IMAX Develops Movie Transfer Technology

kazama writes: "Toronto-based IMAX said that it had developed a new process called DMR (for "digital remastering") to digitally convert conventional 35mm films to the IMAX format without significant loss of detail. 'Our customers have been saying to us for years, "We want to see Star Wars on IMAX, we want to see The Matrix on IMAX." and DMR is the technology which is the enabler,' Co-CEO Bradley Wechsler told Reuters. 'That's going to be an increasingly important part of the company's performance.'" So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?

Comments

for me...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?

pr0n. lots of pr0n.

Re:for me...

[Camulus]

I guess Bill Gates was right when he said pornography is one of the driving forces behind almost every technological advancement. *shudder*

Re:for me...

[KillerKane]

No Johnny Wadd movies, please. It would be too much like "Jurassic Pork", ah, "Park".

Re:for me...

[rhost89]

i think the first thing that pops into everyones mind is Basic Instinct :)

I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[Frothy Walrus]

I want to be right in the middle of the battle for Middle Earth!! :D

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[Anonymous Coward]

At first glance I thought this said "I want to be right in the biddle of Battlefield Earth!!"

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[Scott Hussey]

LotR was filmed in IMAX along with 35mm orginally.

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[CrystalCut]

Two words. OMG YES!

And what about other movies that show great vistas or cool effects?

Shoot To Kill
The Time Machine (2002 version)
TRON

I'm sure I could come up with a ton to include in this list. I'd pay $15 bucks to see any of these in an IMAX theater. $25 to see LOTR.

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[TMacPhail]

Why wasnt it ever released in IMAX then? And why is this the first time I have *ever* heard this mentioned.

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[danrik]

They actually did have LOTR playing on the IMAX at a few theaters around the US - I know that they at the very least had it on at the IMAX here in Dallas, TX - I think they might have just projected 35mm onto the imax screen, as the picture quality was not as high quality as a standard IMAX movie, but the sound was worth every penny - i believe they said 25 to 30 thousand watts.....

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[StoneTable]

They did have LOTR running on some IMAX screens. We saw it twice that way. I don't know if it was the 35mm film projected or something made specifically for the IMAX, but either way it was excellent.

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[krugdm]

Cool vistas? How about Dances With Wolves? With the sound system that most IMAX theatres have, the buffalo hunt would be awesome.

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[nojayuk]

I saw _LOTR:FOTR_ at the Mall of Georgia IMAX. AFAIK it was a special 35mm print, not an IMAX 70mm print; I don't think that Jackson had an IMAX crew following him around for three years. What was shown on the IMAX was the same as what I had seen on the regular megaplex screen a few days earlier. The sound system made up for the slightly duller image (although one of my companions fell asleep -- until the Balrog made its appearance...)

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[Scott Hussey]

I stand corrected. Some IMAX theatres must have just taken the 35mm version and shown on IMAX screens.

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[Wolfcat]

Sorry... lets cut to the chase, and see Meet the Feebles or even Brain Dead.... now these are Peters finest works....

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[hornal]

I don't. Actually I saw it on IMAX and was too close to the screen. I had to see it again in a normal theatre later, but pretend I loved it after seeing it in IMAX. I don't sit close at all now, it actually brought out some sort of exreme distaste for sitting too close. Did anyone notice a weird blue hue to everything in LOTR? I liked the movie, but I think I am also missing something with this trilogy. I got stalled at some ent poem in two towers. I'm glad they skip the poems in the movie. blsha jgaljbla hs df

Not the Matrix

[MaxVlast]

I, for one, do _not_ want to see The Matrix in IMAX. 35mm was bad enough...shiver. Keanu's acting is miserable in any resolution, and detail doesn't make up for lack of anything interesting to present in detail.

Re:Not the Matrix

[davesag]

Yeah and i remember when i first saw it on dvd on my mac and thinking "man is Laurence Fishburn's skin really that bad!" seeing those nasty pok marks up so close would be terrifying.

also the aspect ratio would be all wrong. take a film like lawrence of arabia. no one disputes that this is a must see on the big screen and seeing the 70mm print is just amazing, but on an imax screen you'll be sitting far too close to get the benefit of the wide shots of the desert.

on the other hand i am all for technologies that can make small images bigger with no loss in quality. how do they do that?

when are we going to see an imax film that is actually any good?

Re:Not the Matrix

[Xaoswolf]

I would have to agree, the whole reason for watching an IMAX is to become immersed in the movie, Which is what makes the nature ones so good. When flying over a volcano, you feel like you are actually flying there. The sharks swimming around you become a little more scarry. A 30' tall Keanu does nothing to inhance the film.
I wouldn't mind watching Star Wars though, I bet some of the space battles would be pretty beat ass, not to mention watching a bunch of ATAT's crushing Hoth.

Re:Not the Matrix

[MaxVlast]

I'm still totally bummed that 70mm never caught on fully. Seeing Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet in 70mm at a Sony theater might have been one of the most spectacular (and certainly most memorable) moviegoing experiences of my life.

Re:Not the Matrix

[davesag]

I couldn't agree more. The 70mm format is about the best cinema experince there is. IMAX is only really good for 3d imho. It's all about aspect ratio. In a conventional cinema 3d is strange because you get actors who are 3 m high, 1 m wide and 3 m deep if you sit near the back of the cinema. IMAX's super close up view actually really suits the 3d format, but that's about it imho.

the real problem with IMAX is that no-one has made a single film for IMAX that really uses the format to tell a better story.

Re:Not the Matrix

[scottj]

Actually, I've seen The Matrix in IMAX. Well, it wasn't true IMAX, but they showed it in the Sony IMAX theatre in San Francisco one night. It was a special, one-time thing (as far as I know), and most of the people that showed up were dressed as Neo. Because of the difference in aspect ratios, the entire screen was not utilized, but the movie was HUGE and right in your face. I'd definitely recommend this to anyone!

Re:Not the Matrix

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Hoth... that would be Ep. 5 _The_Empire_Strikes_Back_.

Which is the first film I saw where I thought "24 frames per second is just not enough".... I wish Douglas Trumball's ShowScan technology had caught on. 60 full frames per second!

Re:Not the Matrix

[MaxVlast]

I saw Fantasia 2000 in IMAX at the big Sony theater in Lincoln Center a couple of years ago, and it was a fantastic use of the technology. The music was stunning, and the animation was completely immersive. After having that experience, I'd definitely see another such thing in IMAX.

Re:Not the Matrix

[MaxVlast]

Actually, I almost walked out (of opening night) but stayed in the hope that it would redeem itself (and I drove others, so I'd really be a dick if I left.) So I hadn't the opportunity for anyone to tell me it was cool before I decided that it was awful.

I didn't leave pleasantly surprised. I knew nothing about it going in, and I was soundly disappointed leaving. It just wasn't a very good movie. Sorry.

Re:Not the Matrix

[rizzo420]

i fell asleep in the theatre the first time i saw it. the second time it wasn't as bad, but it was still kind of a pointless stupid movie. unless you like special effects eye-candy, the movie didn't have much of a great plot and, therefore, was pointless. keanu is one of the worst actors i've ever seen (should've stuck to the "surfer dude" type acting as seen in bill and ted). it was just plain senseless, and completely unrealistic (at least some of the other fantasy movies can be _somewhat_ realistic, but not this one.

Re:Not the Matrix

[TobyWong]

It's not a one time thing, they do it all the time. Can't have that huge theatre sitting dormant so they show whatever popular movie is playing at the time. I saw crouching tiger in the imax theatre at that paramount in toronto.

Re:Not the Matrix

[mikejna]

Yes. Reading 'Neuromancer' by William Gibson in the 80's ruined the Matrix for me. That book is far cooler than the Matrix could ever hope to be.

Re:Not the Matrix

[MaxVlast]

Haha! At least you're polite :)

Good recent movies. I actually enjoyed Star Wars Ep II fairly well. The characters were wooden (and as someone else aptly said, spoke like lawyers,) but I did like the result; the most accurate thing I can say is that it made me feel the same way Star Wars movies made me feel when I was a young-un in the '80s.

Other good movies...hmmm...one of my favorite movies is The Hudsucker Proxy. Loved a movie called The Imposters with Stanley Tucci (sp?) and Oliver Platt. Star Trek VI was a fantastic sci-fi movie. The Talented Mr. Ripley, Wonder Boys are both DVDs that I've considered good enough to buy. Will that do?

Re:Not the Matrix

[ranulf]

The best IMAX-like thing wasn't actually an IMAX, but the Terminator movie/theatre thing at Universal Studios in California.

There were three giant screens filling almost 180 degrees, between each were structures and platforms that the actors climbed through and walked on and in front of them all was a flat regular stage. Oh, and we had these polarized glasses and it was all in 3D.

It was the most awesome marriage of cinema and theatre that I've ever seen. The 3D film parts worked really well, and e.g. a filmed actor would walk off one cinema screen and their real-life actor would walk onto the stage as if it was just a continuation of the screen. Plus, there were real motorbikes on stage, and God knows what else.

And the physical special effects were amazing. Air and water was used to great effect, and at one point, there's a fantastic water explosion thing leaping out of the 3D cinema screen at you and you feel the spray as it hits you.

Well worth the trip...

Re:Not the Matrix

[mrjah]

A friend of mine went on opening night and told me it was probably the best movie he had ever seen. I went to see it a week later, came home and laughed in his face.

Dig the love story tacked onto the last 5 minutes of the film. Brilliant. Never saw that one coming. And as for Keanu Reeves... I think Bill Cosby was more impressive in Leonard Part 6.

Reeves' single expression throughout the film ("Dull surprise!") is tedious enough without having his face blown up to IMAX proportions. And I imagine his monotone delivery does not benefit from having 30 kW of sound behind it.

But go ahead and queue up for it. The more people there are waiting for The Matrix in IMAX, the fewer there will be waiting in front of me for a better movie at the theater down the street.

Come to think of it -- EVERYONE GO SEE THE IMAX MATRIX AS FREQUENTLY AS POSSIBLE.

Re:Not the Matrix

[scottj]

I suppose I need to pay more attention to the schedule at the local IMAX then. ;-)

Re:Not the Matrix

[hplasm]

And even so you went more than once...??? Duh.

Re:Not the Matrix

[rizzo420]

no, the secnod time was just hanging otu with a bunch of friends watching it on vhs (before dvd really caught on). i had nothing better to do.

Re:Not the Matrix

[MaxVlast]

I was disagreeing with you until the last paragraph. The Day the Earth Stood Still is one of my all-time favorite movies. I have the poster framed in my office, in fact.

The movies I suggested were simply movies I like. I'm actually at a loss right now because I can't think of any movies that I really like off the top of my head. Don't think that I don't like any movies, though -- there are dozens of films that I adore, I'm just in a weird mental place and can't think of any. Come back to me in a week when I've had a chance to collect my thoughts.

In the mean time, I might watch TDTESS tonight when I get home :)

duh

[seizer]

Sure, you can interpolate and use fancy smoothing and guessing algorithms. But you can't get it looking as good as something that was shot originally for IMAX. I'm sure it looks good, but not that good.

Altered States

[xchino]

I'd like to see altered states on IMAX.. and on acid

Re:Altered States

[susano_otter]

Enh. Too much story in between the trip sequences. The ultimate acid movie is probably Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Re:Altered States

[Ghost of Ian Curtis]

Ill watch it with you if I we can watch Underworlds Everything, Everything concert after...I mean if we are gonna trip for 12 hours and have a Imax screen...maybe a game of IMAX pong when we come down...

How do they do it now?

[SClitheroe]

This is confusing to me...a long time ago, I watched Jurrasic Park on an IMAX screen, and was disappointed - the image was not IMAX size (didn't fill the whole screen)nor aspect ratio. The only benefit was the better sound system.

But recently, I went to the local mega theater to see SpiderMan, and was suprised to learn they were showing it on the IMAX screen. I expected the same thing, but it wasn't - it was a full sized IMAX image, and the image quality seemed fine to me.

So if this technology in the article is some new innovation, how are they doing it right now, and what are the disadvantages of the current approach?

Re:How do they do it now?

[anotherone]

You might have seen a 70mm print (as opposed to a 35mm print) of Spiderman on the imax screen. It wouldn't be full Imax size, but it's a lot bigger.

Re:How do they do it now?

[Neon Spiral Injector]

I was going to post a comment asking what is wrong with doing optical transfers? I'd think the film-digital-film conversion would loose something. I guess their new magical process tries to add something in the process. But what is the size of a IMAX print, 62mm or something? There will be an aweful lot of dots to process and store.

I think the audio in IMAX theaters is digital as is the sound track for most modern movies, so someone already digitized it, all is left is for them to work some magic on those bits to try to get more out of them.

I don't get it either. You can't shine shit. You can't recreate information that was orginally lost when shooting on 35mm.

Re:How do they do it now?

[Sir Banana]

I saw spiderman on an IMAX screen. The manager told us that they were using a big magnifying lens, of which only a few exist in the country. The image quality was just about OK however I don't think that it was good enough for me to want to see many other movies in the same way. The other problem with IMAX for me is that the frame rate is too slow sometimes on the big sweeping shots and I find it a little uncomfortable.

Edward

Re:How do they do it now?

[Blademan007]

You saw a normal 35mm print on the IMAX screen through a normal projector. IMAX film is 70mm and is projected through a special projector which feeds film HORIZONTALLY. If I recall correctly, the side feeding was used for space concerns, since the IMAX projector is usually in the center of the audience.

Re:How do they do it now?

[Phreakiture]

That was my sense on it. I think that the digital transfer must be to improve the resolution somehow....?

As for the difference, a film show in 35mm uses a frame that is 24mm X 18mm (11mm are lost in the film width for soundtrack, sound sync and sprocket holes). Note the 4:3 ratio. This is then projected through an anamorphic lens, which elongates the picture out to the 16:9 aspect ratio.

