I saw the trailer and, while IMDB says that this film is shot in Panavision anamorphic, there are none of any typical distorsion such as horizontal lens flare, vertical squeeze of out of focus objects and ovalization.
To me, it looks like a Super35 shooting.
Am I wrong?

Some of the movie is shoot on IMAX so thoose scenes are shoot on Spherical lenses just as Super35.

As for the trailer, what format/resolution did you watch it on?

Here is a list of the cameras used:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/technical

Some of the movie is shoot on IMAX so thoose scenes are shoot on Spherical lenses just as Super35.

As for the trailer, what format/resolution did you watch it on?

I've watched the 1080p apple trailer.
Really comfortable.
BTW, the IMAX scenes are just a few and I don't think the whole trailer is made of those.

Here is a list of the cameras used:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/technical

I saw that page previously, but I want to know, based on a screening of the actual footage, if that film has been really shot with anamorphic lenses.
If yes, how did they achieved an image look identical to the spherical lens quality?

I saw that page previously, but I want to know, based on a screening of the actual footage, if that film has been really shot with anamorphic lenses.
If yes, how did they achieved an image look identical to the spherical lens quality?

Sharpening filters, contrastadjustments.

As for vertical squeeze, it should also be an effect of focal length.

And

Horisontal lensflare doesnt happen all the time, especially if you are shooting in a controlled enviroment.

Wait until the we can see the entire movie, and it will be clear what is what.

I saw that page previously, but I want to know, based on a screening of the actual footage, if that film has been really shot with anamorphic lenses.
If yes, how did they achieved an image look identical to the spherical lens quality?

It's called cropping:


http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/cinesphere-film-frames.jpg

It's called cropping:


http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/cinesphere-film-frames.jpg

What?
I'm not talking about the aspect ratio. The IMAX scenes are just a few.
I saw the trailer and the picture doesn't look absolutely as an anamorphic feature.

If you would like to get a sneek peek of how the movie will look, the first six minutes of "TDK" is on the new Blu Ray release. I have watched it twice on my small tv (50" 1080p plasma). It is in 16x9 and has no kind of distortion or squeezing effect.

I don't know what cameras were used for those scenes but they look incredible.

What?
I'm not talking about the aspect ratio. The IMAX scenes are just a few.
I saw the trailer and the picture doesn't look absolutely as an anamorphic feature.

I am not understanding what you mean by that.

I am not understanding what you mean by that.

Anamorphic has certain issues that makes it look different then a movie shoot on Super35. Despite both having the same aspect ratio.

Anamorphic has certain issues that makes it look different then a movie shoot on Super35. Despite both having the same aspect ratio.

So you are saying that IMDB is wrong?

They are the ones saying it is anamorphic.

So please explain - from the link . . .

Where it says; "Digital intermediate - IMAX version"

What does that mean?

So you are saying that IMDB is wrong?

They are the ones saying it is anamorphic.

So please explain - from the link . . .

Where it says; "Digital intermediate - IMAX version"

What does that mean?

IMDB is right.

It was shoot on Anamorphic lensed 35, and some scenes were shoot on Spherical lensed IMAX.

But the poster thinks the footage look like Spherical lensed all the way.


As for "Digital intermediate - IMAX version" is that they have used a digital intermediate for the IMAX version, but not for the theatrical version. So the IMAX scenes needs to be converted to Anamorphic 35 to be in the negative 35mm cut.

Anamorphic has certain issues that makes it look different then a movie shoot on Super35. Despite both having the same aspect ratio.

Exactly. Like these: look at the lens flare.

http://www.visualfxblog.com/images/tf_inv/anamorphic_lens_flare.jpg
http://www.visualfxblog.com/images/tf_inv/blackout_transformation.jpg

Exactly. Like these: look at the lens flare.



It also depends on how bright light you have in screen. In many cases U dim the lights thats in the screen to avoid them standout in that way.

But in Transformers they use this in a creative way.

It also depends on how bright light you have in screen. In many cases U dim the lights thats in the screen to avoid them standout in that way.

But in Transformers they use this in a creative way.

