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

[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.