IMAX uses 70mm film stock rather than 35mm. The file is run horizontally, rather than vertically, and the aspect ratio is much wider (don't know exactly what), and unlike the 35mm film, the IMAX image is uncompressed, hence, no anamorphic lens is used to expand it. I want to say that it is 136mm X 62mm or something like that. This significantly larger print area improves the resolution.

But, as you say, you can't shine shit. I'm not sure how you can make a 35mm negative into a worthy IMAX print.

Re:How do they do it now?

[aluminumcube]

From the IMAX web site...

Apparently, IMAX digitizes the 35mm film at some disgustingly high resolution (which they do not specify). According to them, this is the hardest part of the process.

After that, they do all sorts of voodoo to clean the image up utilizing a number of 'proprietary, patent pending technologies'. The images are also digitally brightened up (of which, I am sure more 'proprietary, patent pending technologies' are used).

Finally, they are transferred to the 70mm IMAX film and projected through IMAX's proprietary projectors. This technique only works for flat IMAX screens (not the domes or 3D).

On the IMAX site, they also note that some theaters also have regular 35mm projectors and have been showing standard films. I suspect this is what you saw, and IMAX notes that this wouldn't provide the 'true, proprietary and fully patented IMAX Experience(R)'.

I wold link to the web site, but it has a funky design that does not lend itself well to linking...

Re:How do they do it now?

[Jeremy Erwin]

From http://www.filmcentre.co.uk/image.html

Imax, 65mm negative, oriented horizontally, 71mm x 53mm image size

65mm, 65mm negative oriented vertically, 50mm x 27mm image size

35mm, 35mm negative oriented vertically, 24mm x 18mm image size

Super 35 or masked, 35 mm negative orieted vertically, 21mm x 11mm image size.

Re:How do they do it now?

[Tablizer]

(* That was my sense on it. I think that the digital transfer must be to improve the resolution somehow....? *)

You can use digital techniques on some analog images to sharpen the image a bit. However, it would also likely sharpen the film grains, which you don't want.

Thus, they probably have another technique which cleans up the film grain by comparing it to subsequent and/or prior frames.

For example, if there is a dot at point X in frame 120, but that same dot is *not* in point X in frame 119 and frame 121, then it is taken out or reduced in magnitude. In most movie images the scene does not change significantly from frame to frame. Thus, you can take advantage of this duplication to figure out what is likely film noise.

(If the background around the example dot in 119 and 121 is different, then perhaps you leave it alone because it may signify movement there. Graininess is harder for the eye to notice around movement anyhow.)

Re:How do they do it now?

[Neon Spiral Injector]

Imax, 65mm negative, oriented horizontally, 71mm x 53mm image size

You found it while I was still looking. I was even wondering about this in my initial post.

I was surprized to find the IMAX A/R is 1.43:1, or TV like. But it makes sense thinking back to how the screen looks, it isn't much wider than it it tall. It is just REALLY big.

Okay, next question. What is the "resolution" of the film used. How many "dots" per square mm? We know it is 48 frames a second.

Oh, and the audio format for IMAX is 8 or 10 channel. They actually store the sound track on CDs (4 or 5). The film itself only contains sync information to keep all the CDs in the right place.

I wonder if they have any plans to increase the quality of the audio portion. 44.1kHz/16-bit is pretty poor these days (yes, I can hear the difference going to 96kHz/24-bit).

Re:How do they do it now?

[ChrisBennett]

What is the film speed of IMAX anyway? The last IMAX movie I saw, the flicker was slightly visible. Then again, I cringe when ever I see a monitor at 60 Hz. Since the film size is larger it seems like it would be more prone to flicker unless film speed was faster. And if that's the case, then how do they plan on compensating for the difference in film speeds between 35mm and IMAX? Interpolation?

Re:How do they do it now?

[shepd]

>Thus, they probably have another technique which cleans up the film grain by comparing it to subsequent and/or prior frames.

Yes, and you can try it yourself. Its VERY much worth the effort, even if it takes a lot longer to postprocess your video.

The more random the noise, the better. Its excellent for TV shows on VHS or from broadcast TV (or so I've found).

Oh, and if you like to make things disappear without noticing it (great for those HUGE ads in the corner of a TV show) try this, or this.

[Somebody with some experience please port these to Linux! You would be so well thanked! This would be really nice too! No, I can't do it myself, I'm really not that good.]

Re:How do they do it now?

[laserjet]

According to this interesting link

the film speed is 48 frames per second.

Re:How do they do it now?

[cei]

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe any studios have released 70mm prints in quite a few years.

Re:How do they do it now?

[jean-guy69]

according to IMDB, spiderman is 35 mm..

Star Wars..

[Chicane-UK]

Well, seeing as I grew up in the wrong time period to see Star Wars when it first came out (and was not interested when it got remastered and shown at various marathons at local cinemas), I for one would love to see Star Wars get redone using this technology and then get a re-release.

I wouldn't imagine I am the only one either :)

Re:Star Wars..

[liquidice5]

except this time they could digitally replace the entire cast with ewoks,

LIke IN SouthPArk!!!!

Re:Star Wars..

[Chicane-UK]

Just to answer all the AC's who posted.. I was only born in 1981, so it was pretty impossible for me to watch any of the original Star Wars releases.

When it came round to the 1997 release, I had still never seen Star Wars and wasn't particularly bothered about it. Then after the remasters had done the rounds, I watched them on video at a friends house and then realised what I had missed out on. I have done my bit and watches the prequels at the cinema since then - despite having some excellent parts in them, they just don't create the kind of magic I would have hoped to get from watching the originals on the big screen. I keep hoping a local cinema will run a marathon at some point so I can go and watch Star Wars on the big screen, but for now I will have to make do with the home video versions.

What else?

[denzo]

The Blair Witch Project on IMAX, of course! How else are we supposed to compete for projectile vomitting distances?

Re:What else?

[The Dobber]

Better, The Bare Wench Project..........

Re:What else?

[KingoftheEvilDead]

I'd rather see The Bare Pimp Project from 'Trailer Park Boys' on IMAX. That'd be a hoot...

Re:What else?

[CableModemSniper]

No.

Re:What else?

[freeweed]

How else are we supposed to compete for projectile vomitting distances?

Oh, I don't know... Britney LIVE at the IMAX! ?

Interesting...

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Has this tech been used already?

I saw LOTR on the imax screen here in Calgary. My girlfriend got annoyed watching it though - too blurry and it gave her motion sickness. We could have done the same thing with Spider-Man but we saw it on a regular screen instead.

Re:Interesting...

[curunir]

Those are projected using the regular 35mm print. Only to avoid the graininess that you'd see when projecting a 35mm print on a screen that size, they run 3 copies of the film in sync. This works great, but for heavy motion shots, the slight difference in the sync of the three prints becomes aparent.

Bout fricken time!

[Bizaff]

I hope this works out as well as they're touting. We just got one of these theaters a year or two ago, but I'm just not interested in 'Avalanche' or stuff like that. Show classics, like the Indiana Jones movies and such, and I'll gladly spend money to go there, probably more often than a regular theater.

Re:Bout fricken time!

[dirvish]

Or the new Indiana Jones movie when it comes out.

Re:Bout fricken time!

[DavidLeblond]

Maybe they'll put Indy on IMAX after they finish the DVD release which, by the rate they're going, won't be any time soon.

Re:Bout fricken time!

[Afrosheen]

What's the name for the new one?

Indiana Jones and the Nazi Relic Temple of Terror?

Oh Man!!!

[getagrip]

I just upgraded to HDTV. Now I have to go out and buy an IMAX projector for my home theater system? Where will it end???

something . .

[foxdeman]

something big explode . . .

better theaters

[TinCanFury]

maybe they could just build better movie theaters so we don't need to see movies in IMAX. I've been lucky enough to have seen movies in theaters that put IMAX to shame, and its quite an experience...

Na Na, Na Na Na Na

[surfacto]

JAWS

Re:Na Na, Na Na Na Na

[Soko]

JAWS

Ahem. For you younger folk, this isn't another request for more pr0n. Jaws is a classic thriller about an unusually large Great White shark that eats people, starting with a girl skinny dipping in the ocean. Erk...

Well, OK, it's almost pr0n. :-P

Soko

Re:Na Na, Na Na Na Na

[RadioTV]

I think were gona need a bigger boat.

ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[BDew]

Imagine what Star Wars will look like when Lucas gets done remastering it for an Imax screen. Not only will Greedo fire first, but he'll be accompanied by two Hutts. Then Han will have a long discussion with them about the morality of self-defense and playing nice with other children.

The possibilities are, unfortunately, endless...

Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[Clue4All]

That change pissed me off like no other in the Special Edition series. Han was cool because he was a bad-ass mercenary. He got down to business and got rid of Greedo because he was in his way. Now suddenly he fired in self defense because Greedo missed with a blaster from THREE FEET AWAY?? Truly awful.

Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

And the entire cast will be replaced by ewoks! Don't look! It'll be too horrible!

Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[ErikTheRed]

And don't forget that all of the guns will be replaced with walkie-talkies, and the entire cast will be replaced with digitally-created Ewoks!

FREE HAT!!!

Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[unicron]

And the term "Nazi" will be replaced with the term "People with political differences".

Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[cdrudge]

You guys watch too much South Park.

Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[sniepre]

[obligatory SP fan comment]

is there.... such.... a thing.... as... too much South Park???

Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[ErikTheRed]

For people with no idea what we're talking about: South Park Episode 609 (RealPlayer format).

Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake?

[Cpt_Kirks]

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Great Slashdot Poll

[Consul]

I smell a great /. poll here...

Which movie would you like to see in IMAX?

• Star Wars (any or all)
  
• The Matrix
  
• Lost In Space
  
• Metropolis
  
• Godzilla vs. Mothra
  
• Plan Nine From Outer Space
  
• Night of the Living CoybowNeals
  

:o)

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[bo0push3r]

Waterworld

Stephen King's The Stand

Debbie Does Dallas 2000

That Infomercial for The Spray-on Hair

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[tiedyejeremy]

• "Metropolis"

is that the new animated Metropolis or the great original?

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[Consul]

is that the new animated Metropolis or the great original?

Either one, I guess. I had both in mind when I mentioned it.

I can't believe I forgot Lord of the Rings. I also can't believe I spelled CowboyNeal's name wrong. Oh well...

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[briancnorton]

Did you want to see lost in space the first time around?

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[EvilBudMan]

I wanna see HEAVY METAL!!

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[pjt48108]

Now at an IMAX theatre near you:

BENEATH THE VALLEY OF THE ULTRA-VIXENS

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[T3kno]

Uhhhh....Brazil. One of the most underrated movies of all time IMHO.

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[robotito]

And what about Star Trek?

I'm too young, but still a star trek fan.

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[gerardrj]

Waterwold

So the theater can loose another $100M on the iMax version?

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[Sinistar2k]

Glad somebody said it.

I vote for Brazil, as well. But without actually voting. Since there's no voting mechanism. If you want to vote, you need to work in Information Retrieval.

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[VivianC]

Apocolypse Now.

No question.

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[bo0push3r]

hey, i'll bet that if Gordon, Davis, and Costner turned the master over to George Lucas he could remake it only to run it into the ground again and still manage to turn a few bucks.

Re:Great Slashdot Poll

[Drogo Knotwise]

You forgot 2001: A Space Odyssey (sp? it's late here...).

The sunrise scene especially really needs a huge screen and great sound.

This movie is a pretty good choice for an imax

[yeoua]

Step into Liquid, which I don't think is released yet, seems like a good choice for imax, if it isn't for imax already. That first cam angle where it goes into the wave would be one amazing effect on a huge imax screen.

http://www.stepintoliquid.com/

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/step_i nt o_liquid.html

Re:This movie is a pretty good choice for an imax

[MushMouth]

You should stop pirating shit a try it, then you will understand. We ain't talking Elvis surfing here, where talking about ripp'n up 100 foot waves!

Re:This movie is a pretty good choice for an imax

[MushMouth]

They did FILM this guy catching an 85' wave off the North Shore of Oahu on IMAX a few years ago. Nature did a episode on the storm that caused these waves.

I want to see a good movie, thank you.

[jukal]

I dont care whether its IMAX or KLIMAX.

Re:I want to see a good movie, thank you.

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

you realize you invented a nice moniker for IMAX porn, right?

2001: A Space Odyssey

[HWheel]

For my sixth grade graduation present, I asked my parents to take me to 2001, which we saw in Colorado Springs in, what I now know to be, "Super Panavision," the only time I've ever seen such a "vision." Some time later, the theater was broken into four separate theaters and was later torn down.

Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey

[karm13]

i actually just came back from the movies, maybe fifteen minutes ago. 2001. in panavision (don't know if super).
i am wearing a blue t-shirt with HAL written in IBM like letters on it.

last summer we had a video projector from our university and watched it on the neighbours house from the balkony :)

Re:Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the MPAA be pissed? IMAX wouldn't be stupid enough to violate copyright laws, they aren't a bunch of penniless geeks.

The best part is that you idiots will go see all the movies you wank over AGAIN once they are reformatted for IMAX. The MPAA thanks you for giving them the money to afford the batallion of laywers they will use to get you sent to prison.

Movies I want to see...

[Abstruse]

I'd like to see Clerks on IMAX, just for the absurdity factor of watching a movie originally shot on 16mm film projected from 75mm film.

Re:Movies I want to see...

[(startx)]

That WOULD be absurdity! I recently bought the clerks special edition DVD, and you know what? it looks exactly the same as the 100mb .asf of it I downloaded 3 years ago on efnet.

Re:Movies I want to see...

[VikingBerserker]

In that case, how about an IMAX version of Manos: the Hands of Fate? That was shot on 8mm.

On second thought, that was difficult to sit through, even when it was on MST3K.

Re:Movies I want to see...

