Slashdot Mirror
Matrix Sequels To Get the IMAX Treatment
hondo77 writes "As if the two sequels to "The Matrix" weren't a big enough event already, it has been announced that both films will also be showing in IMAX theaters. "Although "The Matrix Reloaded" will open in Imax theaters two or three weeks after its general release May 15, "The Matrix Revolutions" will open Nov. 5 in both conventional and Imax cinemas..."."
With Star Wars II film with a camera that had a resulation less than 35mm film. All three verisons of the film 35mm, digital, and IMax, looked bad and blocky.
If they did that here too... IMax and most big screen would be a waste of space.
Errr, they display the movie in "letterbox"-style format on the IMAX screen (I would know, I saw Oceans Eleven on the IMAX). So the image is bigger, AND you get the kick-a** IMAX sound system.
Having seen Star Wars: Episode 2 in DLP, Imax and plain film, I'd greatly disagree. Imax was FAR superior in quality of the image, and overall cinematic experience than DLP.
Episode II was projected at 1280x1024, stretched to the normal aspect ratio by a 1.9X anamorphic lens to stretch the image back to its correct resolution...
Thats not a lot of pixels for a full-size screen. Pixelation was very noticable. Color saturation and consistancy was somewhat better, but not enough to say its superior to the Imax experience.
Given the choice I'd rather see any action movie in the Imax format, seconded with DLP, and then film... Dramatic movies, I'd probably swap DLP and Imax in favor of not pan-n-scanning, but one could just as easily use the 70mm IMAX frame with cropped images, or an anamorphic lens to get the full-size image as well.
"Overmarketing is when you sell a sucky product by hyping it. Matrix Reloaded is going to be a superb product. Don't be so cynical. Pretend you're 11 and this is Empire Strikes Back."
d es1&2*cough* that were hyped in much the same way, only to be extremely dumb movies.
How do you know that? Name 3 movies in the last 20 years that recieved lots of hype before launch, and ended up deserving it. I can name a few *cough*Godzilla*cough*LastActionHero*Coughh*Episo
I'd love to sit back and say "Ah well I'm going to enjoy whatever I get" except all the signs are pointing towards me being out $20.
"Derp de derp."
No.
Unlike the Imax DMR releases last year of "Apollo 13" and "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones," "The Matrix" films won't have to be shortened, as Imax reel units can now support film lengths of 150 minutes.
I read it in the press release.
For more information, click here.
Many IMAX theaters have larger or extra platters they can use to extend runtime. This is what our local IMAX (San Antonio) did to allow for the large format version of Jurassic Park in 1994.
I saw Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones on an IMAX screen and they had to cut out about 20 minutes of footage because the imax films can only be 2 hours long. If the 35mm prints go over 2 hours, they'll have to do some editing as well, and you won't be seeing the full version, even if the it looks and sounds great on the imax screen.
Framerate conversions are pretty common...done all the time in the conversion between film and television. There's a decent explanation of the concept here . THe numbers would be different for Imax, but the concept would be the same.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Is that all IMAX really is? Do I just suck?
;) Seriously, you should go and check out a real IMAX film. One that was created from an IMAX master, and designed specifically to be shown on an IMAX screen. These things are incredible to see. Because it's filmed on 70mm, the image is crystal clear, and the higher frame rate means it's unbelievably smooth and realistic. I've seen a couple (one on thrill seekers... sky divers, etc, on the IMAX... lots of vertigo :), and one on the rainforests, which had gorgeous fly-overs) and I was blown away each time.
Yup, you suck.
So, seriously, check out a real IMAX film, not one of these crappy transfers. You'll change you're mind, trust me.
Maybe I'm too picky, but my biggest complaint about upconverting 35mm movies to IMAX is the mismatched cinematography, not the technical gotchas. The whole idea behind an IMAX film is to give the audience a window into a different world. Think about the "native" IMAX films you've seen... rather than use a mixture of camera angles to project a story on a screen, an IMAX film treats the audience as a camera and the screen as window. Slow, wide pans... a large, detailed screen... conservative transitions. IMAX filmmakers want you to feel as though you're truly inside the new environment, actually being positioned to see the action in front of you... not just watching a story on a glorifed TV. A good, native IMAX movie does this -- it makes the audience feel as though they're truly hovering around the subject matter. A bad IMAX movie makes the audience tired, confused, or sick.
My other beef is with the public's misconception of the IMAX film format. Traditional (non-dome) IMAX uses 15/70 film. That is, 70mm film with 15 sprockets per frame. This is not plain "70mm film, which dedicates only 5 sprockets per frame. 15/70 IMAX has 3x as much film surface area as plain 70mm and nearly 10x as much as plain 35mm. (Plus other benefits, such as double the framerate and generally better audio. Though 35mm is catching up with some recent films being available in 48fps and new 7.1 channel audio from Sony SDDS and DTS).
For more information on the IMAX format, check these out:
http://www.superspeedway.com/eng/imax1.html
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/imax1.htm
That's because you probably saw an OMNIMAX (aka ""IMAX DOME") as opposed to an IMAX. The OMNIMAX has a round screen & more immersive experience, but there aren't as many screens or movies out there. Most OMNIMAXes usually just show IMAX movies w/o taking advantage of the larger screen. Same company though, and essentially the same technology.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
Problems:
First, film is expensive. IMAX will never be a cost-effective format to shoot on. Secondly, IMAX provides a tremendous amount of data to the viewer. So much so that traditional filmmaking techniques fall apart. People look ugly when 50 feet tall. Imagine if every person in the audience could see each pore of your skin. In addition, the visual depth of IMAX makes it impossible for traditional camera moves and technique. And finally, money. There's not enough IMAX theatres to support anything other than the occasional (basically) port of the latest hot movie.
A 3:2 pulldown converts 24fps into 60 interlaced fields. With interlacing, the motion is kind of 'blurred' together, so the lower framerate is not a real problem. Film is not interlaced, so a 3:2 pulldown would not help the IMAX Experience[tm]. Either they will have to dupe frames, or maybe do some interpolation, but a 3:2 pulldown won't work.
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
There have got to be better examples then that!
Excuse me? "Jurassic Park" and "The Lion King" made over $300 million and "T-2" was #1 at the box office the year it came out (as was "Jurassic Park"--"The Lion King" was #2). All three are Academy Award winners. They'll do.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Someone asked.
It's been a few months.
The one scene I recall being cut was where Obi-Wan visits the archives. (I think they may have PLANNED this to be cut; the next scene, where Obi-Wan visits Yoda in the training room, goes over much the same material.)
Ah, yes: The introduction of Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen was also cut. So, while they're there in the Tatooine farm scenes, we don't really know there names!
Perhaps 2-3 other bits like that were missing.
Stefan
Think A/UX, and that system was an SGI actually. The big-fat developer guy was using a Mac though (lets "teleconfrence" by playing a video in Movie Player, wheeee) :)