How about the final show down on the street between Bats and Joker?
There are many lights.
Also in the trailer there are some car lights and the horizontal lens flare never show up.
The Bat-pod has lights also. No lens flare either.

How about the final show down on the street between Bats and Joker?
There are many lights.
Also in the trailer there are some car lights and the horizontal lens flare never show up.
The Bat-pod has lights also. No lens flare either.

I can only see two reasons,

one is that they have dimmed lights, or that the lights doesnt shine in the angle that makes the lights standout in the same way.

Imagine you see someone with a flashlight at night, its just under certain angles the lights gets really bright.

But you should really PM Cam Man on this.

luca_frontino:

Do you believe that because you see lens flare than the image was shot with anamorphic lenses?

That isn't the case.

Here is an image from Blade Runner - a 2.35 Panavision film:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/12420071856.jpg

See the lens flare?

The shot you are looking at has an Aspect ration of 2.35 like the rest of the film . . .

But notice that the flare is round. That won't happen if you use an anamorphic lens. It would be eliptical (egg shaped)

The shot you are looking at was filmed using a 65mm camera and film then cropped from 2.20 to 2.35.

luca_frontino:

Do you believe that because you see lens flare than the image was shot with anamorphic lenses?

Well... the horizontal lens flare can be simulated digitally.
But the geometric ovalization, the blue tint during night scenes and the vertical squeeze of out of focus subjects, assures me that Transformers has been shot in anamorphic, while The Dark Knight looks more as a Super35 feature.

Well... the horizontal lens flare can be simulated digitally.
But the geometric ovalization, the blue tint during night scenes and the vertical squeeze of out of focus subjects, assures me that Transformers has been shot in anamorphic, while The Dark Knight looks more as a Super35 feature.

Can you post a couple of screen shots that show an example of what you are talking about?

Or a link with a video in it?

Can you post a couple of screen shots that show an example of what you are talking about?

Or a link with a video in it?

How do I post captured images from the DVD?

In the trailer you can pretty easily see which night exterior scenes are shot IMAX because the background bokeh is spherical. (Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh). The rest of the movie is shot anamorphic with a mixture of the E and C-series Panavision anamorphic lenses (same as Batman Begins). In any similar scene with these lenses, the bokeh will be eliptical rather than spherical. Hopefully, none of those are cut adjacent to each other, as that could be rather noticable/distracting. See the following article in ICG magazine. http://icgmagazine.com/2008/july/july08.html (http://http://icgmagazine.com/2008/july/july08.html)

Here is a working link to Cam Man's article:

http://icgmagazine.com/2008/july/july08.html

So 38 minutes of the final movie will be in IMAX.

Thanks, Lee. Not sure why mine is crippled.

Thanks, Lee. Not sure why mine is crippled.

My pleasure: :)

Yours has Http//Http// in the address so it won't connect. All you have to do is go to your post and edit the address.

I am very excited about the combination of Panavision and IMAX.

Every since I saw the 2D IMAX film; Special Effects, I have been waiting for a big budget Hollywood film to get over to IMAX. The opening of the movie was the first 5 to 10 minutes of Star Wars reshot (with Lucas's help) in IMAX :eek:

So 38 minutes of the final movie will be in IMAX.Ebert [of the week] and Roeper already reviewed it (early) and said it was more like 20mins of IMAX footage all told, it makes a difference, but most people seeing it in a normal theater won't notice it.

As a matter of fact, when I went down to my local IMAX theater to purchace advance tiickets they already screened it for the staff, and I made a comment on the film being revolutionary, and someone came back with "Yeah, I heard it was all shot in IMAX", and they were sort of dissapointed when I corrected them.

Ebert [of the week] and Roeper already reviewed it (early) and said it was more like 20mins of IMAX footage all told, it makes a difference, but most people seeing it in a normal theater won't notice it.

As a matter of fact, when I went down to my local IMAX theater to purchace advance tiickets they already screened it for the staff, and I made a comment on the film being revolutionary, and someone came back with "Yeah, I heard it was all shot in IMAX", and they were sort of dissapointed when I corrected them.

