX screen and the review of the bluray is a 'must buy':

Van Gogh Brush with Genius



there's speculation that Samsara wont be released in 70mm due to the cost and lack of number of theatres that can still playback 70mm films. The trend of shooting certain scenes for films in 70mm seems odd since a full length film would make a lot more sense

The International
The New World
The Prestige
Quantum of Solace
Shutter Island
Inception

Those recent film productions seem to highlight the continued interest by Directors and Directors of Photography in filming with 65mm negative cameras. And we are talking of the movers and shakers here. We are now obviously much more aware of the end results with superior Hi Def quality for Blu-Rays and to some extent Hi Def Cable distribution. If only there was a way to make it viable to continue the creative option to film originally in 70mm (65mm negative) and, of necessity, theatrically distribute in IMAX/35mm for the multiplex cinema audience, and then produce the superior results obtainable using original 65mm source material for Blu-Ray. Best of all worlds. The studio sees an end result of better quality. Not saying this would work for every movie made - back in the heyday of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s not every motion picture was produced with a 70mm 6-Track result in mind. It seems an enigma that we ditched magnetic soundtracks of 70mm prints in order to develop the digital sound systems we always wanted at the expense of a fully realized visually stunning immersive experience. Where do we go from now? Seems such a waste. Most modern day multiplex audience members have probably never experienced a 70mm presentation in a movie theater... but they can now see and hear the difference at home on Blu-ray when comparing 35mm to 70mm productions. Go figure.