Do not see a movie in IMAX unless it was made for it.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by BaerGriggs

And I don't really know how you can say that you always know what you're getting when you see an IMAX screen. It was very confusing when The Dark Knight Rises came out to actually find a 70mm projector still in use for IMAX theaters..you had to resort to user-generated maps and lists that could very easily go out of date.

I carefully said "IMAX Digital" and not 70MM. Anything 70MM will be a bonus.

[BaerGriggs]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

I carefully said "IMAX Digital" and not 70MM. Anything 70MM will be a bonus.

Okay, touché. I'm just personally going to hold off on IMAX films until the new 4K laser projectors are rolled out.

[singhcr]

At the Minnesota Zoo IMAX in Apple Valley a film that's at least partially shot with IMAX cameras is a sight to behold- Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in IMAX is still the most exhilarating experience I have ever had going to the movies. Sitting in the back row the IMAX scenes were pin-sharp with an insane amount of detail and deep, rich colors that made the scenes look 3D.

When I saw The Dark Knight there the IMAX scenes were amazing but the 35mm scenes were absolute garbage. TDKR was much improved in that department.

However, my last visit was to see Elysium. I figured a 4K digital source struck onto IMAX 45/70 stock would be good, but it was very blurry and frustrating to watch. It was obvious that it was never meant to be seen on such a large screen. The processing didn't help either because it was very blurry whenever the camera moved. It's a digitally recorded movie printed onto super fine-grained 70mm film stock so what's the point of using DNR and other filtering tools?

I am very much looking forward to seeing Interstellar on IMAX, though. I just wish the prices would come down. It used to be $12 with other theaters charging $5-9. Now it's $16.50 for a single show. Hmmm... do I want to watch the movie or buy the Blu-ray? Then again, theaters around here have increased their ticket prices to $9.75 for evening shows and can be even more expensive for the large screen (aka blurry and dim LieMAX) and 3D. So if you want to watch Gravity in 3D on their "IMAX" screen it will cost basically the same as seeing it in an actual IMAX theater.

I really wish more movies would be shot in this format. Why hasn't anyone, especially Nolan, shot an entire movie in IMAX? I imagine it can't be that much more expensive to do this considering the budgets of movies today. If not IMAX, why not shoot 70mm?

[Poya]

Originally Posted by singhcr

At the Minnesota Zoo IMAX in Apple Valley a film that's at least partially shot with IMAX cameras is a sight to behold- Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in IMAX is still the most exhilarating experience I have ever had going to the movies. Sitting in the back row the IMAX scenes were pin-sharp with an insane amount of detail and deep, rich colors that made the scenes look 3D.

When I saw The Dark Knight there the IMAX scenes were amazing but the 35mm scenes were absolute garbage. TDKR was much improved in that department.

However, my last visit was to see Elysium. I figured a 4K digital source struck onto IMAX 45/70 stock would be good, but it was very blurry and frustrating to watch. It was obvious that it was never meant to be seen on such a large screen. The processing didn't help either because it was very blurry whenever the camera moved. It's a digitally recorded movie printed onto super fine-grained 70mm film stock so what's the point of using DNR and other filtering tools?

I am very much looking forward to seeing Interstellar on IMAX, though. I just wish the prices would come down. It used to be $12 with other theaters charging $5-9. Now it's $16.50 for a single show. Hmmm... do I want to watch the movie or buy the Blu-ray? Then again, theaters around here have increased their ticket prices to $9.75 for evening shows and can be even more expensive for the large screen (aka blurry and dim LieMAX) and 3D. So if you want to watch Gravity in 3D on their "IMAX" screen it will cost basically the same as seeing it in an actual IMAX theater.

I really wish more movies would be shot in this format. Why hasn't anyone, especially Nolan, shot an entire movie in IMAX? I imagine it can't be that much more expensive to do this considering the budgets of movies today. If not IMAX, why not shoot 70mm?

The reason that the 35mm scenes in both TDK and TDKR are bad because Nolan personally removed the grain, boosted the contrast, and applied DNR to the IMAX prints to make them look "as good as" the IMAX scenes. Plus, since Elysium was shot digitally, it wasn't printed on 70mm film. It was only viewable in those digital LIEMAX projectors. That's why it was blurry.

And it's financially impossible and cumbersome to shoot in 70mm, let alone IMAX.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Agreed - perhaps the OP just has a sh*tty local IMAX? Because I've seen plenty of 15/70 films (whether they we 'made' for IMAX or not - The Hobbit, for example) and digital IMAX prints (again, both filmed and not filmed in IMAX) and I can't think of one that I've had a problem with.

I'm lukcy enough in that I can get in free to both my local arthouse and a local multiplex so I get to see pretty much anything for free, and yet I'm still pay £15-20 to go and see certain films in IMAX because the experience is worth it.

No. I live near the Universal Citywalk IMAX, and it's authentic 15/70. That's an experience. True, for digitally shot films, they use their digital projector, but they have that special rail system that switches projectors. The digital one for digitally shot films and the film one for celluloid shot films.

[42041]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I really wish more movies would be shot in this format. Why hasn't anyone, especially Nolan, shot an entire movie in IMAX? I imagine it can't be that much more expensive to do this considering the budgets of movies today. If not IMAX, why not shoot 70mm?

For big tentpole action movies more of a logistics issue than a cost issue, I think. The film mags hold about 3 minutes of film, the cameras are really loud, big, and heavy, and there's like one or two labs in the world that can process your footage, which is a problem if you're shooting all over the place. It's just a big pain in the ass.
Digital cinematography is close to making the format moot anyway.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Poya

The reason that the 35mm scenes in both TDK and TDKR are bad because Nolan personally removed the grain, boosted the contrast, and applied DNR to the IMAX prints to make them look "as good as" the IMAX scenes.

Where did you hear that? From what I know the DMR process is done by IMAX. In some cases it was not done (Skyfall) but it is getting better over time. TDKR's 35mm scenes were much less processed looking than TDK's did.

Originally Posted by Poya

Plus, since Elysium was shot digitally, it was printed on 70mm film. It was only viewable in those digital LIEMAX projectors. That's why it was blurry.

I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. You could see it projected digitally or you could see it on film and based on the BD screenshots it looks quite sharp so either the digital to film transfer was garbage or there was or it was not projected properly at my theater. My theater definitely did not show it digitally.

[Poya]

Where did you hear that? From what I know the DMR process is done by IMAX. In some cases it was not done (Skyfall) but it is getting better over time. TDKR's 35mm scenes were much less processed looking than TDK's did.

The filmmakers are usually involved heavily in the DMR process.

I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. You could see it projected digitally or you could see it on film and based on the BD screenshots it looks quite sharp so either the digital to film transfer was garbage or there was or it was not projected properly at my theater. My theater definitely did not show it digitally.

My mistake. I meant it wasn't printed in 70mm. Sorry.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Where did you hear that? From what I know the DMR process is done by IMAX. In some cases it was not done (Skyfall) but it is getting better over time. TDKR's 35mm scenes were much less processed looking than TDK's did.



I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. You could see it projected digitally or you could see it on film and based on the BD screenshots it looks quite sharp so either the digital to film transfer was garbage or there was or it was not projected properly at my theater. My theater definitely did not show it digitally.

Elysium was printed in 15/70.

[sega3dmm]

Originally Posted by Poya

Not when you have this projector, which has a contrast of 8000:1.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-dig...uct-SRX-R515P/

This is actually the only Sony projector I don't mind. Though, I have never seen a 3D movie on one of those. I was talking about something more in the line of the 320s.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by sega3dmm

This is actually the only Sony projector I don't mind. Though, I have never seen a 3D movie on one of those. I was talking about something more in the line of the 320s.

Those have the same contrast level as the IMAX laser projectors.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Poya

The filmmakers are usually involved heavily in the DMR process.



My mistake. I meant it wasn't printed in 70mm. Sorry.

No problem. You're right that the filmmakers are involved in the DMR process, thanks for that info. The tools must be getting better now as TDKR looked much better than TDK. I am amazed that Nolan or his DP didn't just forgo the processing. Isn't that basically what was done with the 70mm blowups in the past?

[Poya]

Originally Posted by singhcr

No problem. You're right that the filmmakers are involved in the DMR process, thanks for that info. The tools must be getting better now as TDKR looked much better than TDK. I am amazed that Nolan or his DP didn't just forgo the processing. Isn't that basically what was done with the 70mm blowups in the past?

Yes, but it seems that Nolan wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He still wants to shoot in film but he's not a fan of the grain, which is why he turned to IMAX stock, which has a very fine amount of grain, and the rest can be removed digitally, hence the soft look that even TDKR wasn't immune to.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by 42041

For big tentpole action movies more of a logistics issue than a cost issue, I think. The film mags hold about 3 minutes of film, the cameras are really loud, big, and heavy, and there's like one or two labs in the world that can process your footage, which is a problem if you're shooting all over the place. It's just a big pain in the ass.
Digital cinematography is close to making the format moot anyway.

Thanks for the info. You'd think that if a director really wanted to do it, he/she could, like Paul Thomas Anderson or Kenneth Branagh.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Poya

Yes, but it seems that Nolan wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He still wants to shoot in film but he's not a fan of the grain, which is why he turned to IMAX stock, which has a very fine amount of grain, and the rest can be removed digitally, hence the soft look that even TDKR wasn't immune to.

Possibly, but modern 35mm stocks are practically grainless anyway.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Thanks for the info. You'd think that if a director really wanted to do it, he/she could, like Paul Thomas Anderson or Kenneth Branagh.

The Master had only 85% of it shot in 65mm. The other 15% was in 35mm due to artistic choices.

[WhySoCereal]

So I had a talk with my friend about NOT seeing every summer movie in IMAX, my wallet cannot handle it :P We're just going to see Transformers 4, Interstellar (due to IMAX cameras being used on both), and both Marvel movies. I don't think Cap 2 or Guardians will gain too much, but I love the Marvel movies so much I can't resist. We have some other "premium" screens here that mostly boost the sound so we'll see the other blockbusters that way.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by WhySoCereal

So I had a talk with my friend about NOT seeing every summer movie in IMAX, my wallet cannot handle it :P We're just going to see Transformers 4, Interstellar (due to IMAX cameras being used on both), and both Marvel movies. I don't think Cap 2 or Guardians will gain too much, but I love the Marvel movies so much I can't resist. We have some other "premium" screens here that mostly boost the sound so we'll see the other blockbusters that way.

Not Transformers. The "IMAX" camera may use a 1.43:1 ratio, but the quality is not made for the screen.

[bluearth]

Silly thread IMO, the sound at my AMC IMAX is 10x better then the normal screens, its worth the extra ticket price alone not to mention the bigger picture

[42041]

Originally Posted by Poya

Not Transformers. The "IMAX" camera may use a 1.43:1 ratio, but the quality is not made for the screen.

Like all of IMAX's digital efforts, the digital IMAX camera is a bit of a cheat. I think it's built on the Phantom 65, which has a 10 megapixel sensor. After all the low-pass filtering and debayering is said and done, I doubt it'd measure up to even a fine-grained Super35 negative, let alone true IMAX film.