Slashdot Mirror
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?
So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?
pr0n. lots of pr0n.
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?
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
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
The Blair Witch Project on IMAX, of course! How else are we supposed to compete for projectile vomitting distances?
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.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
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???
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...
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
Which movie would you like to see in IMAX?
:o)
-----
"You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."
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.
i nt o_liquid.html
http://www.stepintoliquid.com/
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/step_
I dont care whether its IMAX or KLIMAX.
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.
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.
The ABSTRUSE One
Jason Byrons
"You all laugh at me because I'm different
I laugh at you because you're a
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.
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.
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
I want to see all 3 LotR with short potty breaks inbetween.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
admit it -- you'd go
Why should anyone admit it if you won't?
Silly old AC...
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
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).
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.
Xaotik Designs
In 2007 you will have to get a digital IMAX projector anyways...
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
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
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!
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.
Lasers Controlled Games!
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.
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.
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
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.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
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.
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]
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
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?
"... 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.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
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.
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...
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
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.
-Fzz
JAWS
:-P
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.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
I'm sure lots of people have seen the matrix or star wars on their i-macs.
Fat Bastard 3 stories tall!
Yeah baby!!
I stole this Sig
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.
Micrososmos would be pretty amazing too.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The Bridge on the Rive Kwai
Dr. Zhivago
Lawrence of Arabia (oh yeah!)
in fact, pretty much anything by David Lean.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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.
I suppose I'm not too threatening, presently, but wait till I start Nautilus
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.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
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.
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!
MMMmmmmmm....erotic cakes!!! Homer J. Simpson - Treehouse of Horror VI
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
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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. :)
_______
2B1ASK1
So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?
... did i said creamy banana? Sorry about that - please disregard this post
I want to see Creamy Banana 21 in all it's glory!!!
Oh, wait
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.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
It would be great to see Toy Story I/II, Antz, Monsters Inc. and Ice Age rendered at hundreds of megapixels per frame.
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.
Neat idea - but I've got one nitpicking question:
How the hell does DMR stand for "Digital Re-Mastering"?
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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
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.
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
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').
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".
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!!!
Detailing why this isn't a potential violation of the DMCA :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
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.
d ec00_mar01.html
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_
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.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
Cool vistas? How about Dances With Wolves? With the sound system that most IMAX theatres have, the buffalo hunt would be awesome.
I think Saving Private Ryan would be cool in Imax format. Especially the opening scene of the D-Day invasion.
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
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!
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.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
What's the name for the new one?
Indiana Jones and the Nazi Relic Temple of Terror?
Awesome...
KMSMA (WWBD?)
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.
-----
"You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."
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
it was the last major feature shot in true 70mm film.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
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."
... what? $58? No thanks.
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
Breakfast served all day!
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
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
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
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
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
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
this
My Dinner with Andre! It really deserves the big screen for all the action. Like when the waiter comes with the wine!
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
Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
Enh. Too much story in between the trip sequences. The ultimate acid movie is probably Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
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.
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.
- Toby
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.
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.
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
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?
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
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".
Free Hans!
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...
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
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Really great suggestion there...that would rock.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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.
Free Hans!
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.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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.
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
The ______ Agenda
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
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
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...
"And like that
...Microcosmos.
RMN
~~~
Apollo 13 - The IMAX Experience is the first due out. In a fluff piece released this past spring Ron Howard enthused:
Also listed as under production are:For those concerned about image quality a few thoughts:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
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.
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
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Can't see the negative in this comment... at least deserves a +1 Funny, IMNSHO.
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.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
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.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
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.
Stop the brainwash
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...
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
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Nothing else will cut it.
Or sex, at least.
More probably, sex is the primary driver of everything.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
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.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
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
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome