35mm film is awesome

[Joe Redifer]

Originally Posted by tofur69

You also have to remember that this also runs at 144FPS (72FPS left eye and 72FPS right eye). To get that high frame rate for the the 3D, the resolution is usually brought below 2k.

Remember that those are not 72 distinct frames per eye per second. Each frame is "flashed" three times, then the next "moment in time" comes on. I would be surprised if the file was encoded at 72fps per eye. It is likely 24fps and the hardware shows 72fps, just like 72hz capable TVs or a three bladed shutter in a film projector. It would seem inefficient to me to encode it at 72fps per eye, as that would be wasting space... but then again those d-cinema guys probably don't realize that.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

Remember that those are not 72 distinct frames per eye per second. Each frame is "flashed" three times, then the next "moment in time" comes on. I would be surprised if the file was encoded at 72fps per eye. It is likely 24fps and the hardware shows 72fps, just like 72hz capable TVs or a three bladed shutter in a film projector. It would seem inefficient to me to encode it at 72fps per eye, as that would be wasting space... but then again those d-cinema guys probably don't realize that.

Exactly. The DCI specs only allow 24fps per eye in 3d mode -- but, yeah, they get flashed three times. 48fps is allowed for doing 24fps per eye, or doing true 48fps in 2d... but only at 2k resolution. At 4k, only standard 24fps is in the spec.

[Bobby Henderson]

It's true that 35mm negative can record more "pixels" than 1080p, but nobody can ever watch a 35mm negative directly, what we all have watched is prints made from them, or for the majority of the population, prints made from duplicate internegatives and interpositives (so they are 4th generatioin images), SHOWN through a projector's lens (which you could say creates a 5th generation version of the image).

Generational loss is an irrelevant issue when it comes to origination formats.

There is NO advantage in terms of image quality for shooting in digital video versus shooting a movie on 35mm film.

Even if every movie theater playing the movie does so via digital projection, the image is still going to look better if it was originated on film. It will not look as good if it was shot on video.

[sacredchao]

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

While perusing some of the reviews, I noticed that one member said that the AC/DC concert was shot in 35mm, so the picture quality could NEVER be good. There is a serious lack of understanding about 35mm film here, I think... at least with some members (I'm sure that many other members aren't that naive).

35mm film can vary in quality, but generally it will beat the pants off 1080p as far as overall image detail goes. It beats movies shot digitally like Star Wars Episodes 2 & 3, Apocalypto, Superman Returns, etc. Those movies were shot at a 1080p resolution, and then cropped for a 2.39:1 aspect ratio (so the movies themselves were actually no more than about 1920x805 on the master source). If one were to rate standard 35mm film in resolution, it would be close to 4,000 x 3,000px. Of course lenses, film stock, cameras and overall handling have an effect on picture quality for better or worse.

Lots of studios do bad transfers mainly because idiots are in charge of those transfers. It really comes straight down to that. A well maintained print of a movie from 1960 carefully transferred to Blu-Ray can look every bit as good as a Pirates of the Caribbean (which was also shot on 35mm film). So don't blame the source unless the source truly sucks. 35mm is great, and it means we can get awesome looking transfers of older great movies if/when the studios care enough.

I'm just glad someone else here understands this. 35 mm is amazing and will continue to be so for quite a while.

[glogrono]

I think most people that don't really know what they're talking about, hear 35mm and automatically think of an old projector rattling away in the backgrounnd and watching a very grainy, blurry picture with those random black spots and lines that appear on and off.

[BaronVH]

I am really enjoying this thread. For those of you that know about these things, what is the deal with 150mm? Wasn't films like Lawrence of Arabia and 2001 shot on 150mm? I would give anything to see Lawrence projected at a good 150mm theater.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I am really enjoying this thread. For those of you that know about these things, what is the deal with 150mm? Wasn't films like Lawrence of Arabia and 2001 shot on 150mm? I would give anything to see Lawrence projected at a good 150mm theater.

Both those films were shot on 65mm... designed for 70mm projection. 65mm photography is sort of the "gold standard for film. No larger film size has really been a "standard" for the motion picture industry. IMAX is essentially three 70mm frames run horizontally through a camera and projector... though it has never been used as a camera format for a major motion picture.

A 70mm projector showing "Lawrence," though, is definitely a thing of beauty.

[Joe Redifer]

Some of The Dark Knight was shot on IMAX film stock... but only some of it. That'd be really weird (and perhaps annoying) watching that movie in an IMAX theater, going from IMAX full frame to being letterboxed for the 35mm segments. I wonder if it will constantly go back and forth.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

Some of The Dark Knight was shot on IMAX film stock... but only some of it. That'd be really weird (and perhaps annoying) watching that movie in an IMAX theater, going from IMAX full frame to being letterboxed for the 35mm segments. I wonder if it will constantly go back and forth.