Thanks to all.
Now I know everything I needed.
I still wonder, since 38 minutes is a lot, why didn't they shot TDK totally in IMAX so to have a more amalgamated feature and the record for the first action movie in that format.
Is it so expensive that it could have brought the production so much over-budget?

Thanks to all.
Now I know everything I needed.
I still wonder, since 38 minutes is a lot, why didn't they shot TDK totally in IMAX so to have a more amalgamated feature and the record for the first action movie in that format.
Is it so expensive that it could have brought the production so much over-budget?

Budget is one thing, but also the problem of filming with big bulky IMAX cams, wich in return effects budget even more. They also makes alot of noise that makes dialouge recordings harder.

Maybe the next film will be made with IMAX, and this served as a blueprint.

luca_frontino:

Do you believe that because you see lens flare than the image was shot with anamorphic lenses?

That isn't the case.

Here is an image from Blade Runner - a 2.35 Panavision film:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/12420071856.jpg

See the lens flare?

The shot you are looking at has an Aspect ration of 2.35 like the rest of the film . . .

But notice that the flare is round. That won't happen if you use an anamorphic lens. It would be eliptical (egg shaped)

The shot you are looking at was filmed using a 65mm camera and film then cropped from 2.20 to 2.35.

Well actually the lens flare element is spherical is all you can say just by looking at the image: remember its a composite.

Well... the horizontal lens flare can be simulated digitally.
But the geometric ovalization, the blue tint during night scenes and the vertical squeeze of out of focus subjects, assures me that Transformers has been shot in anamorphic, while The Dark Knight looks more as a Super35 feature.

Flares , lenticular defocus , abberation , lens distortion, can all be faked up very easily.

Just because a shot exhibits one set of artifacts or another doesn't give you much indication as to whether it was shot scope or spherical. Especially if its got VFX in it.

Well, having seen the film already in IMAX -- a good portion of the scenes in the trailer are from the IMAX sequences.

Well, having seen the film already in IMAX -- a good portion of the scenes in the trailer are from the IMAX sequences.


From the article
After seeing the results, Nolan and Pfister with the support of Warner Bros. and the producers, decided to shoot all big action scenes, aerial photography, car chases and physical effects with IMAX cameras. Everything else was done in anamorphic format. An estimated 38 minutes of the final cut was produced in IMAX format.

..for those that haven't seen it yet, I was quite surprised that the Imax bits were sprinkled throughout... Yes, I had read what they had done before, but for some reason I hadn't quite prepared myself for cutting from "normal" to Imax for a brief arial shot, back to wide(r) aspect... I thought it'd be slightly more clunky, with, say, the opening and closing sequences containing the entirely of the Imax bits, a "put on your 3d glasses at this moment"-type novelty.

Ironically, the friends I was with didn't even notice the changing aspect, but -did- notice the increase in resolution. The bat-eyeliner, for example, is a bit distracting when you've got that much bloody detail.

The ariel shots of HK and Chicago are simply mind boggling... Such gorgeous photography, it's astounding. Additionally, while Heath is getting (justifiably) excellent notices, it's the clown makeup in Imax that's just so insanely (ha!) great... The smears and distortions of the "mask" are so compelling when you can see each and every expresion of his face through the muck on the giant screen.

While the whole flick in Imax would have been a treat, I think they did a decent job balancing between the two. It's quite simply an extraordinary film-going experience that rivals seeing Lawrence in 70mm. Wonderful times, this, and certainly a case where the home experience will never, ever (even a little bit) live up to the theatrical experience.

Here's another interesting article:

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/9703.html

So, it looks IMAX is 18K resolution. :cool:

So, it looks IMAX is 18K resolution. :cool:

Not so strange since the area if a IMAX frame is

8,3 times bigger then a Academy 35mm frame.

But if IMAX is 18K that would make 35mm = 2K.

Well actually the lens flare element is spherical is all you can say just by looking at the image: remember its a composite.


That may very well be - but in the case of Blade Runner - Trumbull shot all the special effects in 65mm.

It is discussed and shown on the HDM BR disc set.

