Is IMAX better than 1080p? what resolution are they film?

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by swifty7

are you serious? how can they afford to project 2k only on a screen the size of IMAX. Are we to believe that the 2k projected image is going to look as sharp and detailed as much as IMAX film?

Welcome to my latest crusade. I think it's completely ridiculous also. They will be using two modified Christie 2k projectors (to double the light output) but it's still going to be 2k resolution. The projected image will be nowhere near the clarity of an IMAX print (assuming an IMAX source), but since most movies are just being "blown up" to IMAX anyway, they figure there won't be much difference (and they'll save money).

Originally Posted by diamondfoxxx

My point is that shoot the movie in film, and project digitally everytime so it will be a closer expierience to the originally intended look.

While I agree that digital has some benefit over most 35mm prints of a film shot on Super35... it's nowhere near the quality of an IMAX print from an IMAX source. I was much happier 10 years ago when Hollywood was talking about IMAX and other large format film stocks as being the potential 'future' than I am today with Super35 as the defacto standard for capture, and either digital projection or 35mm prints as the options in the cinema.

Originally Posted by amtctt

Problem is, the imax screen is roughly 4:3, so it's never OAR. and they tend to cut out seens for the imax version. not sure if they will for this. but i saw attack of the clones at imax after seeing it the theater and there was about a 10-20 minutes difference. not cool.

Well, there are two issues you bring up. The first (aspect ratio) is a matter for debate. Yuo can certainly show a 2.39:1 image on an IMAX screen, but especially early on, that wasn't done. They reformatted the Super35 negative to match the screen's AR. Many newer films (including TDK) don't do this, they just show the correct AR "letterboxed" on the screen.

The time issue was also a big deal early on, on films like "Apollo 13" and "Star Wars: Episode 1." That problem has been resolved with modifications to the projection systems and IMAX films no longer have the absurd length requirements they initially did.

[WickyWoo]

Well, there are two issues you bring up. The first (aspect ratio) is a matter for debate. Yuo can certainly show a 2.39:1 image on an IMAX screen, but especially early on, that wasn't done. They reformatted the Super35 negative to match the screen's AR. Many newer films (including TDK) don't do this, they just show the correct AR "letterboxed" on the screen.

My big question is whether the IMAX scenes will go to the correct 1.44:1 or whether they decided that constant height would be less jarring

The time issue was also a big deal early on, on films like "Apollo 13" and "Star Wars: Episode 1." That problem has been resolved with modifications to the projection systems and IMAX films no longer have the absurd length requirements they initially did.

Episode 2 actually

I really hope TDK IMAX blows records, and that Batman's Still Beginning will be allowed to be shot 100% IMAX.

[Polic]

Only parts of TDK were shot in imax. Not the whole film.

[amtctt]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Well, there are two issues you bring up. The first (aspect ratio) is a matter for debate. Yuo can certainly show a 2.39:1 image on an IMAX screen, but especially early on, that wasn't done. They reformatted the Super35 negative to match the screen's AR. Many newer films (including TDK) don't do this, they just show the correct AR "letterboxed" on the screen.

The time issue was also a big deal early on, on films like "Apollo 13" and "Star Wars: Episode 1." That problem has been resolved with modifications to the projection systems and IMAX films no longer have the absurd length requirements they initially did.

Well, that's good that they are showing the entire film and letterboxing it. i was annoyed with Episode 2.

[Lyle_JP]

If the second new-Batman film was filmed like the first, there will be no Super35 negative to allow anyone to mess with the aspect ratio. Batman Begins was shot with anamorphic lenses on standard 35mm stock, and has no "extra" top and bottom picture. Both the negatives and release prints had only one AR (2.39:1). The IMAX version of BB was "letterboxed" within the IMAX frame.

There are valid artistic reasons to shoot with anamorphic lenses versus spherical. In medium and close shots there is a very shallow field of focus, which allows the director to focus only on what he wants you to look at, with everything else in the background soft. Directors Christopher Nolan and John Carpenter shoot almost exclusively in anamorphic.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I really hope TDK IMAX blows records, and that Batman's Still Beginning will be allowed to be shot 100% IMAX.