[Jardine]

But it has commentary. Even IMAX doesn't have commentary.

imax

[rxgxe]

2001: A space odyssey

DMR??

[erroneus]

I'm sorry, but if it were assigned a 3-letter acronym, it would have to be "DRM." But I suppose that has been taken already and should be scrambled...

DigiRema sounds pretty cool though... or DiRema maybe. I have nothing more useful to contribute at this time.

Re:DMR??

[_ph1ux_]

It might actually be DMR: Digital Movie Re-mastering...

hence DMR not DRM.

Re:DMR??

[Incongruity]

I'm sorry, but if it were assigned a 3-letter acronym, it would have to be "DRM." But I suppose that has been taken already and should be scrambled...

DRM: Digital Rights Management. Been talked about A LOT recently.

Check out the following sites:
Microsoft's DRM site
Or for a better perspective, see Everything2 a geeky must have as far as any random information goes.
or google it

Just for the sake of nostalgia...

[CrazyDwarf]

I say let's see Tron. It isn't that great of a movie, but I seem to remember thinking it was the greatest thing since sugarless sweatener when I was a kid.

Re:Just for the sake of nostalgia...

[xchino]

Yeah but sugarless sweetener sucks too. I ain't scared of no stinkin arcade game!

What about?

[Helter]

Dark City would look amazing on an IMAX...

Fritz Lang brought to life.

Re:What about?

[kramer2718]

I second that. Dark City is one of the prettiest movies I've ever seen.

Re:What about?

[Genom]

Dear lord that would be trippy. Dark City is the only movie I can remember people visibly disoriented while walking out of the theatre. I can only imagine the effect IMAX would have on that...

All Three LotR

[RobPiano]

I want to see all 3 LotR with short potty breaks inbetween.

Re:All Three LotR

[Valacar]

and beer

Re:All Three LotR

[Karma Sink]

Probably wouldn't want /short/ potty breaks, then...

Reservoir Dogs! Pulp Fiction!

[B3ryllium]

From Dusk Til Dawn would be fun on IMAX :) Or John Carpenter's Vampires. That one would be cool :)

It had to be said...

[Seekerofknowledge]

So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?

Debbie Does Dallas!

screw conversion...

[Lumpy]

I want to see MATRIX-reloaded on IMAX if the filmed it on IMAX film.

conversion cannot create detail out of nothing. you can fudge and guess but the big draw of IMAX is the insane detail on the insane side screen.

Sorry but if they shot Everest on cheap-ol 35MM film and tried to pass it off as an IMAX film with conversion it would have lost almost every bit of it's impact by losing the detail and resolution.

Re:screw conversion...

[belrick]

But what about 3-dimensional interpolation? There are two dimensions to the negative but the third is the series of images from a scene. If there is any motion in the scene, then successive images can give other "pixelizations" of the same or very similar image. I quote pixelization because for film it is granuals that are not rectilinear. There is extra x-y information embedded in the time-dimension of the film.

Re:Ernest goes to Camp!

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

admit it -- you'd go
Why should anyone admit it if you won't?
Silly old AC...

Grand Prix

[CaptnMArk]

+ all of Trek movies

Re:Oh boy

[heliocentric]

Nothing better than "Ernest goes to camp" on an IMAX screen.

If there are three lines:

1. Ernest goest to camp IMAX Movie
2. Dude, where's my car IMAX Movie
3. Slow painful death involving hideous torture locked in a room with Martha Stewart, Carrot Top, and Anna Nicole Smith.

Which would you choose?

well...

[imta11]

a realtime video filter of CounterStrike.

pr0n? no.

[UncleOzzy]

I've seen a lot of posts already saying, "sh0w suM pr0n!!!!1!!!"

People, think about what you're saying. Pornography (at least the modern sort) is shot for the small screen. The very small screen. Nineteen inch televisions or, even worse, computer monitors. As a result, its directors often go for the extreme closeup, usually to great effect.

Now think about these closeups on IMAX. Gaping orifices of every level of hygeine standing several stories high? I don't know about you, but that sounds more "nauseating" than "erotic."

So please, think twice before you request porn on the (really) big screen. This has been a public service announcement(TM).

yep

[zapfie]

So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?

The Lion King.

Re:yep

[zapfie]

Sweet. =) Thanks!

Don't Bother...

[gnarled]

In 2007 you will have to get a digital IMAX projector anyways...

I'd like to see IMAX on IMAX!

[Chairboy]

What movie would I like to see on IMAX? Classical IMAX movies, for one! This may sound dumb, but the truth of the matter is that some of the best IMAX films are out of circulation and simply cannot be seen today.

For example:
Tomorrow in Space
To Fly!
Titanica

Re:I'd like to see IMAX on IMAX!

[Chairboy]

whoops, submitted too early:

On The Wings
L5: First City In Space
Hail Columbia!
and
The Dream Is Alive, a movie about the shuttle program released just before the Challenger disaster.

These are great, but the only thing you can find is the (albeit neat) Space Station 3d and some 'Xtreme' stunts movie.

Re:I'd like to see IMAX on IMAX!

[dman123]

The Dream is Alive can be seen at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. They added a bit to talk about the Challenger accident and how 3? of the astronauts show up in the movie. It's free with general admission to the complex.

They have the space station movie too.

Re:I'd like to see IMAX on IMAX!

[Digitech]

FYI - Titanica is showing at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, IL. They recently opened a Titanic exhibit at the museum so they dusted off Titanica and are showing it in the OmniMAX. I know, OmniMAX is not really IMAX, but it's a damn big screen.

Re:I'd like to see IMAX on IMAX!

[RadioTV]

You forgot "Across the Sea of Time". The best IMAX 3D I have ever seen.

Re:I'd like to see IMAX on IMAX!

[ashitaka]

North of Superior
Silent Sky

Ones you've probably never seen but are among the best.

Blade

[rooinlondon]

I want to see blood showering from the ceiling, and see each drop fly in front of my eyes. I'm not usually the psychotic type, but I've seen the movie at least half a dozen times and *love* it!

Re:Blade

[kazama]

Not to mention the soundtrack blaring on the IMAX sound system durring this scene. *drool*

Picture might be clear but...

[John Harrison]

What isn't clear is if they only want to go back and remaster past films that have been hits or if they want to do this to first run films. I would love to see LoTR: TTT on an IMAX screen. At least I think I would. I am assuming that they aren't lying when they say they can bump up the quality.

For action films lots of people might want to see them first run on the IMAX screen. I don't know about dramas. Who wants to see Road to Perdition on a giant screen? Or worse yet, When Harry Met Sally?

Of course this trend might annoy George Lucas. I am not aware of any digital project capability for IMAX theaters. They would need a really impressive high resolution digital projector to go to IMAX size. Which reminds me, most IMAX movies run for a long time. I mean they are at the theater for about a year. I would guess that the film is expensive to produce and transport. Would it make economic sense to convert The Matrix? How many people would pay $10 to see it again on a really big screen? Maybe first run movies would be a better bet.

Re:Picture might be clear but...

[AnamanFan]

To further your good points..

Has anyone actually seen the IMAX camera? It's a very large and heavy camera where each roll occupies about 2.5 minutes of film.

I always wondered if there is a digital form of the IMAX camera in development. It certainly would be more manageable than the film version. Reload would be a matter of switching a hard drive, rather than feeding film. The amount of record time would most likely be similar to the film version, but at least the camera would have less downtime to change the hard drive.

And don't get me started on a digital IMAX projector... ;)

Then again, I don't claim to know what the other problems there may be with a digital version. I just hope that the idea is at least being worked on.

Re:Picture might be clear but...

[JFMulder]

I mean they are at the theater for about a year. I would guess that the film is expensive to produce and transport.

I think it has more to do with the fact the IMAX theaters are not found everywhere so they don't get to show the movie to a lot of people very quickly, compared to traditional cinemas. I've never an Imax room less then half-full, even after a movie came out months ago. There always seems to be a lot of poeple going there. After all it shouldn't cost a lot more. It's not like DVD's where you have to put more information in the same space as CDs. The IMAX film is just bigger.

Re:Picture might be clear but...

[jafuser]

And don't get me started on a digital IMAX projector... ;)

According to the author of this post, it would take a 1.91x2.74 DLP chip; and according to the author of this post, it would require a sustained data transfer rate of about 1GB/sec and a movie would require about 12TB of storage.

According to the thread in the second post, IMAX did buy the company that made the DLP e-cinema system, Digital Projection International.

Re:Picture might be clear but...

[Fred Ferrigno]

In a new development near me, they built an Imax theater and a traditional right next to each other. After a year or so, the Imax theater is closed and the traditional theater makes money hand over foot. I never went there in the time it was open, because the movies I wanted to see were right next door.

Spaceballs and Starship Troopers

[LowneWulf]

Some of the humor might be lost though: all of Spaceball 1 would fit on the screen!

And come on, giant bugs diving at me at Imax size can't be beat.

IMAX locations?

[TonyZahn]

Where are these theaters located anyway? Here in Maryland we have one in the Baltimore Science Center, and one in the Smithsonian (I think it's the Museum of Natural History) in DC. Are any of these theaters meant for the general movie-going public or all they all attatched to educational centers?
If they're all in museums and such, then I don't see the point in releasing the latest summer blockbuster there.

Re:IMAX locations?

[Alpha_Geek]

There's also one in the Air & Space Museum. They are not all attached to educational institutions, but I think most are. For example there are a couple at casinos in Las Vegas.

Re:IMAX locations?

[csnydermvpsoft]

Here in Grand Rapids, MI, we just got one about a year ago as part of a new mega-theater.

IIRC Kings Island amusement park in OH has one as well.

Re:IMAX locations?

[Eccles]

Are any of these theaters meant for the general movie-going public or all they all attatched to educational centers?

The Maryland Science Center IMAX has shown Fantasia 2000, and I believe Beauty and the Beast. So I'm sure they'd happily show other motion pictures if the economic opportunity arose.

Re:IMAX locations?

[wkitchen]

I happen to live near a commercial movie theater complex that has an IMAX. The Cinemark 17 in Dallas, TX. Cinemark's web site lists 4 other current IMAX locations, and 4 future locations.

Of course the big money maker...

[bravehamster]

IMAX porn...

Of

[Apreche]

course all the good movies have already been taken. So I'm going to put my money on Akira, Transformers The Movie, Battle Royale, Monty Python(any one of 'em), and the Super Mario Bros. movie just for laughs.

70mm vs 35mm

[pagercam2]

I beleive that the average theater uses 35mm film but in the high end theaters they often also can use 70mm. In a multiplex that I used to go to in VA they had two screens of 70mm for new/big releases and featured that they were 70mm while the other 10 screens were 35mm. IIRC IMAX is a 70mm format, but I assume different from the run of the mill 70mm film projector, so they could use the higher quality 70mm film in an IMAX, but it wouldn't be up to full IMAX standards, what they are suggesting here is that they can digitally enhance the film from 35mm to make it acceptable on IMAX screens.

Re:70mm vs 35mm

[getagrip]

IMAX negatives use a rotated orientation compared to normal movie film. The images are horizontal along the length of the film rather than running across the width of the film. This results in the image size being 10 times larger than the image on a standard 35mm film according to the IMAX website

Re:70mm vs 35mm

[Slack-Jawed Local]

The IMAX format is 70mm film that has been turned horizontal instead of vertical and the width of the film frame has been tripled. While normal 70mm film is the width of 5 perforations (or 5 sprocket holes), the IMAX® is 15 perforations wide. The area is 20 times larger than a 16mm frame, ten times larger than a 35mm frame and even three times larger than a normal 70mm frame. It's commonly known as 15-perf 70mm.

The ratio is 4:3, so a 35mm widescreen transfer would have the same black bars, top and bottom, that you get when you watch a widescreen film on a non-widescreen TV. However, the transfer for Disney's "Beauty and The Beast" used the same 4:3 framing as for the pan & scan video release, so this technique might be used for other transfers (although I'd prefer it if it wasn't).

The 10x increase in area from 35mm makes creation of an IMAX print from a 35mm negative very difficult. The digital process needs to do a lot more than just smooth the transitions between 35mm grains (the film equivalent of pixels) - it needs to work out the structure of what it is looking at; where the edges are; how it moves - if glitches and artefacts are to be avoided. I hope it works though. Apart from anything else, IMAX theatres have the best sound, picture, seating arrangements and all the rest - there are even specs for the amount of noise the A/C is allowed to make. I'd pay a few dollars to see just the opening sequence of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope on IMAX, never mind the rest of the film.

Re:70mm vs 35mm

[farnsworth]

I beleive that the average theater uses 35mm film but in the high end theaters they often also can use 70mm.

almost all films are shot in 35mm, even big budget ones. the 70mm theatres just get a print that's 2x the negative. it's still nice, but not the same as seing a 70mm film on a 70mm projector. Laurence of Arabia is a good example if you want to see a "real" 70mm movie.

IMAX != 70mm. it uses the same stock, but IMAX uses *all* of each exposure, and the cameras expose the film sideways, making for an image that's as tall as a (plain) 70mm film is wide, and much wider too. (I don't know the ratio off the top of my head.)

it was the 'sideways' technology is what was patented for all those years.

Re:70mm vs 35mm

[BethLogic]

Part of the reason that almost every theater shows movies in 35mm film is that they don't make movies in 70mm any more. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet was one of the last. Traditional 70mm isn't used anymore because there is some problem in production and handling, I don't remember what it is, but I think it has to do with the sound format. 70mm uses a magnetic system while 35mm uses and optical system. I wish I could remember more (or find something about it), but this is pieces I remember from my projection training a few years ago. The (very old) projectors I learned on could do both 35mm and 70mm, but we hadn't used 70mm in a couple of years at that point.

What movies do I want to see on IMAX?

[randomErr]

What movies do I want to see on IMAX?