Not so strange since the area if a IMAX frame is

8,3 times bigger then a Academy 35mm frame.

But if IMAX is 18K that would make 35mm = 2K.

Here are the actual sizes of the film formats:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/cinesphere-film-frames.jpg

That may very well be - but in the case of Blade Runner - Trumbull shot all the special effects in 65mm.

It is discussed and shown on the HDM BR disc set.


Yes I'm well aware of that. My point was what you can ascertain from looking at an image.

Yes I'm well aware of that. My point was what you can ascertain from looking at an image.

:D - Well we know the answer to that . . .

Whatever the director and director of DP wants us to see because there appears to be no limt as to how an image can be created.

I read an interesting suggestion from an industry insider suggesting that this film (or future installments) might have been better served by shooting the entire show in Super Panavision 65, and release in 70mm, 35 anamorphic, and IMAX, if desired. The production advantages are many, such as studio quiet cameras, reasonable camera size and weight, the lab issues, and lower cost. It makes a lot of sense. It would be easy to extract all the formats from the 65mm neg and not have any changing of AR.

Cam man

Isnt the quality lower on Super Panavision.

Since it uses the same width as IMAX uses as height. (more or less)

And wouldnt any conversion from 65mm to IMAX also crop the sides resulting in even lower quality for the IMAX?

I read an interesting suggestion from an industry insider suggesting that this film (or future installments) might have been better served by shooting the entire show in Super Panavision 65, and release in 70mm, 35 anamorphic, and IMAX, if desired. The production advantages are many, such as studio quiet cameras, reasonable camera size and weight, the lab issues, and lower cost. It makes a lot of sense. It would be easy to extract all the formats from the 65mm neg and not have any changing of AR.

Ecxcellent!

Anything that gets Hollywood to revisit the 65/70mm format will be a boon to all movie lovers. And it will be a boon to the industry to pull people back into the theaters.

Movie Swede:

IMAX has a system (DMR - ?) that allows them to convert 35mm anamorphic to IMAX. 2.20 versus 2.39 - not much difference.

I read an interesting suggestion from an industry insider suggesting that this film (or future installments) might have been better served by shooting the entire show in Super Panavision 65, and release in 70mm, 35 anamorphic, and IMAX, if desired. The production advantages are many, such as studio quiet cameras, reasonable camera size and weight, the lab issues, and lower cost. It makes a lot of sense. It would be easy to extract all the formats from the 65mm neg and not have any changing of AR.

I think the thing is, Nolan really likes that super-tall, expansive IMAX frame.

I actually think the best solution next time would be to shoot the "normal" scenes in "standard" 65mm (since the noise levels of the IMAX cameras make it almost impossible to shoot usable production dialogue), and the "big" scenes in IMAX. You'd still have the changing aspect ratio, but even the non-IMAX scenes would still look a lot better than 35mm anamorphic. Given how much money THE DARK KNIGHT is making, I certainly doubt cost will be an issue when it comes to making the third film.

Vincent

Cam man

Isnt the quality lower on Super Panavision.

Since it uses the same width as IMAX uses as height. (more or less)

And wouldnt any conversion from 65mm to IMAX also crop the sides resulting in even lower quality for the IMAX?

Aside from the first couple IMAX blow-ups (APOLLO 13, ATTACK OF THE CLONES) which were cropped, everything since has retained the original aspect ratio, which is letterboxed within the IMAX frame.

Vincent

Knight Director May Shoot Next Film In IMAX

21 July 2008 10:30 AM, PDT | From Studio Briefing | See recent Studio Briefing news


Director Christopher Nolan, who shot the action sequences in The Dark Knight using gigantic IMAX cameras, says that he "would be very interested in shooting a whole film in IMAX" since it would allow him to provide a theatrical movie that would "be distinct from the home theater experience." In an interview with the Collider website, Nolan said that the principal problem is the noise produced by the IMAX camera's mechanism, which apparently cannot be adequately contained by the usual soundproof "blimp" used for most studio cameras. "It's very, very hard to see how you do dialogue scenes," he said. "And the lenses are so wide, you're shooting this conversation, the cameras go 18 inches from your nose, basically, and it sounds like one of those small portable generators -- that's about the level of volume of it. So to just speak over that and to act as if that's not there is very tough."

