The Dark Knight American Cinematographer article IMAX?
cin...@hotmail.com
finish" it states about 3/4 way through the article:
"The final Imax print combined the 4K DMR filmout, 5.6K and 8K Imax
filmouts,and 18K contact prints from the Imax negative,"
Does anybody know why some of the Imax material had gone through 5.6K
and 8K Digital Intermediate and other shots were direct contact
prints? What Imax scenes went through the DI Process?
The article doesn't make this clear.
Regards,
Peter Mason
Steve Kraus
> finish" it states about 3/4 way through the article:
> "The final Imax print combined the 4K DMR filmout, 5.6K and 8K Imax
> filmouts,and 18K contact prints from the Imax negative,"
"18K contact prints" ???
Is this some moronic writer who thinks everything must be expressed in
digital terms? How many K would he/she ascribe to a 35mm EK print?
Martin Hart
scr...@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com says...
I think I speak for a lot of us in saying that I have accepted the
reality of digital getting involved in film making. But I'm with Steve
on the sheer stupidity of the term "18K contact prints". If slower speed
negative and print stock were used would we get something like 30K
contact prints?
Now anyone can jump in here and correct my thinking on this: Wouldn't a
4K digital IMAX intermediate produce as acceptable a print as a 4K 35mm
print? I mean 4K 35mm ain't the same as 4K 70mm which isn't the same as
4K IMAX. The new "How The West Was Won" DVD/Blu-Ray starts with a 4K
scan of the negatives, but it's six perf high and wall to wall over
three films, so the effective original digital resolution comes out to
over 18K for the combined panels. Hey, maybe that's the same as an 18K
contact print. Hell, I'm all confused.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
dav...@earthlink.net
-- so my guess is that basically there was not an overall D.I. for
either the IMAX or 35mm theatrical version -- instead, the footage in
the one format went through a D.I. to convert it to the other format
so the negative could be cut and contact printed.
So the IMAX footage was scanned and converted to 35mm anamorphic, then
cut into the 35mm negative... and the 35mm anamorphic footage was
scanned and converted to IMAX, and then cut into the IMAX footage
(obviously a lot more of the movie therefore went through a D.I. for
the IMAX version.)
If each panel of a 3-panel Cinerama movie was scanned at 4K across,
then obviously the stitched-together version would be 12K... but I
suspect that this was all then downrezzed to 4K again as a single
widescreen image for film-out to 35mm anamorphic or 5-perf 65mm (if
that was done) and/or downconversion to 1080P HD, although I'm sure
the individual 4K scans of each panel were archived as well.
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
Steve Kraus
CG & IMAX cut in?
Lincoln Spector
<cin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f29a59bc-4ba6-481a...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
computer stuff was at a minimum, it was there.
All around looked terrific, btw.
Lincoln
sgu...@aol.com
the two formats...why not just optically enlarge to go to IMAX and,
for sure, optically reduce the image to go down to 35mm? I suppose
some arguement could be made about making the 35mm image look
acceptable in IMAX...but an IMAX image should look more than
acceptable down printed to 35mm.
An even better idea would have been to just shoot in 5/65mm for
everything! Printing in either direction would have been good and
from an archiving standpoint, they would have more to start with so
any future releases would have a superior negative...even if digitally
released.
Steve
On Jul 22, 1:22 pm, "Lincoln Spector" <notmyr...@address.com> wrote:
> <cine...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Bigwoolydog
Lee Smith explains their methodology thusly:
"Our goal was to keep the IMAX in its native format for the IMAX
screenings. For the 35mm prints, the IMAX shots were digitally scanned
and recorded to 35mm negative that was cut together with the 35mm
camera negative. IMAX does this by scanning their 65mm negative at 8K
resolution. Effects within the IMAX scenes were handled at 8K as well.
These shots were then reduced to 4K resolution and recorded out to
35mm film.
"You also have to go in the other direction for the IMAX release. For
these, the cut 35mm negative was color-timed at the lab [instead of a
DI], producing an interpositive of the 35mm portions of the film. This
went to IMAX, who used DMR—an IMAX-proprietary digital process—to
'blow up' the 35mm to the IMAX format. These scenes were then intercut
with the IMAX camera negative. So, digital processes were used for the
two format conversions, but each set of release prints was created by
cutting the negative and timing the shots in a traditional manner."
The complete interview is available here: http://www.videography.com/articles/article_15888.shtml
in Technicolor®
"Bigwoolydog" <bigwo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:346273bb-1f77-48fd...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
We saw the film in IMAX last night. The 35mm and IMAX footage were both
absolutely stunning, IMHO. Really enjoyed the film. Nice spin to an old
chestnut.
Morgan
cin...@hotmail.com
> "Bigwoolydog" <bigwooly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Shouldn't the IMAX footage be much more "absolutely stunning" than the
35MM
Panavision footage? Was there a great deal of difference in image
quality between
the two formats?
Regards,
Peter Mason
in Technicolor®
<cin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:910f6fd6-1da8-4c89...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Regards,
Peter Mason
The IMAX cinema we watched the film in was the Bridgeport Regal Cinema in
Tualatin, Oregon. As an IMAX theatre, it is rather small, with screen only
being about 50' wide. While the image is very immersive it's not like
watching it at one of the other grander IMAX venues with the 5 story tall
screens! The 35mm footage looks great and you would be hard pressed to
figure out what was 15/70 footage were it not for the change in aspect ratio
from Panavision to IMAX. Generally, the IMAX shots were longer and allowed
for more time to investigate the detailed shot, but not always.
M
BeatNut
> <cine...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> The 35mm footage looks great and you would be hard pressed to
> figure out what was 15/70 footage were it not for the change in aspect ratio
> from Panavision to IMAX. Generally, the IMAX shots were longer and allowed
> for more time to investigate the detailed shot, but not always.
Aside from the changing ARs, is the content / editing on the IMAX
version different?
JGM
Lincoln Spector
"in Technicolor®" <cine...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0jPjk.354$iM5.164@trnddc07...
>
> <cin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:910f6fd6-1da8-4c89...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 27, 1:02 pm, in Technicolor® <ciner...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> We saw the film in IMAX last night. The 35mm and IMAX footage were both
>> absolutely stunning, IMHO. Really enjoyed the film. Nice spin to an old
>> chestnut.
>>
>
> Shouldn't the IMAX footage be much more "absolutely stunning" than the
> 35MM
> Panavision footage? Was there a great deal of difference in image
> quality between
> the two formats?
I'd ever seen off of a 35mm negative. The Imax footage blew that out of the
water.
Of course, it had the advantage that I expected it to blow it out of the
water. I'd be interested in the reaction of someone who sees it in 35mm,
where everything is in the same AR and the only way to tell the Imax footage
is the resolution.
Lincoln