Nobody even shoots feature films in 65mm anymore, much less IMAX. The theatrical run is just a commercial for the home video sales. Every feature film you see in IMAX is a blow-up from a 35mm or digital source. The cameras are far too unwieldy, the lens selection too limited, and the film stock too expensive for anything other than short documentary features. In fact, IMAX's large negative size even makes it impractical for shooting special effects plates. 65mm or Vistavision (yes, the cameras still exist) is occasionally used for this, but generally Super35 is the format of choice for such chores.

[WickyWoo]

Nobody even shoots feature films in 65mm anymore, much less IMAX. The theatrical run is just a commercial for the home video sales. Every feature film you see in IMAX is a blow-up from a 35mm or digital source. The cameras are far too unwieldy, the lens selection too limited, and the film stock too expensive for anything other than short documentary features. In fact, IMAX's large negative size even makes it impractical for shooting special effects plates. 65mm or Vistavision (yes, the cameras still exist) is occasionally used for this, but generally Super35 is the format of choice for such chores.

Christopher Nolan specifically requested to shoot Dark Knight in IMAX. They wouldn't let him, due to the money,but they did allow him to shoot 6 scenes IMAX.

I accept your points on the difficulties of IMAX. I would welcome 65mm photography as well

Vistavision is an excellent format.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Christopher Nolan specifically requested to shoot Dark Knight in IMAX. They wouldn't let him, due to the money,but they did allow him to shoot 6 scenes IMAX.

I accept your points on the difficulties of IMAX. I would welcome 65mm photography as well

Vistavision is an excellent format.

Yes, since my post I have seen the news reports that parts of the film were in fact shot IMAX, a first in the history of Hollywood (although the articles I read said four scenes, not six). On one hand, I am extremely excited by this. I am all for large format photography. But the way it has been handled for The Dark Knight does open up a can of worms.

The 4/6 scenes shot in IMAX are intended to be viewed in an IMAX aspect ratio (1.44:1), with the rest of the film being shot (Super35 I'm guessing?) with the intention of framing it at 2.35:1, which is the aspect ratio of the 35mm release prints. This essentially means that both versions will have compromised aspect ratios in at least some shots. The IMAX version will contain much more top & bottom space than was intended for much of the movie, while the 35mm version will be cropped for those IMAX action scenes.

Unless of course the DP is simply composing everything for 2.35:1 (even the IMAX stuff), but is making sure the rest of the frame is a "safe area" (no boom mikes, dolly tracks, etc. on the exposed negative). Even the best camera operator will have a hell of a time making sure both aspect ratios look good when shooting a scene. But I guess this (multiple intended aspect ratios) is the wave of the future.

[Deciazulado]

Movies shot in Super 35 cameras can have a 1.33 height...this wouldn't be any different. Compose for 2.39, protect for 1.44. If the IMAX scenes are not letterboxed to 1.78 or 2.39, etc, in the IMAX projection in the first place, as 2.39 movies are.
Even if shown in 2.39, the negative would be 30 mm x 70mm, a 9x improvement over Super 35, or almost 6x from anamorphic Panavision.

What's the aspect ratio of the preview on the disc?

[mrgreed202]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

No, it's way more than that

ARRI estimates 8746 x 3855 equivalent resolving power on 65mm film

I believe that since IMAX is run sideways like VistaVision, that potential resolution may be even higher

??? i think we are thinking of 2 different things. i was just saying imax film is 70mm. for instance 2001: A Space Odyssey was filmed with 70mm. Which I really think they should show in the IMAX.

[Deciazulado]

The IMAX format is 70mm film run "sideways" (sprockets at the top and bottom of the image), so the image is about 48.5 mm tall x 70 mm wide. Normal 70mm film is run "vertically" (sprockets at the sides of the image), so the image is about 22 mm tall by 48.5 mm wide.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Christopher Nolan specifically requested to shoot Dark Knight in IMAX. They wouldn't let him, due to the money,but they did allow him to shoot 6 scenes IMAX..........