Armatage III OVA version - Especially the final battle.
Tenchi Muyo OVA
Princess Minoko
The Rats of Nihm

[Before you flame me, I freely admit my spelling sux]

Re:What movies do I want to see on IMAX?

[justinstreufert]

I noticed you and a lot of people have mentioned animation. I don't know why, though; the original frames were drawn on a cel roughly the size of a piece of letter paper. All the detail in any of these movies can be seen clearly on a 19" TV. It would look odd and grainy on IMAX..

Now, computer animation, on the other hand, if the texture-work is good enough, could be fantastic!

Justin

Re:What movies do I want to see on IMAX?

[randomErr]

Now if that was true then all we would have to do is scan everything at 72 DPI. We wouldn't have to scan at higher resolutions for print.

But thats not true. The human eye picks up far more detail from a 9x11 cell then you ever realize. If you don't believe print something a Tektronics printer at a 300 DPI scan, then rescan and print it at 72 DPI.

Any Movie In IMAX?

[Reverend Beaker]

Simple; The Sound of Music; Julie Andrews several stories tall and belting out the tunes. Oh yeah!

CTHD

[the eric conspiracy]

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon

Movies I would like to see at an IMAX

[teamhasnoi]

The English Patient
Ishtar
C.H.U.D
Licence to Drive
Ladybugs
Chairman of the Board (with the irrepressable Carrottop!)
Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit
The Master of Disguise
The Country Bears
and finally, the #1 Movie I would like to see at an IMAX: Air Bud 4: Seventh Inning Fetch!

A guy can dream, can't he?

Re:Movies I would like to see at an IMAX

[MediaBoy77]

You forgot Nightmare on Elm Street 12: The Musical.

Scientology involved in IMAX?

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

"... as well as enlisting Tom Cruise as the narrator of our new hit 3D film SPACE STATION."
He'll probably ramble on about Xenu or something. Hoo boy. This could be a conspiracy, huh?

--
It's a joke. Laugh.

Re:Scientology involved in IMAX?

[ashitaka]

Nah, I liked his line about "...you don't want to be around when they light THIS candle" as you get an awesome view of a Soyuz rocket launch from about 50 feet away.

VERY cool.

Lawerence Of Arabia

[Poodleboy]

Really huge-screen David Lean flicks...

how about...

[vex24]

how about the Blair Witch Project... that'd be a nice big puke-fest. ;)

Aw but seriously, any of the biggees would be nice... Braveheart, Star Trek First Contact, maybe 2001...

Re:how about...

[b1t r0t]

Many years ago I saw 2001 (a 70mm print) at the local IMAX theatre. It was incredibly wide (after all, it was shot incredibly wide), and I had to turn my head from side to side to see both ends of it. Wow.

Re:Oh boy

[Camulus]

I don't want to die. So, not option 3. However, Dude, where's my car? is only 87 minutes where as Ernest Goes to Camp is 92 minutes long.

Dude, where's my car? wins.

Films for IMAX, and general categories of them

[erlkonig]

Here are some more:

• Akira
• Tron
• any Star Wars (although JarJar on IMAX is, ummm...)
• any Lord of the Rings
• Men in Black - especially the end sequence
• Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
• Perfect Storm - you thought those waves were big on a normal screen, eh...

And just about any movie with serious panaromas, including lots of art films, some of the shorts out of the animation festivals, films with large battles scenes or including view from aircraft or space, and so on.

Re:Oh boy

[The Dobber]

Would that be the occasionally slimmed down Anna Nicole or the more recently as seen on E! porked out Anna?

Cause it might make a difference. I could distract Martha S with some Imclone stock and give ol C-Top a rotary phone.

I'm a little clueless...

[DLWormwood]

...so I'll ask. What is the advantage of transfering a 35mm source to a larger format? You wouldn't gain resolution or quality, you would just get interpolation or blurring. My understanding was that the only reason IMAX theaters traditionally have massive screens was to show off the increased detail of the film format. Is there a specific reason why transfering a film to IMAX format gains anything?

An awesome movie for IMAX would be . . .

[minaguib]

Mary Poppins

Be HONEST: PR0N!!!!!!

[ausoleil]

C'mon, the classics of the genre in IMAX?

Are you kidding me? Every detail exposed in tender, loving IMAX quality?

Yeppers, there IS a silent majority that would dearly love to see their favorite pr0n babe up on the IMAX screen. :)

imax dmr

[intuition]

If a feature length film was shown on an IMAX screen, the studios and IMAX were probably looking the other way.

IMAX and the Hollywood studios don't want some hack to display regular film onto an IMAX sized screen. Its going to look bad, period. Even if you go to a multiplex that has a "very large screen" (General Cinema's Green Monster Screen in Boston, MA comes to mind) movies look like crap on it. Jittery and grainy.

However, IMAX and the Hollywood studios are waking up to the fact of revenue potential from full feature length films being shown on IMAX sized screens. Of course this must be done according to IMAX's brand level of quality. IMAX DMR represents the initiative to do get this done. The first feature length hollywood film to be shown with this technology will be Apollo 13. So if you think you have seen a movie with this technology and it wasn't Apollo 13 pre-screen and you were a member of the public when you saw it, then you are deluding yourself.

Disney's Beauty and the Beast represented an earlier "beta" generation of this technology. So if you saw that you get some idea.

Text of a press release follows :

Universal Pictures, Imagine Entertainment and IMAX Corporation bring Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience to IMAX screens worldwide.

Apollo 13 tells the dramatic true story of the heroic actions needed to bring a three-astronaut crew safely back to Earth after the Apollo 13 space mission suffered catastrophic mechanical problems en route to the Moon. Made with NASA's collaboratioin, the highly-suspenseful film is scientifically and historically accurate. Apollo 13 features strong performances from the ensemble cast, led by Oscar®-winning actor Tom Hanks, and brilliant direction by Ron Howard, another Oscar winner. Apollo 13 will be digitally re-mastered into IMAX's 15/70 format using the revolutionary IMAX DMRTM technology.

Now THAT'S what I call big breasts!

[cryptochrome]

If they thought the breasts were preposterously large in video, wait'll they get a load of this!

Heh heh... forget porn... they should do an Amazing Nurse Nanako marathon...

Re:I don't get the letters

[thrillbert]

How does DMR stand for Digital Remastering?

Maybe it stands for Digital Movie Remastering?

As for my choice of movies to watch on Imax.. hmmm.. I think any James Bond movie would be great! Imagine all those chase scenes...

---
It is bad luck to be superstitious.

MPAA

[Che Geuvarra]

I wonder if they will have a problem with the perfect digital conversion to Imax format. I mean they have a problem with everything else (digital TV). But i really want to see Akira or the who LoTR on Imax along with plenty of others people have named. I think it's great,

What about...

[NoahsMyBro]

Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
Blade Runner
Tron

That's Easy

[OSUJoe]

Winnie The Pooh.

Anyone who says they can do without a 40 foot tall Tigger is a damned liar!

FINALLY!

[farnsworth]

Finally, we can see My Dinner with André in the full splendor of IMAX!!!!

Anyone notice the Microsoft ad for .Net

[DarkAce911]

Isn't that Sacrilegious for a Linux site.

IMAX = 70mm run sideways

[Fzz]

If I recall, IMAX is 70mm film, but run sideways though the projector. Normal 70mm file runs vertically, so the width of the film corresponds to the width of the screen. With IMAX, the width of the film corresponds to the height of the screen, so each IMAX frame is a lot larger than a regular 70mm frame.

-Fzz

Re:IMAX = 70mm run sideways

[liquidsin]

According to imax.com, it's 70mm film that's three times larger (wider) than the 70mm film sometimes used for movies. They have a whole section on their site about the tech behind imax flicks.

Re:Movie to See

[Viper118]

Braveheart on the IMAX. *drool*

I think Top Gun (though old and semi-cheesy) would also make a sweet one. And of course Star Wars is a given. :)

Trigun and Record of Lodoss War (nt)

[Apocalypse111]

no text

Tron!

[agilen]

I think it would look sweet! Like when they are in the sailboat kind of thing, moving down the beam...it would capture the intended infiniteness of the TRON world on such a huge screen.

Master of Disguise!

[tiedyejeremy]

To make this movie better, make it bigger and louder. Just like an American in a foreign country trying to communicate. If they don't understand you, speak slowly and loudly.

you know...

[Zelet]

you know you are at the right message board when a comment about p0rn will get an "insightful" mod.

I LOVE slashdot! (no sarcasm)

Top IMAX movie pick

[selacious]

umm, Blade Runner anyone? I wanna see that blimp advertising the Colonies lifesize on the screen...

FHM Magazine

[lo_fye]

This month's FHM mentions a 40 foot screen set up beside a lake, a remastered version of Jaws, and a bunch of very lucky/scared people watching from their seats (floating innertubes) on the lake! They also said there will be some actual underwater effects to accompany the movie. I can't imagine much that would be scarier than that at night.

Already been done

[kick_in_the_eye]

I'm sure lots of people have seen the matrix or star wars on their i-macs.

I wanna see

[jachim69]

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

Titanic...

[lewiz]

sure would make for an interesting view on the ``Big Big Screen''. I'm not quite sure I'd want to go watch it but I found watching it on the ``Small Big Screen'' quite amazing.

two types of imax

[dchism]

I have seen two types of movies called IMAX. One is projected on a dome ceiling like at the museum of science in boston, the other is just a really huge screen with great quality and sound. Is there a difference between these two? I'd want to see Bladerunner and Alien on the former, and just about anything on the later.

Re:two types of imax

[captredballs]

The "Omnimax" is the domed one. Its the same film (70mm?) and sound reels (they keep sound seperate, I think), but the projection and audio setup is different.

Re:pr0n? no.

[Photon Ghoul]

Several stories tall? Wow, that would actually be quite funny to see.

Kubrick movies!

[RobKow]

Remastered and transferred:

2001: A Space Odyssey
A Clockwork Orange
Eyes Wide Shut (I liked it...)
Full Metal Jacket

Maybe even Barry Lyndon (3+ hour back AND neckache...) ;)

Don't know about the earlier ones (Dr. Strangelove, Lolita, etc.). Would be absurd, though :)

Re:Kubrick movies!

[Matimus]

Dr. Strangelove would be on the top of my list, thats just because I like it, not because I think it would be better on the big screen.

Austin Powers!!

[quantaman]

Fat Bastard 3 stories tall!

Yeah baby!!

Strange that this would finally come up...

[turbine216]

The Newport, KY Imax theatre showed the Matrix for a few nights back in April, i believe. Having seen it, I can only make two comments about huge-screen movies:

1. Too big.

2. Too loud.

I know that sounds kinda prudish and totally un-male of me, but there is a line that you have to draw when pursuing that "bigger, better, faster, more..." method of evolution. When you actually have to turn your head from side to side because the screen exceeds your field of vision, you're well across that line.

For a realistic movie experience...

[gosand]

How about Honey I Shrunk the Kids?

Micrososmos would be pretty amazing too.

IMAX Games, too

[buzzdecafe]

Related story on ZDNet:

"Games go big-screen in IMAX contest

Video games will gain a whole new dimension--including a mild sense of nausea--with a contest Aug. 15 at the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, Calif. Game players who pass qualifying rounds will compete for final prizes in games projected on the museum's giant IMAX screen, believed to be the first time an IMAX screen has been used for gaming.

The Maxgames contest includes popular games for all three major game consoles, including "Halo," "Tony Hawk: Pro Skater" and "Gran Turismo." Registration is $25 for those wishing to compete in all-ages games, $30 for "mature" titles, with proceeds going to the Tech's education fund. For further details and registration, visit the Maxgames site. --David Becker, Special to ZDNet News"
http://zdnet.com.com/2110-1106-948998.html

Re:IMAX Games, too

[mselmeci]

I think there was a /. story about that a few weeks back. Personally, I want to see Final Fantasy on the IMAX. Since it's all rendered, they could just re-render it in higher quality and it would look spectacular.

How it (probably) works

[Anonymous Coward]

IMAX collaborated with Sarnoff last year on a project to create IMAX 3D movies more cheaply. Normally, IMAX 3D movies are shot using 2 IMAX cameras to get the 3D effect. However, since IMAX cameras are HUGE and HEAVY, they wanted to be able to shoot 3D using only 1 IMAX camera and 1 regular 35mm camera.

This technique was presented in several computer vision and graphics conferences (including SIGGRAPH) last year, and is probably what they built on for this newer process.

It seems bizarre that such amounts of detail that were never in the 35mm print can be added as a post-production step, but it actually works pretty well (at least from what the results I saw in their papers.)

Here's a link of results of their process:
http://www.sarnoff.com/search/tech_papers/hybrid/i ndex.asp

Movies

[PHAEDRU5]

The Bridge on the Rive Kwai
Dr. Zhivago
Lawrence of Arabia (oh yeah!)

in fact, pretty much anything by David Lean.

What I want to see? Simple.

[mhore]

Stop Making Sense by the Talking Heads. Classic.

Mike.

The perspective is going to be wrong.

[MongooseCN]

IMAX theatres display video in approximately a 180 degree field of view. Most non-imax movies are shot with a much narrower field of view since it's meant to be displayed on a flat rectangular screen. So these movies are going to have to be stretched out to fill up the whole screen. Watching regular movies in an Imax theatre is going to be like watching yourself in a fun house mirror.

Re:The perspective is going to be wrong.

[gerardrj]

No, it's the OmniMax I recall that uses the Imax film format on the domed projection screen.
All the standard Imax theaters are just jumbo flat screens. They seem to have found that a large flat screen that covers most of the human perfipheral vision is just as effective as the round screen, but a lot cheaper and simpler to build and to project on to.

A few thoughts...

[Obiwan Kenobi]

Would it make economic sense to convert The Matrix? How many people would pay $10 to see it again on a really big screen? Maybe first run movies would be a better bet.

I, for one, would love to see The Matrix on an IMAX screen. I think it would be a great experience.

That's why you go to a theater you know. For the experience. Otherwise, DVD and VHS would've killed them a long time ago. Why bother paying high ticket prices and overcharged on underbuttered popcorn and $7 drinks? Because there's something magical about being in a huge auditorium, in a room filled with strangers, going on imaginary adventures with people who never existed.

I would kill to see a marathon of Star Wars (Ep. 1,2,4,5, & 6) on IMAX (and of course do it again once Ep. 3 is finished). It would be a wonderful experience. The sights, the sounds, I think there would be absolutely nothing like it.

But there's a lot to think about here.

Firstly you have the screen itself. Last year, when Beauty and the Beast made more bundles of cash by making a "Special IMAX Edition" there had to be a change. And I'm not talking resolution, I'm talking frame-wise.

IMAX screens are 1.33:1 (television) aspect ratios. Most films are 1.85:1, and most of the classics are 2.35:1

So when they blow up films to fit this huge screen, not only are they losing resolution, they're losing part of the image all over again. It's called Pan & Scan, or Hack 'N Slash, depending on your viewpoint.

I could go on the huge tirade about how P&S is awful, how its destroying cinema as we know it, how it scares away Joe Blow from the infamous "black bars" and "why can't I see the rest of the picture" bullshit that myself and others have dealt with for years (ie, those in defense of widescreen).

The point is that The Matrix was not filmed in "Open Matte." Open Matte is where the black bars are put there intentionally, so the film can be shown in theaters properly. So when the home video comes around, you don't even have to worry about loss of picture, because the 1.33:1 frame actually shows more than what you originally saw in the theater (the great Run Lola Run was done this way). In those cases IMAX reproduction would rely solely on the resolution, with nothing else to worry about.

However, most of the films that are "classics" are in 2.35:1 "Superscope" meaning that when you pan and scan, you lose up to 33% of the film. For example, you have Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Arc (all of the Indiana Jones films for that matter), Lawrence of Arabia, Pulp Fiction, etc etc. The list can go on.

So when you think about IMAX reproduction of films, the frame is more important than the resolution. If you pan and scan a classic, you don't get the classic, you get what an editor "chose" to see at a particular point. And this to me is paramount.

Re:A few thoughts...

[doorbot.com]

we want to see The Matrix on IMAX

I, for one, would love to see The Matrix on an IMAX screen. I think it would be a great experience.

A few months after the Matrix was released (IIRC), the Sony Metreon theaters in San Francisco (4th and Mission) had a one-night showing of the Matrix on their IMAX screen. I attended the showing.

Other than the screen being rediculously big, I don't recall it being all that special. I think the film was simply enlarged to 70mm (and as I recall the picture's edges were a bit soft). Perhaps this new transfer method will magically fix this.

Perhaps some other slashdotters attended that showing... and if so they can post their thoughts.

I did think it was cool though (but tickets were expensive!).

Re:A few thoughts...

[Mr. No Skills]

That's why you go to a theater you know. For the experience. Otherwise, DVD and VHS would've killed them a long time ago. Why bother paying high ticket prices and overcharged on underbuttered popcorn and $7 drinks? Because there's something magical about being in a huge auditorium, in a room filled with strangers, going on imaginary adventures with people who never existed.

Funny, all my movie experiences have the "magic" of people that won't stop talking, cell phones going off, crying babies whose parents take them out to 9:30 PM movies, broken seats, stupid kids with laser pointers, and too cold or too hot theaters. I already have sound quality of theaters at home, and I guess in a few years I'll have the picture quality of movies, and I can skip the expense of the "magic".

PS: I wouldn't invest in movie theaters if I were you. Although HDTV manufacturers and on-demand movies might be a good bet...

Re:A few thoughts...

[mr_exit]

pulp fiction is the example I use when trying to explain the evils of pan&slash. You know the scene when Johnny T and mia Wallace are in the cars talking about the shake, they are looking straight at each other.....
on film it is how the director wanted it, both of their faces are on either edge of the screen and theres a huge amount of screen space between them. the whole conversation is one huge shot.... very cinematic, very nice....

On the 4:3 hack and slash version they have the whole scene cut up and they cut back and foward between them as they speak..... totally speads up the pacing ruining the whole scene.

Re:A few thoughts...

[Will_Malverson]

That's why you go to a theater you know. For the experience. Otherwise, DVD and VHS would've killed them a long time ago. Why bother paying high ticket prices and overcharged on underbuttered popcorn and $7 drinks? Because there's something magical about being in a huge auditorium, in a room filled with strangers, going on imaginary adventures with people who never existed.

Actually, you go to a theater because you want to see a movie that you can't see at home. If I could buy first-run movies on DVD, I would never go to the theater. But, I'm impatient and don't like to wait the 6-12 months it takes for a movie to be released on DVD.

Re:A few thoughts...

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"when you pan and scan"

Who says you have to pan and scan? The screen is already f-----g large - letterbox wouldn't matter that much.

Matrix on Imax

[dopaz]

I've actually seen The Matrix on an Imax screen. I happened to be in Chicago visiting my brother on a Friday, and the Navy Pier Imax Theater was showing it. It was probably just a normal print of the film being projected onto the giant screen, though.

Movie on Imax?

[dacarr]

Star Trek whatever, of course, but not 5. God Forbid 5.

Contact and LOTR please :)

[Darkstar9969]

First on a personal note I'm really pleased to hear this since I moved half a mile away from a beautiful new IMAX theatre! :)

Back to the post...I'd love to see the shots in Contact where Jody Foster is "time/space traveling" in IMAX, tho I'd be afraid of flashing back to my Deadhead days. (who am I kidding..I've never completely left)

And not to restate an obvious Slashdot reader favorite but Lord of the Rings would translate very well IMHO. The orcs would be THAT MUCH BIGGER and the battle scenes gargantuan to add to their already epic look.

My $.02 over and over again!

Re:Contact and LOTR please :)

[tiedyejeremy]

those deadhead days are a state of mind! What about Ken Kesey's On the Bus Movie? You know, the movie about the ride on Further in 1964? Now that would be a trip on IMAX!

Re:Contact and LOTR please :)

[Darkstar9969]

Amen Brother! While on the Dead bend I'd really dig seeing the concert videos/DVDs big too. Watching 50 foot tall Jerry sing Althea would be very nice.

One problem tho.....IMAX theatres don't have much aisle room for dancing, spinners, or umm...*cough*..vendors :) :) :)

Just my $.02 in on a bag!

Re:Contact and LOTR please :)

[Zordak]

I'd love to see the shots in Contact where Jody Foster is "time/space traveling"

But would you be willing to sit through the rest of that movie just for those few moments of eye candy? I think that has got to be the most tedious and pointless movie I have ever seen (of course, I never watched Titanic, so maybe that would have been worse). Too many movies try to be "epic" by making themselves long when the material could be covered in 1.5 - 2 hours (Pearl Harbor, for example, could have been just the middle 90 minutes and it would be one of my favorite all-time movies). There are some long movies that are good (Dances With Wolves, for example, and you'd never guess that Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet is something like 5 hours). Contact, however, IMHO, falls squarely into the "too long and self important" category.

How about...

[nabors]

Bambi vs. Godzilla?

Disney struck a few 70mm prints of Tron in 1999...

[isaac]

Disney actually has a few 70mm prints of TRON (complete w/ remastered multi-channel digital soundtrack). They were struck in 1999, for some reason, and shown at the El Capitan (a one-screen Hollywood movie palace owned by Disney). They looked gorgeous, although they did reveal the limits of the source material. (Fun factoids: the scenes with live actors inside the computer were filmed in 70mm black and white, then blown up to cel size for rotoscoping/effects work, and re-shot on an animation stand. The computer animation was rendered on an IBM System 360 mainframe with custom software by Abel Systems.)

OT:
Before the screening there was a little round-table discussion and Q/A session with Steven Lisburger (writer/director), Bruce Boxleitner (who played Alan/Tron), Cindy Morgan (who played Lora/Yori), and one of the Abel systems people who made all those computer animated sequences possible - I think it was Tim McGovern. The director mentioned that he always thought of TRON as "the Bill Gates story" - i.e. the plucky young programmer breaking the shackles of centralized control (IBM). He said a lot of other stuff I didn't care about - I always hated the actual plot and acting of the film - but at least the Abel Systems guy got to talk a bit about doing CGI in 1982.

-Isaac

Faux detail from a 35mm print

[yerricde]

You can't shine shit. You can't recreate information that was orginally lost when shooting on 35mm.

However, you can recognize textures from one frame to the next, or use the fractal transform to create faux detail, or whatever other proprietary techniques this "DMR" system uses.

wrath of khan

[brsmith4]

i'd have to say wrath of khan. that movie was the shit and always will be. those old trek movies had better special effects than anything we will ever see again since they actually took the time to build some pretty detailed scale models and really blow shit up.

one of these days

*cough*

[eyeball]

I know I don't speak for everyone on Slashdot (I imagine it's pretty diverse crowd), but I don't think I'd enjoy The Crying Game in IMAX. :)

So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?

[Aceticon]

So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?

I want to see Creamy Banana 21 in all it's glory!!!

Oh, wait ... did i said creamy banana? Sorry about that - please disregard this post

Blair Witch

[Tyrone Slothrop]

for the ultimate Imax nausea

"without significant loss of detail"

[LazyBoy]

Yeah, without loss of detail from the 35mm print.
But 35mm prints don't start with anywhere near the detail of those giant IMAX prints.
You can't create resolution from nowhere.

Saw Final Fantasy and LOTR in IMAX here!!

[wiswaud]

Here in Montral, the Paramount theater (on Ste-Catherine) has many movie screens and an IMAX screen. They have a 35mm projector in the IMAX room, and the cool movies are shown a couple of weeks in the beginning in the IMAX theater as well as 3 or 4 other rooms in theaters. So i saw Final Fantasy and LOTR:FOTR on an IMAX screen. The quality is very good (though not as good as real IMAX movies: the 35mm gets blown up more than on a standard theater screen and it does show a little) and the sound is AMAZING. And you're right in the action, it's absolutely amazing! i love it. I'll check the listings for LOTR:TTT for sure. Not many people in Montreal seem to know about this, though, and it's not really advertised (and it doesn't show as an 'IMAX showing' on the automated box office thingies). I'm sure other cities have theaters with both 35 mm and IMAX screens with a 35mm projo in the IMAX room.

Digital animation

[Stavr0]

No point upconverting 35/70mm fare.

It would be great to see Toy Story I/II, Antz, Monsters Inc. and Ice Age rendered at hundreds of megapixels per frame.

Re:Digital animation

[cryptochrome]

What would be the point? Digital animation is not that detailed. The tricky part is making textures and lighting look realistic - CG tends to lack the truly fine details that high resolution (IMAX, HDTV) can give you.

Re:Digital animation

[gerardrj]

No.. the larger size isn't what would be cool. What would be cool is to re-render the Pixar films to be shown in Imax 3D!

I don't think the Imax film reels are large enough to a feature-length film, but I'd certainly pay $20 to go see Toy Story (2), Monsters, Bugs Life, etc.

Re:Digital animation

[henele]

In the UK at least (guessin it is definately global) there is an Imax native flick called 'Cyberworld 3D' (flashy link)which actually features bits from the Simpsons and specially rendered stuff using A Bugs Life and Antz characters (and in Antz case scenes) and it does look very watchable, but I guess it wouldn't be worth the investment for Pixar and Co. to (re)generate a whole movie for the money they could make from the project...

But it is possible and it is cool.

200 Motels

[Anonymous Codger]

Centerville - a great place for your kids to grow up in.

Moderators - if you don't get it you don't get it.

(OT) your sig

[taeric]

That has to be one of the most obscure quotes I could have imagined seeing.

My favorite part of the scene, though, is his face when he sees that he has dropped the egg. :)

Re:(OT) your sig

[Consul]

Thanks. I enjoy the series a lot.

For those just tuning in, my sig line is a quote from Cowboy Bebop, from the episode titled "Heavy Metal Queen".

We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Re:pr0n? no.

[delld]

This is the exact same reason as to why high definition television has not caught on. As everyone knows porn is the primary driver of technology.

Uhhh...

[ryanvm]

Neat idea - but I've got one nitpicking question:

How the hell does DMR stand for "Digital Re-Mastering"?

Re:Uhhh...

[glitch_]

Neat idea - but I've got one nitpicking question:

How the hell does DMR stand for "Digital Re-Mastering"?

DMR stands for Digital Movie Remastering

blade runner

[4rch_st4nt0n]

would be really cool on that big screen. the sweeping shots of the city were amazing in theatres when I saw it. I can only imagine it on an IMAX!

For Starters

[limekiller4]

"So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?"

The list would be long, but we can start with anything that involves a naked Angelina Jolie.

Please.

I'd like to see...

[dcr]

Hmm. There are the obvious ones (Raiders of the Lost Ark (just to see the huge boulder!), The Empire Strikes Back, all three of the Lord of the Rings films, etc.) and then I think about these:

The Right Stuff

Dune

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

Terminator and Terminator 2

Alien and Aliens

At least a couple of the Star Trek films - Wrath of Khan for sure

Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V

Patton and Tora! Tora! Tora!

I'm sure more will come to mind after I post this...

The only movie to see.....

[Cyrano_De]

Attack of the Killer Tomatos

Re:pr0n? no.

[Tablizer]

Now think about these closeups on IMAX. Gaping orifices of every level of hygeine standing several stories high? I don't know about you, but that sounds more "nauseating" than "erotic."

If you actually like that kind of thing, a company called Goatse has found a way to give you the same effect on small screens by increasing the size of the orifice relative to the picture (and body).

Thus, you don't really need IMAX for that. A representative from goatse will probly post the URL's any second now for those interested.

So how does making the neg bigger improve the img?