They have a way of processing 35mm to work in IMAX. I remember reading about it. They'll likely get it all to work in the IMAX format.

[WickyWoo]

I'ts essentailly a computer upscaling

And yes, it'll probably be letterboxed for the 35mm scenes

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

And yes, it'll probably be letterboxed for the 35mm scenes

Is that the plan? I assumed the rest was Super35, and that it would be reframed for Imax exhibition.

[Knight-Errant]

Hmm didn't know they alternated the framing like that. Thanks for the tidbit Wicky.

I knew they used a computer process to convert the regular movies because the article I read was about how they'd had to create new programs to convert digitally shot movies.

[Bobby Henderson]

They have a way of processing 35mm to work in IMAX. I remember reading about it. They'll likely get it all to work in the IMAX format.

At least a couple of sequences in The Dark Knight were filmed in true, native 15/70mm IMAX format and will be shown full frame on the giant screen.

The rest of the movie was filmed 35mm anamorphic, will be processed via that "DMR" super duper scanning/interpolation stuff and then be letterboxed 2.39:1.

There will be switches in aspect ratio from letterbox 35mm blow up to full frame native IMAX. The entire movie will be printed on 15-perf 70mm IMAX film prints.

I don't think the aspect ratio switch will pose much of any problem. The native IMAX footage will add a lot more "head room" in the shots (not to mention look MUCH sharper in detail and resolution), but the main action is still going to be confined across that horizontal "bar" where the 2.39:1 footage will reside.

Everybody else who watches The Dark Knight in standard movie theaters will see the entire thing composed for 2.39:1. The stuff shot in IMAX will be reduced vertically cropped.

[Joe Redifer]

Personally I don't see the point. Either go all the way or don't bother. I imagine the IMAX scenes will be important explosions like the parking garage that they redressed to look like a hospital or some such nonsense and then they blew it up. Then after that nice looking, sharp sequence is over, you go back to the low resolution (compared to IMAX) 35mm stuff and I just think that would be annoying. It's like a big tease. Upscaling cannot add detail. Upscaling isn't much more than moving closer to the TV.

I hope the Blu-Ray doesn't lose the letterbox bars during the IMAX sequences.

[Bobby Henderson]

I could only guess as to how The Dark Knight will be treated on DVD and Blu-Ray.

I'll probably see The Dark Knight in IMAX (probably in Colorado Springs, but perhaps in Tulsa or Dallas). The aspect ratio change may indeed be distracting. But I expect this movie will look a LOT BETTER than the blurred all to hell IMAX version of Superman Returns.

Talk about distracting. You're signaled to put on your 3D glasses for faux-3D sequences where the 3D doesn't really work all that well. And the entire movie looked like blurry crap since it was shot in 1080p digital video rather than film. I felt sorry for the people in the first few rows of the theater since a lot of shot compositions had close ups of people that were waaaay too close in IMAX format.

Perhaps Christopher Nolan is experimenting with how difficult shooting in IMAX may be. If his experiences with the giant format aren't too challenging he (and other filmmakers) could go farther and film entire 2 hour movies in native IMAX. Chances are slim of that happening, but it is an obvious direction where filmmaking and showing movies in theaters needs to progress.

[WickyWoo]

He wanted to shoot the whole movie IMAX, but they wouldn't give him the money to do it. It's not the difficulty so much as the expense of the cameras, the stock, and editing.

I think if the IMAX version does as well as it should, they'll let him go IMAX for the third one

And i say joy to the world. 70mm film in incredibly tasty

[Joe Redifer]

And then the Blu-Ray version will be 4:3!

[garyrc]

I have changed my mind.

I am an almost lifelong 70 mm buff, and have seen some remarkably good 35 mm prints, as well, particularly in recent years. I have repeatedly argued that either of these formats are far superior to BD. I cited the fact that several 70 mm negatives have been scanned in 8K, while BDs are approx. 2K. When I heard arguments by industry professionals that by the time a film goes through all of its printing stages, it may look no better than BD, I doubted them. But ... it turns out that I did not realize how good BD can look. We now have a very large 'scope screen and a decent projector, and the image can (but doesn't always) look amazing! Facial quality in close-ups subjectively rivals theatrical projection, even 70 mm projection in some cases. There is something that isn't quite as good as 70 mm that shows up in long shots, and the image does not have the "etched" look that a few 70 mm prints have, but some almost make it.

[RyanPom]

Wow, this thread just passed its five year Anniversary.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I am really enjoying this thread. For those of you that know about these things, what is the deal with 150mm? Wasn't films like Lawrence of Arabia and 2001 shot on 150mm? I would give anything to see Lawrence projected at a good 150mm theater.

Baron VH You have a private message