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?
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?
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."
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'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
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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!!!
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 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.
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!