All the action sequences were shot on original IMAX camera negative, including the aerial photography and the car chase sequences, which make up nearly 30 minutes of screen time.

[Penton-Man]

^
I believe this is the first time anyone has ever used IMAX (MSM camera ~ 100 lb.) in a dramatic feature film for a major.

[mrgreed202]

yep the first time they used an IMAX camera for ANY feature film.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by mrgreed202

??? i think we are thinking of 2 different things. i was just saying imax film is 70mm. for instance 2001: A Space Odyssey was filmed with 70mm. Which I really think they should show in the IMAX.

This should help you understand better the difference between what is commonly referred to as 70mm and IMAX. One thing the site has wrong though is the orientation of the soundtrack. While it is true that the extra 5mm in 70mm is soundtrack, is is not the wide optical track on one side of the film shown in the picture. Rather the image is centered in the frame, and magnetic soundtracks would be striped on either side and on the outside of the sprocket holes. Other than that the page is essentially correct.

[mrgreed202]

hah well i just prefer to call it 70 mm. i thought he was saying the whole negative (including audio) was 65 mm.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

My big question is whether the IMAX scenes will go to the correct 1.44:1 or whether they decided that constant height would be less jarring

The film will "open up" to full frame IMAX for the IMAX-shot scenes if you see an IMAX print of the film. Unless there was/is a very last minute change of plans...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^
I believe this is the first time anyone has ever used IMAX (MSM camera ~ 100 lb.) in a dramatic feature film for a major.

It is. And with IMAX migrating toward digital projection in the future, it sadly seems unlikely that the concept of shooting in IMAX will take off.

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I accept your points on the difficulties of IMAX. I would welcome 65mm photography as well

Vistavision is an excellent format.

You're still on board with my *ahem*plans*ahem* regarding the destruction... er, forced obsolescence of Super35 film for film production use, right Wicky?

[WickyWoo]

What's the aspect ratio of the preview on the disc?

Looks like something around 1.44:1 from the pictures people have taken

All the action sequences were shot on original IMAX camera negative, including the aerial photography and the car chase sequences, which make up nearly 40 minutes of screen time.

Bring it on Penton I can't wait

It is. And with IMAX migrating toward digital projection in the future, it sadly seems unlikely that the concept of shooting in IMAX will take off.

It is a sad sad day. I have no idea how they expect to cover that acreage with just 2K

You're still on board with my *ahem*plans*ahem* regarding the destruction... er, forced obsolescence of Super35 film for film production use, right Wicky?

Death to the demon format. Give me anamorphic or give me death!

Tony Scott's whole "The lenses were too heavy to fit on the planes in Top Gun". That's what VistaVision is for !

[Bobby Henderson]

To make it easier to understand think of the differences like this:

One standard 5-perf 65mm film frame is 250% larger than a full 4-perf 35mm film frame.

One single IMAX 15-perf 65mm film frame is equal to 3 frames of standard 5/65mm film (such as what was used to photograph movies like Lawrence of Arabia, 2001 and Tron. One IMAX frame is 750% larger than a full 4-perf 35mm film frame.

Also consider the fact many "Super35" movies are using little more than half the negative of a 4-perf 35mm frame. Movies shot in 1.85:1 ratio crop away a good bit of the 4/35 negative as well. So the descriptions of IMAX film frames being 9 or more times larger than many 35mm movie frames is valid.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by X400

dark knight is gonna be on imax? ohhh baby

I saw Transformers on the Imax screen, yeah I know one of those guy's right. I had on complaint about seeing a movie at the Imax theater I saw Tranformers in, I could not sit back far enough from the screen.

Because the Imax screen has an aspect ratio of approximatly 1:34:1. So to keep the Dark Knight in its oar it will have black bars top and bottom.