[purduephotog]

First off- I do know what I'm talking about
How is 'remastering' an image that is shot on 35mm film improve when you blow it up to 70mm? I mean, realistically, what this is saying is that you don't need to ever shoot 4x5 cameras- just shoot 35mm and all that precious details will magically come out when you digitize it. Poor Ansel Adams- if he had been alive now he could just use his $35 disposable camera and get those huge blowups with startling detail

OK I think you've caught the drift. Film has a limited resolution. Original IMAX uses 70mm film to get 4x the negative area (hence they can resolve quite a bit more detail than standard film). The only advantage I see to this is the marketing ploy- Genuine IMAX Film SIZE!. You don't gain detail, you don't gain ANYTHING that isn't already on the film. And since you are starting off on a small format to begin with, its not going to get better.
Now don't get me wrong, you can improve some work with digital sharpening and whatnot- going to a larger format helps there. But it in't going to give you the same quality of an IMAX experience compared with a film that is 70mm. It just can't be done. See my earlier jibes about 4x5 cameras if you need further humour ;)

possibilities of the form

[dTaylorSingletary]

What I'd like to see is more usage of the extreme possibilities available in experimental film. Very rarely do we see the total psychedelic freak out that the medium begs for. Music composed for surround systems that operate in ways to manipulate brain chemistry and sensory feeelings.. video image and sound becomming one, essentially Fantasia for the more experimentally minded. What needs to happen is that the tools to create such revolutionary art need to ber put in the hands of the right people to make it, without concern for financial/economic gain. The possibilities are endless, and no one even begins to touch what is possible. Madness can be reproduced. Think Autechre or Tortoise meets the more incredible sound effects a visual feasts of the Pod Race in episode 1, or Derek Jarman's the Queen is Dead video for The Smiths.

Beyond that, I'd love to see Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense in an IMAX theater, Dark City, Felini's Juliette of the Spirits, and the Garbage Pail Kids movie....

d. Taylor Singletary, reality technician
(experimental music)

Movies to see in IMAX

[mgessner]

How about:

a) Pink Floyd's "The Wall?" That was messed up enough on the "big" screen; I can only IMAGINE what it would be like to be wasted and seeing that on an IMAX screen.

b) I always liked "Battlestar Galactica" but I don't think it was ever a full screen movie, was it?

c) Indiana Jones was probably already mentioned.

d) Titanic, while predictable, would probably be pretty cool blown up 3-4 times.

e) "The Fast and the Furious" would be REALLY cool big AND loud.

My $0.02 worth.

Re:Movies to see in IMAX

[dcr]

Battlestar Galactica was a full-screen movie. I think it was the pilot episodes... That was along time ago, but I know I saw it in the theater.

image resolution

[beefguts]

Typically, good 35mm lenses have much higher resolution (i.e. lines/mm) than good quality medium or large format lenses. This means that there is more information available in a 35mm frame than is available in a comparable portion of a larger IMAX film frame. Assuming the film can out resolve the lense, the transfer from 35mm to IMAX shouldn't completely be due to interpolation. This means that with good algorithms etc, they should scale well (not perfectly tho').

Out Of Africa

[shis-ka-bob]

I want to see biplanes flying over plains and giant heards.

It's mostly grain removal

[Animats]

Here's the IMAX DMR process description. It's basically digital grain removal, plus some color correction and an audio remix. Won't help reformat for the huge screen, though.

Digital grain removal is going to be useful. I look forward to when it's a filter in most video edit programs. There's lots of old 16mm historical footage that could use cleanup for grain and transport jitter.

Amusingly, there's a commercial process for film grain insertion, which is supposed to make video "look like film".

Fools! Can't you see the Obvious?!?

[teamhasnoi]

DMR sounds like a promising new technology, sure.

How many of you realize that DMR is just a cleverly disguised ANAGRAM of D R M!!!
Yes, it took me several months of painstaking research to find the truth, and I may be killed or worse for posting it here!

That's right! DMR is just a way for the MPAA to sneak DRM past you unsuspecting tech junkies.

You poor bastards, you're unwittingly HELPING the MPAA!!!

Re:Fools! Can't you see the Obvious?!?

[ONU CS Geek]

Where's the +1 Mod [wearing tin foil hat] when you need one?

Re:Fools! Can't you see the Obvious?!?

[macsox]

... then should i not use A MAP?

LOTR: TTT

[Regolith]

If it is shot for IMAX, that would be great. However, I saw Fellowship of the Ring on the gigantic screen at an Edwards Cinema (the screen had to be at least 4-6 stories tall) and was not really all that impressed. The size of the picture was awesome but since the film wasn't designed for that size of projection, all of the action sequences were a horrid combination of blurred-beyond-recognition and "Where do I look?". Kinda ruined the whole vibe. I think the effect would even be worse on IMAX, as most people expect particularly awesome quality.

Re:yeah!

[The Barking Dog]

Finally, someone who shares my obsession!

I dont have IMAX, OMNIMAX

[Matimus]

There is no IMAX screen where I live, we have an OMNIMAX, which may be better in some ways. Its similar except that the screen is curved, if you get motion sickness from IMAX you should try OMNIMAX, Its kind of crappy though because they dont make many movies specifically for the OMNIMAX format, most of the films are just IMAX films shot through a special lense, and they get a little distorted. I was kind of disapointed though because they never played Fantasia 2000 there, Im not a big Fantasia fan, but I thought it might be an interesting experience.

Re:I dont have IMAX, OMNIMAX

[robbway]

Fantasia 2000 was as good on DVD as in IMAX. Shocked? You shouldn't be. First of all, cartoons don't get more detailed when blown up. Second, and most importantly, the film didn't take advantage of the size and shape of IMAX, which was the biggest disappointment. Third, to show it's not all bad, the sound was great.

The next logical step

[DuckDuckBOOM!]

The movie oligopoly should take a close look at this, and IMAX technology in general, as a treatment for their VCR/PVR/P2P-phobia. Give the public an experience they can't duplicate at home, and they'll keep buying tickets.

A Documentary...

[Shoten]

Detailing why this isn't a potential violation of the DMCA :)

SF Metreon does this already

[shmert]

I saw LOTR on their IMAX screen last year. I think they show several regular movies in there, but don't publicize the fact very much. It wasn't listed as an IMAX, except on the sfgate.com site. When I got to the theater, there was no mention of any IMAX hubbub, and I figured it had been a typo on sfgate. But there she was! A screen like a snowhill, huge as all get out.

I'm assuming they just used a different lense, and had it on 35mm. It was a tad grainy, but the immersion factor more than made up for it.

Who wouldn't want South Park?

[wift]

Every South Park epsiode. Yes I know it's shot for TV but I can dream can't I. I don't post often so I'm making this short post seem longer.

How about Evil Dead 3, Blade 1&2, all my home movies and while they are at it the No Smoking and Locate the Exit clips we see in the front of every movie. Come on, let's put a little effort into making them look good.

Re:pr0n? no.

[Lev13than]

The other problem is that IMAX controls (or at least tries to) the content of movies shown on their screens - they don't want anything over PG shown. IMAX operate a lot of the theatres, and puts pressure on the other owners to fall in line.
Needless to say, if the slightly-violent Haunted Castle can't make it on the big screen, What Reams May Come is going to stay at 35mm:

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/features/newsinbrief_d ec00_mar01.html

If you check the link, you'll also note they announced back in March 2001 that this new technology would be ready "within twelve months"... oops.

Pink Flamingos

[jackjumper]

Of course you'd have to clean up the puke in the theater afterwards...

Opening scene from Saving Private Ryan

[Imabug]

I think Saving Private Ryan would be cool in Imax format. Especially the opening scene of the D-Day invasion.

No! No! No! No!

[MaxVincent]

This is horrible news. Now, Imax will stop making and showing movies made especially for that format in favor of cheaper to obtain reformulated Hollywood dreck. Of course they'll still charge the same. I can hardly wait.

Some chains are bringing them out

[Weasel Boy]

National movie theater chains are starting to show mainstream films on IMAX screens. Regal Cinemas lists a dozen IMAX locations, and Cinemark shows three locations, with 4 more under construction. Sony also has four locations. I know at least some of these theaters are showing mainstream films.

I think the answer is pretty obvious...

[karmawarrior]

...and I can't see why nobody else has mentioned it. Battleship Potkemkin. Imagine the Odessa Steps scene ("The Odessa Staircase" and "Suddenly") in full IMAX.

Awesome...

...I'll get my coat

Dear IMAX Folks...

[Khan]

...I want to see "Debbie Does Dallas" in IMAX format. Or, if you can't secure those rights, how about "Deep Throat".

Of COURSE this group is going to want to see gigoundous p0rn! Who the hell wouldn't! duh!!

Contact & Previous Film

[DM_NeoFLeX]

Some years ago I saw an IMAX movie on the physics of the Universe. It included one of the most impressive video sequences I've ever seen, a zoom out from the subatomic (Yes it was of course computer generated, but still impressive), out to earth level consisting of real video, and finally out to space. Can anyone else recall seeing this IMAX film and what its name was?

It was similar to the opening scene in Contact, which would also be impressive on an IMAX screen.

Re:Contact & Previous Film

[DM_NeoFLeX]

http://www.imax.com/body.html?p=http://www.imax.co m/films/now_playing/cosmic.html&s=auto

Should have looked first...

what movies would i want to see on IMAX?

[thor]

bladerunner
2001
aliens
alien

Le Grand Bleu (The Big Blue)

[stephdau]

One movie that would just be (even more) spectacular in IMAX format would be Le Grand Bleu (The Big Blue, in its English/exported version) by Luc Besson (see The Fifth Element, for the non-French ;o).

Atlantis, by L. Besson as well, would also be a must.

Stephane

The obvious movies to enlarge

[sohp]

Fantastic Voyage
Incredible Shrinking Man
Attack of the 50 Foot Woman
Them!
Giant
The Iron Giant
My Dinner with Andre the Giant
anything with Ray Harryhausen animation
The Unshrinkable Jerry Mouse

Star Wars opening scene in IMAX, I've seen...

[bucklesl]

In 1998, I "forced" my family to go to the IMAX in Scottsdale to see a movie called, Special Effects. Mainly, of course, just to watch the opening scene of Star Wars (Leia's ship being attacked...) redone for the IMAX format.

They showed the original opening of the film in 2.35:1 complete with the black bars* and then followed it up with the IMAX version. Needless to say, it was much better. The whole screen was filled and the quality was great. Also, I think the sound was remixed for their sound systems (which are quite good).

Sign me up for SW and LotR...

*It's been awhile, but I'm almost positive they showed the original before the IMAX version...

Movies I would like to see on IMAX

[SpookyR]

1. Dr. Zhivago
2. Lawrence of Arabia

Lawrence of Arabia because . . .

[jdcook]

it was the last major feature shot in true 70mm film.

I've seen plenty o' films on IMAX screens

[PCM2]

Here in San Francisco, the Loews Cinemas Metreon theater complex regularly screens first-run films on their IMAX screen, if the demand is there. I've seen "Apocalypse Now Redux" in the IMAX theater, as well as "Minority Report," and maybe some others. I think the first film they did this with was "The Matrix."

As far as I'm concerned, the movies look just fine as it is. I'm betting that one of the criteria is that the theater have a 70mm print available, but otherwise it's great. The picture stretches to both edges of the screen (though not the full height). So long as it's not an old, battered print, the image looks fine. Sound is great.

I think what IMAX is offering here is to take a film and blow it up to full IMAX specs. As far as I can tell, all this means is that IMAX will be able to capitalize on what's already common practice -- IMAX theaters screening non-IMAX movies on the big screen.

So let's see. Average cost of a 120 minute film on a regular screen at the Metreon? $9.50. Average cost of a 20 minute IMAX movie at the Metreon? $9.50. Average cost of a full-length IMAX format film, then, would be ... what? $58? No thanks.

It's not my favourite file but....

[xA40D]

It just has to be David Lean's

Lawrence or Arabia

Not the best film of all time, but one of the greats. The shots of the desert simply take my breath away. And I've only ever seen it on TV.

And on IMAX?

Well, I'd probably wet my pants ;)

Tron, Bladerunner

[eyefish]

In no particular order:

1. Tron

2. The Matrix

3. Star Wars (all)

4. Terminator 2

4. The Lord of the Rings (all)

5. Titanic

6. Bladerunner

Re:Tron, Bladerunner

[eyefish]

Oh yeah, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

my top ten movies I'd like to see on IMAX

[peteshaw]

Basically, movies with visual splendor, sweeping vistas, and such. Strong visual imagery. NOT action movies. The Matrix might be too much. Also, space is a heavy theme here.

10.)2001 a space Odysesy
9.)Dances With Wolves
8.)The Shining (esp the hallway big-wheel scenes)
7.)Gladiator
6.)Star Trek 3 (& only 3)
5.)Star Wars (episode whatever)
4.)Apollo 13
3.)Aliens
2.)Brazil

and the number one film to see on IMAX is of course...

1.)Blade Runner

That being said...

[DuckDuckBOOM!]

...am I alone in being not all that impressed with IMAX? At typical movie viewing distances (variable from first 5 rows for a LOTR to last 5 for a "ya-ya sisterhood"), IMAX images appear distorted at the edges (because of the flat screen, maybe), and the 24 fps jerkiness is obvious and motion-sickness-inducing. Before IMAX becomes common in theaters (which imho must happen eventually - see last post), I hope they upgrade the spec to at least a 2-D curved screen projected at 60-70 fps.
Of course at that point the film reels would be generating measurable tidal forces, but that'll just be more incentive for theaters to go digital.

DDB (who still thinks Space Station 3D rocks.)

Navy Pier IMAX

[gleam]

Actually, at the navy pier imax near me they do show standard release films on the giant screen.. not sure how, they may just have a 35mm projector up there.