Movie Swede:

IMAX has a system (DMR - ?) that allows them to convert 35mm anamorphic to IMAX. 2.20 versus 2.39 - not much difference.

Yes the conversion isnt the problem, its just that Super Panavision will not give the same experience as footage shoot on IMAX.

Either you preserve aspect ratio and loose screenarea, or you crop and loose resolution.

But SuperP will give better quality the Anamorphic 35.

If I go see this film in an IMAX theater, is the presentation AR consistant throught the film? If so, what is the presented AR?

Or does it change back and forth between native IMAX AR and something else?

And if it is consistantly some sort of cropped AR that is closer to 2.39, doesn't that mean that they're wasting a fair portion of the native IMAX frame in those scenes that were shot in IMAX.

Yes the conversion isnt the problem, its just that Super Panavision will not give the same experience as footage shoot on IMAX.

Either you preserve aspect ratio and loose screenarea, or you crop and loose resolution.

But SuperP will give better quality the Anamorphic 35.


Have you seen this article:

Delivering 8K VFX Shots for The Dark Knight

4K Was Just Too Small for Those Large-Gauge IMAX Sequences

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/9703.html

If I go see this film in an IMAX theater, is the presentation AR consistant throught the film? If so, what is the presented AR?

Or does it change back and forth between native IMAX AR and something else?

And if it is consistantly some sort of cropped AR that is closer to 2.39, doesn't that mean that they're wasting a fair portion of the native IMAX frame in those scenes that were shot in IMAX.

Here is what you will see at an IMAX theater:

1. The IMAX sequences are shown in the IMAX AR - 1.44

2. The 35MM Panavision sequences are shown in 2.39

When the 35mm sequences are on the screen - the image is centered on the IMAX screen. When the IMAX sequences are shown - the entire IMAX screen is filled which is almost twice the size of the Panavision image

When the 35mm sequences are shown - the missing IMAX screen (top and bottom of the image) just dissappears from view

Thanks for that info Lee. Sounds like an interesting experience. I may just head over to King Of Prussia and see it in IMAX.

Thanks for that info Lee. Sounds like an interesting experience. I may just head over to King Of Prussia and see it in IMAX.

It will be a VERY enjoyable experience. Take that to the bank and cash it!:D

And you will see , for the first time ever (AFAIK), a Hollywood movie shot in IMAX.

Here is what you will see at an IMAX theater:

Thanks for the detailed description.

I checked ticket availability for Chicago's Navy Pier IMAX. Entirely sold-out for the next 4 or 5 days. The first available 7:00PM show is a week from today.

Thanks for the detailed description.

I checked ticket availability for Chicago's Navy Pier IMAX. Entirely sold-out for the next 4 or 5 days. The first available 7:00PM show is a week from today.

You bought a ticket right?:D

The IMAX presentation is well worth waiting for. The bigger the IMAX screen - the better the presentation.

:( - wish I was living in LI again - then I could have seen it at the Sony IMAX in NYC - 8 story tall screen.

A note to those going to see TDK in IMAX.

Get there early - at least 1 hour and head for the back of the theater - the last 2 or 3 rows in the middle are the best seats. That is where the screen covers your entire field of vision.

Closer and the screen is larger than your arc of vision and you will be turning your head back and forth alot.

I saw the Dark Knight this Saturday in the IMAX theater at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle. The transitions from IMAX scenes to Panavision and back were mostly unobtrusive, with the IMAX cameras used to best effect in breathtaking scenes of the city, often at night.

You bought a ticket right?

Get there early - at least 1 hour and head for the back of the theater - the last 2 or 3 rows in the middle are the best seats. That is where the screen covers your entire field of vision.
Not yet. Need to confirm schedule with S.O.

It seems this IMAX does reserved seating - either their automatic selection or your manual choice. I went back to the ticketing website to see what's available a week from Tuesday. All the good seats were gone - just sides and front were available.