Anyways, I've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Crouching Tigher, Hidden Dragon on that screen... CTHD was much more exciting to watch. Seeing that movie on a screen that massive was quite memorable, and I recommend it to anyone.

If you're in chicago, I recommend visiting the navy pier imax one weekend when they are showing a feature film.. Unfortunately, I don't think they do it that often.

-gleam

My Dinner with Andre!

[BlueFall]

My Dinner with Andre! It really deserves the big screen for all the action. Like when the waiter comes with the wine!

No one mentioned Rocky Horror..

[shayne321]

Imagine those lips on an IMAX screen! Plus the amusement factor of trying to watch a theater full of folks attempting the "timewarp" dance on a ledge about 6 inches wide would provide for great entertainment.

But then, the idea of meatloaf in a garter belt on a screen the size of a small city just scares the living hell out of me. Maybe some things were just not meant for IMAX.

Shayne

DRM DMR?

[minus_273]

i saw "IMAX Develops Movie Transfer Technology" then i though i saw DRM and i was like wow! people are pirating IMAX!

Sure...

[JasonMaggini]

Now that the only IMAX theater within 250 miles has closed down here...

movie i want to see....

[VS1]

Apocalyspe now, redux.
"i Love the smell of napalm in the morning."

My recollection is...

[JudgeFurious]

...That the movie was at one time supposed to be filmed using both technologies at the same time in some fashion. I remember reading early on that this idea was dropped real quickly once they started to figure up what it would take and what it would cost to do something like that. I mean, the project itself is ambitous enough as it is. Why add trying to do this to the problems they already faced.

Anyway I've been following the production of this thing for years and I don't believe this particular idea ever got out of the "idea" phase.

goto canada

[ProfBooty]

I believe IMAX is a canadian company. A canadian friend of mine often bragged that there were a lot of IMAX screens in canada in malls etc.

i can't verify this though without a google search.

Re:goto canada

[ashitaka]

Add to that the Imax theatre at Silver City Riverport at the south end of Richmond and the Omnimax theatre at Science World.

Now if all these Imax movie houses would just show the films I want to see.

Tron!

[Sherloch Hemloch]

Tron! Tron! Tron! I want my mega-Tron(?)

Can you imagine seeing the lightbike race in IMAX mode? I get shivers just thinking about it!

Tron vs. RIAA - "He fights for the users"

-"END OF LINE"

No No NO

[JudgeFurious]

Not "shooted and send back to earth"!

It's "Shooted and sending back to urth"!

Re:So how does making the neg bigger improve the i

[captaineo]

I think the point of their process is to avoid multiple 35mm generations between the camera negative and release print. If you blow up the camera negative to 70mm and stay at 70mm throughout the print-making process, the result will look (marginally) better than a release print made from 35mm intermediates.

Of course this process isn't going to achieve the same quality as if you actually recorded 70mm film in the camera. But cutting out one or two generations of 35mm printing can help - e.g. SW:Episode II had very little grain in the film release prints, since they were all first-generation copies of ILM's digitally-recorded negatives.

Re:So how does making the neg bigger improve the i

[farnsworth]

How is 'remastering' an image that is shot on 35mm film improve when you blow it up to 70mm?

there are a couple of reasons.

the first is the same reason people buy bigger televisions and monitors. because even with the same source, bigger is often nicer (more immersing, etc). also, many people can be farther away and have the same view that few people had with a 35mm print. the success of 70mm projectors for 35mm movies is not because theatre-goers are tricked, it's because it really is nicer. although it is *nothing* compared to a 70mm negative, like Laurence of Arabia.

the second reason is that wear will be dramatically reduced vis a vis the size of the image. an imax frame is something like 70mm X 120mm (?). a plain 35mm frame is something like 20mm X 35mm (totally sans calculator). so a scratch, dirt whatever is much less visible on imax.

there are also differences in the screen technology, but I really don't know enough about that to comment on it.

Amelie!

[m3000]

This movie is beautiful enough on my TV set, I'd love to see it projected onto a huge IMAX screen. Amelie is definitly one of the best shot and most gorgeous movie's I've ever seen. The only bad thing about having it IMAXized is Amelie's already big eyes would be almost frightengly large. But a small price to pay to see it on the big, big screen.

horizontal framing wasn't first done by IMAX

[neurojab]

FYI...

VistaVision was a 35mm horizontal process that was used by such greats as Alfred Hitchcock and George Lucas (in certain Star Wars effect sequences). The conversion to IMAX for the opening sequence of star wars may turn out better than anyone could imagine since it was already larger than 35, and already horizontal!

here's a good guide on the larger than 35 mm formats (including VistaVision, IMAX, 65mm, and 70mm) that will hopefully clear any confusion.

Re:So how does making the neg bigger improve the i

[David_Bloom]

At first, this might sound like the "optical" and "software enhanced" resolutions on many scanners. That's not the case.

When you scan an image, and print it, you are probably going to get the same results whether you use the "optical" resolution and the "software enhanced" resolution. Why? You're going to print them out the same size. Your eye cannot see any difference in detail.

Enlarging 35mm film to make 70mm IMAX movies is different. Why? By making the image bigger, you are being more lenient on the limitations on the film projector, the film quality, and the human eye. To a person with binoculars in a perfect theater in perfect light using perfect film, there would be no difference. But, in typical conditions, you would see an immense improvement, since the bigger image allows your limited vision to see more, the film grain to be less, and so on.

Re:So how does making the neg bigger improve the i

[Freedom Bug]

Why?

Because Lord of the Rings on IMAX in Edmonton sucked! (ie, 35mm projector onto massive screen)

it was very grainy/blurry, and the jittering gave me a migraine.

So they may not be increasing the information content so it's not theoretically a better picture, but they are immensively improving the transfer of that information to my brain.

Bryan

The Best Movie of All Time

[shiznit]

Debbie does CowboyNeal

What about some concerts....

[Ghost of Ian Curtis]

Ones I would Like to see are... 1. Underworld - Everything, Everything (Greatest argument for drugs I got) 2. Woodstock 3. Last Waltz 4. U2 - Zooropa

IMAX was disappointing

[Stonent1]

after many years of viewing stuff at the Fort Worth OmniMax dome. I saw my first IMAX movie last year and I was like... What is so special about this? It is just big. At least with OmniMax they can dangle you off a cliff. My favorite part of OmniMax movies at the Fort Worth Museum is the opening demo of a helicopter flyover of Fort Worth. The whole audience gasps at the same time because you get the immediate sensation that you are hanging from the skids on the helicopter. I also like being able to look up over and around to see other things. It feels more like you are there. If you've only tried Imax and not OmniMax you HAVE to try it!

beo

[t_allardyce]

How about Quake? you would probably need a BeoWolf cluster to run at the required resolution.

- Theres two cliches in one post :)

Re:What I want to see on IMAX

[Cpt_Kirks]

That *SHOULD* be:

" Yo' Momma...cuz 'da beyotch don't fit on no regular widescreen... "

-Ebonics Police

Disney struck 70mm prints of Tron in 1982, too

[Apotsy]

Tron was originally released in 70mm six-track (mag stripe analog). There were some 35mm prints made too, but it was always intended for 70mm, and was shown that way in many cities in its original release. The sound track on these new prints was probably not remixed, just transferred to digital. It was already "multi-channel".

Re:Its all about....

[RadioTV]

Viva los Bio-dome.

No, Dogtown & Z-Boyz...

[MsGeek]

I want to see the scene where the Dogtown surfers are rocketing through the carcass of the old Pacific Ocean Park pier in IMAX. Worth the cost of admission alone.

"You'll never hear surf music again" -- Jimi Hendrix

Godzilla vs. Monster Zero is better than Mothra!

[1qaz2wsx]

What kind of monster is a giant moth and spitting pupas? Now a three headed dragon with lightning is a monster!

Lawrence Of Arabia

[MsGeek]

Really great suggestion there...that would rock.

Bring back 5-perf 70mm instead

[Apotsy]

Here is what I had to say when this subject came up on Metafilter:

IMAX is the wrong aspect ratio for most movies.

The proportions are almost like TV (about 1.4:1), whereas most movies made in the last 50 years are much wider than that (some are more than twice as wide). Nearly all movies seen in theatres in the last 20-30 years are one of two aspect ratios -- 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Fitting those wider frames into an IMAX frame presents exactly the same problem that showing them on TV does. You have to fit a rectangle into a square, rougly speaking. That means either letterbox or pan-and-scan.

However, Apollo 13 will probably transfer to IMAX fairly well, because it was shot in Super 35, which even though it usually is used to produce a 2.35:1 widescreen image, actually has a negative area that is much more squarish (again, about 1.4:1). So I would imagine that the IMAX transfer will make use of that extra image area. For more info on Super-35 see here, about 3/4ths the way down the page.

Still, many of the movies people mentioned in this article were shot in widescreen processes other than Super-35, and would have to either be severely cropped, or letterboxed within the IMAX frame, in order to be shown from IMAX projectors.

The right thing to do would be to bring back 5-perforation 70mm, which has a nice wide aspect ratio of 2.20:1. During the years from about 1976-1996, most major studio releases had at least some 5-perf 70mm prints struck. Chances are, if you went to the movies in a major US city during that time, you saw a number of films in 70mm six-track, perhaps without even knowing it. (The process was killed off by digital sound in the mid-to-late 1990s.) Everyone saying "I want to see Star Wars!" should realize that it has already been released in 70mm -- back in 1977.

Of course, 5-perf 70mm existed long before the years I just listed, but it was mainly used for films that were actually shot in 65mm. The time period I'm referring to is merely when 35mm->70mm optical blow-ups were popular. This new IMAX process sounds like a bit of a throwback to those days, but at the expense of correct aspect ratios. And the blow-up is now done digitally rather than optically.

Not only is IMAX the wrong aspect ratio for a lot of movies, it's also incompatible standard feature films in many other ways. 35mm feature films these days are shot with lots of tight close-ups and quick cuts, and if you look at the IMAX Filmmaker's Manual, they very clearly suggest that you not do things like that, because they are very jarring on the IMAX screen!

Due to the above problems, I think people are likely to be disappointed with this in the long run. IMAX is probably pushing this idea because they are hoping this will boost their stock price.

IMAX Conversion Candidates

[d3vpsaux]

Hmm, of all the great movies to choose from...

1. UHF - Wierd Al in IMAX? Almost as improbable as UHF on DVD...
2. Debbie Does Dallas
3. Logan's Run
4. Some of the older StarWars movies (if they haven't been converted already)
5. The Indiana Jones series
6. WarGames
7. Hunt for Red October
8. Tron
9. As the Broiler Flames (the Burger King VHS training video series... Anyone who's seen it will understand...)

More than that, actually

[Weasel Boy]

"Original IMAX uses 70mm film to get 4x the negative area (hence they can resolve quite a bit more detail than standard film)."

Conventional 70mm movie film is 70mm wide by 5 perforations tall. IMAX is rotated 90 degrees, 70mm tall by 15 perforations wide. According to the online brochure, that is 10x the area of a conventional 35mm movie frame. (http://www.imax.com/)

CowBe

[MsGeek]

I'd settle for "Knocking On Heaven's Door: Cowboy Bebop, The Movie". That would rule.

Also "Evangelion: Death & Rebirth" and "End Of Evangelion" would be cool.

Men In Black.

[rew]

I saw Men In Black in an "IMAX Theatre". They blow up the movie as large as it gets, and then leave about 75% of the screen unused. At that size you already get annoyingly fuzzy pictures.

Sure they can remaster the thing to IMAX media, but that won't really make it less fuzzy. The information to do that simply isn't there.

Roger.

Re:So how does making the neg bigger improve the i

[cgenman]

HERE HERE!

I know IMAX theartres are struggling for survival, though apparently less so these past few years, and releasing 35 mm versions of movies on 70mm film could bring in additional revenue... at the cost of what makes the theartre interesting. This would be just, in essence, a large 35mm theartre with no additional film quality. Perhaps Episode 3 could be shot with a camera holding enough pixels to make it worthwile, but quite honestly Lucas's "digital" theartre experience looked more like a moving series of crisply colored legos than a film.

Equally doubtful would be studios (and filmmakers) shooting in IMAX and paring down to 35mm (which would be the proper process), as IMAX cameras aren't exactly standard in the studio backlots. Especially now that everyone is transitioning to a first-gen digital which reduces rather than increases studio costs.

Sadly, IMAX theartres would probably be well advised to switch to good 'old 35 mm permanently... Many of the jitters and color problems have been solved over the years, and for every wonderful IMAX documentary there are five incredible 35mm films that never see nationwide release.

-Chris

What I Hate About iMAX

[Anonym1ty]

What I hate about iMax

Big isn't all there is... and it's used too much in iMax. Many times I have seen iMax films and the shooting is just horrible. The whole point of iMax (or OmniMax) is to fill your perephiral vision with the image, or show more. One thing I hate is iMax movies where the person is 7 stories tall and I'm less than 15 feet from the screen. It is nauseating and gives me a headache. I prefer when the director shoots it so the main action is about the same size as a normal movie, yet you have all this other stuff going on around it. That is what iMax was meant for. Otherwise you can have the entire front 10 -20 rows of the theater. pr0n at that size would require an entire different way of doing things for sure.

The other annoying thing about iMax is the gad-aweful flicker! It needs at least 3 times the framerate

eh.. Already saw Spider-Man on IMAX...

[EMR]

One of the Reagal theatres over here in IL has one IMAX screen.. and they play normal movies on it when they aren't playing IMAX movies. It's pretty sweet.. It's still pretty sweet to see the movie on the REAL big screen with a very decent sound system..:-D.

They need to add smileys to Slashdot comments..

Movie I'd Like to See on IMAX . . .

[Dausha]

Hmm, skin flicks come to mind--the plotless the better.

You forgot...

[schon]

Howard the Duck

Ishtar

The Postman (well, maybe you covered this with Waterworld... pretty much any Kevin Costner flick would fit the bill :o)

I saw Spider-man on IMAX...

[GPS Pilot]

...It wasn't remastered or anything; it was just a standard 35 mm print projected onto the large IMAX screen. I thought it was a pretty good experience. As others have pointed out, "remastering" is not going to add any information content to the film. Who cares whether a 35 mm image is projected directly onto an IMAX-sized screen, or the same 35 mm image is first blown up to 70 mm and then projected onto an IMAX-sized screen?

If they want to say that the process aviods image degradation by skipping a few generations of copies, fine, but this "remastering for a better image" is a bunch of hooey. Give us some technical details!

Re:pr0n? no.

[tswinzig]

Now think about these closeups on IMAX. Gaping orifices of every level of hygeine standing several stories high? I don't know about you, but that sounds more "nauseating" than "erotic."

I think it's probably the ladies that are requesting it...

Obviously...

[Rui del-Negro]

...Microcosmos.

RMN
~~~

Be careful what you wish for...

[iNeedALife]

I've seen the two Disney IMAX releases (Fantasia 2000 and Beauty and the Beast), and was roundly disappointed, as was my wife, who's one of the biggest Disney freaks imaginable. The big problem for me was that the IMAX screen is so big, you have to make a conscious decision where to look. This works well for most of the IMAX-specific films, where there's either one obvious thing to look at (e.g., the mountain in the middle of the screen) or you're being shown a large panorama where looking around at different things is fine.

But present-day movies are shot and edited from the perspective of a smaller, standard theater-sized screen, where you can take in the whole image at once, and where the director and editor use that fact to design the images you see -- they're deciding what you're going to be looking at and paying attention to. Show one of these movies on IMAX, and it's like watching TV with a telescope -- you've got a great view of a small area, but you miss the whole. If a character comes in from one side of the screen while you're looking at the other side, it doesn't just take a shift of attention to see them, it takes a head movement. And, as happened with the Disney releases, you end up missing more than you see.

Having said that:

* Yes, I'd LOVE to see parts of "Dark City" on an IMAX sized screen, just to appreciate the visuals.

* The real question to ask is "What would do if he/she did a movie that was planned to be IMAX-sized from the beginning?" -- where the screen size and shape is factored into the creative decisions from the beginning. We have one example of this, but I'm doing my best to forget about "Captain Eo"...

Dude - bbbbaaaddd trip

[53n53i]

The Wall. Definitely, The Wall.

P.U.L.S.E.

[Joe Hardy (_yoda)]

How about Pink Floyd's P.U.L.S.E. video?

*drools*

Now /that/ would be a sight to see. If any of you haven't seen it yet then get it out now, and prepare to pick your jaw up off the floor at least a dozen times. The visuals are legendary, but when coupled with some brilliant music (Gilmour's playing is phenomenal) it's a must-see.

Oh, we love the MPAA again...

[JMax]

"What movies would you want to see...

Gee, seemed just last week that everybody here hated the MPAA, and weren't going to any more movies.

Either Slashdot's audience is significantly fragmented, or there's an awful lot of fickleness going on around here...

Gutted - I'm in New Zealand

[somekindofuniguy]

...and this country's ONLY imax went out of business a few months ago. It was part of a larger multiplex that had 8 or so conventional cinemas - so this technology may well have saved them.
You really can't blame us for not watching "Dinosaurs return!" or whatever other tripe they usually play there, can you?

Re: Imax the Horror Movie "Dog Soldiers"

[thenarftwit]

My vote for a cool movie to Imax would be that British (American Produced) Horror Movie "Dog Soldiers" which has to be the ultimate Werewolf Movie...better than the Howling movies and even "american werewolf in London". Too bad it's only been shown on Scifi channel and has yet to show in theaters here in North America. Go see its web site www.dogsoldiersmovie.com or www.dogsoldiers.co.uk

Debbie Does Dallas

[porky_pig_jr]

oldie but goodie. it will be a good start.

The Original ALIEN

[hubbabubba]

Yeah, so it predates a lot of the newfangled CGI stuff, but it is hands down one of the best suspense sci-fi flicks ever made. I wanna see the part where the astronaut looks down into the alien egg case and the thing blasts out of the case, melts through his helmet and attaches itself to his face. I tossed a bucket of popcorn over my head on a regular screen for that one. I'd probably wet my pants with IMAX. And then the part where the fetal alien pops out of the dude's chest at breakfast. Easily one of the most memorable scenes in sci-fi moviedom.

Office Space!!!

[pvera]

The red stapler is gonna be freaking huge :-)

How many times do you want to pay?

[Comrade Pikachu]

This is just another revenue path for the motion picture industry to milk the suckers... er, I mean fans.

Pay once, maybe twice, to see it in the theaters.

Pay again to see it on DVD.

Pay again for the special edition DVD.

Pay again to see the director's cut.

Pay yet again for the digitally remastered Drew Barrymore let's-get-rid-of-all-the-guns cut.

And pay one last time to see it on the IMAX screen.

Have I missed any?

What films really ARE in the queue:

[maggard]

Apollo 13 - The IMAX Experience is the first due out. In a fluff piece released this past spring Ron Howard enthused:

" I've wanted to make an IMAX movie for the last 10 or 12 years, I'm thrilled with what I'm seeing in the transposition."

"Howard says he will be involved in all creative aspects of the conversion, including reframing images to fit screens as large as eight stories high and 120 feet wide."

Also listed as under production are:

• Walt Disney's The Lion King [DMR]
• The Young Black Stallion
• Santa VS The Snowman [3D]
• Walt Disney's Treasure Planet
• ESPN's Ultimate X [apparently sports, not porn]

For those concerned about image quality a few thoughts:

1. Many of the digital images in Apollo 13 are being re-rendered for this new release. Likely the true is same for the CGI in Lion King.

2. Where the source material isn't digital and isn't photographic but animation cels it may be reasonable to go back and re-scan them. Or it is likely that companies like Disney had some foresight and did super-high resolution scans early in their production process and those can now be transferred to the IMAX stock.

3. Finally, and this was explained to me at a party several months ago in Toronto, IMAX was apparently looking into creating composite images from multiple film frames to enhance the detail on each. Thus even though each 35mm frame only has 1/10th the resolution of an IMAX frame the series of these in a scene can be digitally massaged up to comparable quality.

Lastly note that these are IMAX-releases, not the same cuts as have been released before. The same as Cinemascope and other like large formats don't translate well to the small-screen or often even other projection-process screens it is doubtful material intended for today's conventionial screens would be visually appropriate on the super-size IMAX ones without rework.

" Howard says he will be involved in all creative aspects of the conversion, including reframing images to fit screens as large as eight stories high and 120 feet wide."

"If heads are eight stories big, an actor could have a pimple and it will be the size of a Volkswagen," says Tom Hanks, who plays astronaut Jim Lovell in the movie."

Attack of the pixels

[Mandelbrute]

Stars Wars Episode II on an Imax screen? You'll really be able to see those 1080 dots from top to the bottom of the frame in detail.

For Imax it would help to have a high quality image to start with. By the way, does anyone know how Frank Hurley's amazing footage from the turn of the 20th century was transferred to Imax for the "Antartica" documentary, and what film size he used. It's a pity most of his cine film and plate negatives were dumped in the ocean.

Re:pr0n? no.

[BlackCobra43]

"Some 50 people were evacuated from an IMAX theater today after the premiere of the new pornography movie "Bizzarre Fetishes:Pee,Nuns and Vegetables". At least 45 were hospitalised with stomach injuries from inhuman amounts of vomitting."

Re:pr0n? no.

[BlackCobra43]

That's a pretty simple-minded solution..ever hear "costs"?It's not free to switch millions of dollars of equipment into high-definition.

What to see...

[MrCreosote]

just for starters.....(I know some have already been mentioned)

Lawrence of Arabia
40,000 Horsemen
Saving Private Ryan
Bladerunner
Alien
Midway
Tora! Tora! Tora!
LeMans
Bullitt
Blues Brothers (for the chase)
Duel
Akira
Flesh For Frankenstein (3D)
Star Wars Ep IV (Opening scene and Death Star trench scenes would be the best)
Kagemusha
The Magnificent Seven
Psycho
The Birds
Zulu

favorites

[spamchang]

One of my favorites that hasn't been mentioned: Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan? I'm young enough to not remember seeing it on the big screen, and seeing it on IMAX would be awesome.

Quentin Tarantino's last film screening had it on 35mm in Austin, TX; I missed it. Thank you high school.

Pixar rerendered A Bug's Life for video

[bofh23]

I believe Pixar reframed and rerendered A Bug's Life for the video release (full 4:3 frame). Of course more people will buy the DVD/VHS than would go to the IMAX theatre.

Why tf was this modded "troll"?

[CrystalFalcon]

Can't see the negative in this comment... at least deserves a +1 Funny, IMNSHO.

This is not the first IMAX to do this

[smiley2billion]

At the Regal Cinemas in Opry Mills (Yes, Nashville, TN) they have been putting 35mm films on for some time (starting with Gladiator). They usually put the newest and most hyped movie on the screen, but they also improve the quality every time.
Other movies I've seen on there include Castaway, Jurassic Park III, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Lord of the Rings, Spiderman (which was so large that to read the newspapers that spun up you had to actually move your entire head from left to right), and most recently MIB II.
I can't really complain of lack of quality, it always seems almost as clear as a regular screen theatire. Whenever they explain the technology behind blowing the film up they always attribute it to the use of special lenses.

Re:This is not the first IMAX to do this

[Kredal]

They're still playing them on 35mm prints, the same size used in "normal" theatres. This process is for converting the 35mm film into native 72(?)mm film used in the IMAX theatre for their big movies.

The quality will be better, because the film will have more grains (think pixels), and they won't have to do all the filtering optically.

MOD THIS UP

[narftrek]

That post was funny as hell...troll....I don't think so. Just because you mention Goatse.cx doesn't make it a troll. Besides I kinda think Goatse is one of those running inside /. jokes MOD IT UP MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Disney struck a few 70mm prints of Tron in 1999

[isaac]

Thanks for filling in my faulty memory - On further reflection, I think there was a guy from Magi there - at least, I distinctly remember a person in that discussion talking about coding for an S/360 mainframe. Maybe there was more that one FX guy at the roundtable, or I could be pulling Tim McGovern's name from somewhere else.

I bet that cray assembly is a pain - I really can't even imagine how to begin approaching the problems of hand-coding and -optimization for a large vector processor like the Cray.

-Isaac

Porky's II: The Next Day!!

[BiOFH]

OK.... ...

or Alien

or Blade Runner

Hey! How about ISHTAR!!!

5th element, dammit!

[Jeppe Salvesen]

If I really wanted to see a sci-fi movie on IMAX; it would be the 5th element. Honestly, I think it's still the sharpest looking sci-fi movie. Rather than concentrating on digital effects, they spent more time on the designs of sets and costumes. It shows.

Not to mention Milla. Say all you will about the beauty of Natalie Portman - she doesn't have the rawness and directness of Milla.

IMAX gaming

[nokujin]

ok... imma play some CS. i need volunteers to watch my health and armor, one watching the radar, another one watching when to reload, oh and one to relay me all what they say.

One word: light

[iainl]

With a bigger print, you can shine more light through it for a sensible intensity. That way it looks much better blown up to such a huge size than the intensity levels they are having to use to blow a 35mm print onto a full IMAX screen. The 'amazing' technique they are using to get better transfers between the 35mm master and the IMAX print isn't that interesting, but as anyone who has seen the rather muddy effects of blowing a 35mm print that big will testify, this will help.

Basically, its not going to look anywhere near as good as a proper IMAX film, but it will look a lot better than current gimmick attempts at showing Star Wars, The Matrix etc. in IMAX theaters.

Why not....AOD!

[Neumsy]

Come on,

I'm actually disappointed in the fellow /. readers. All this time has passed and not one person mentioned Army of Darkness. Wouldn't you just love to see Bruce up on the IMAX kicking the crap out of the evil dead? Of course, get the right version and you have the p0rn aspect in it as well.

My Choices

[shplorb]

In no particular order (I love them all):

Apocalypse Now (it scares the shit out of the gooks!)
Alien (put on a nappy before entering cinema)
Aliens (love the sound of the marine's guns!)
Full Metal Jacket (picturing Drill Sergeant screaming at me)
Saving Private Ryan (err... stunning)
The Great Escape (can you say motorbike chase?)
Terminator (one of the best action movies of all time)
Terminator 2 (the truck chase would be sooo scary!)
2001: A Space Odessey (drop acid beforehand)
Lawrence of Arabia (magnificent)
Bullit (car chase - whoop whoop!)
Dirty Harry (funky)
Predator (well, because!)
Die Hard (one of the best action movies of all time)
Die Hard 2 (bloodier and more action!)
The Matrix (woah!)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (beautiful scenery)
Lord Of The Rings (oooh)

There's many more I can't think of now, but basically any movie in superwidescreen format - I'm talking 2.35:1 minimum aspect here! (or good action movies) =D

Fear and Loathing!

[Luyseyal]

My dream is for Alamo Drafthouse to work out a deal with IMAX to show Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with complimentary LSD.

We can't stop here. This is bat country!

-l

Deep Throat.

[Pig Hogger]

With Linda Lovelace.

Nothing else will cut it.

Re:pr0n? no.

[inKubus]

Or sex, at least.

More probably, sex is the primary driver of everything.

Re:So how does making the neg bigger improve the i

[inKubus]

I believe IMAX also uses a higher frame rate--something like 60fps. They also use some of the most powerful light bulbs in the world. I hope one day they will get DLP up to the resolution of IMAX. IMAX looks almost real.

Not always

[Apotsy]

Many movies are filmed in formats that have no extra information outside the widescreen image area. Those movies would either have to be cropped or letterboxed to be shown in IMAX.