Not yet. Need to confirm schedule with S.O.

It seems this IMAX does reserved seating - either their automatic selection or your manual choice. I went back to the ticketing website to see what's available a week from Tuesday. All the good seats were gone - just sides and front were available.

My suggestion:

Keep looking at the dates until you can get the seats you want. Better to wait longer than have to see it from those leftover seats.

My suggestion: Keep looking at the dates until you can get the seats you want. Better to wait longer than have to see it from those leftover seats.
Agreed.
I checked a 4:00pm show next week -- $11 vs $15 per ticket and lots of good seats. Maybe time to play hooky!

Here is what you will see at an IMAX theater:

1. The IMAX sequences are shown in the IMAX AR - 1.44

2. The 35MM Panavision sequences are shown in 2.39

When the 35mm sequences are on the screen - the image is centered on the IMAX screen. When the IMAX sequences are shown - the entire IMAX screen is filled which is almost twice the size of the Panavision image

When the 35mm sequences are shown - the missing IMAX screen (top and bottom of the image) just dissappears from view


At my Imax theatre they had the 35mm sequences playing from the top of the screen down, with the 3 or 4 feet of screen at the bottom not used, then filled completely with the imax frames when they kicked in.

It was actually quite a pleasant experience set up that way and not jarring at all. Sometimes I had to check to see if there was extra stuff at the bottom everytime the resolution looked a little better.


I always see movies as early as possible on a weekend to avoid rude noisy people with cel phones.

I saw the 9am showing on saturday and the imax theatre (bridgeport village in tualatin, OR) was nearly packed except for the first 5 rows.

At my Imax theatre they had the 35mm sequences playing from the top of the screen down, with the 3 or 4 feet of screen at the bottom not used, then filled completely with the imax frames when they kicked in.

It was actually quite a pleasant experience set up that way and not jarring at all. Sometimes I had to check to see if there was extra stuff at the bottom everytime the resolution looked a little better.


I always see movies as early as possible on a weekend to avoid rude noisy people with cel phones.

I saw the 9am showing on saturday and the imax theatre (bridgeport village in tualatin, OR) was nearly packed except for the first 5 rows.

The theatre will showcase Hollywood blockbusters that have been digitally re-mastered into the unique image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience® on a specially-designed screen approximately 50 feet wide and 30 feet high that is slightly curved and moved forward to further immerse the audience. Installation of the IMAX® screen and projection equipment is already underway, and is expected to be completed in time for the opening of Spider-Man 3: The IMAX Experience.

I am a bit confused - is my math off?

50x30 = 1.66 AR

IMAX is 1.44

How many seats were in the theater?

My IMAX is located at the Museum of Science in Ft. Laud.

The screen (slightly curved and tilted as above) is 50 feet high and 70 feet wide. 300 seats.

Thats a good question, I don't really know how many seats. All of the early
screenings I go to are usually 1/3 full at most....not this time.

The screen was not curved though it was square.

There is an omni-max screen at OMSI (its very much rounded and attack of the clones was curved/distorted)

At the Seattle IMAX theater the 35mm scenes were projected roughly in the middle of the screen top to bottom, with black bars on the top and bottom, and the IMAX scenes taking up the whole screen.

Should i gain anything by seeing this in an ordinary cinema?

I saw this last night and the picture quality was disapointing.. cant wait for the Blu-Ray

..for those that haven't seen it yet, I was quite surprised that the Imax bits were sprinkled throughout... Yes, I had read what they had done before, but for some reason I hadn't quite prepared myself for cutting from "normal" to Imax for a brief arial shot, back to wide(r) aspect...
....
It's quite simply an extraordinary film-going experience that rivals seeing Lawrence in 70mm. Wonderful times, this, and certainly a case where the home experience will never, ever (even a little bit) live up to the theatrical experience.
I have to see this at our local IMAX theater. At an IMAX theater, is the 35mm portion also projected via IMAX? I haven't seen a feature length (2 1/2 hours) presentation at an IMAX theater before, only those 50minute IMAX nature specials.

I assume when this film comes out on blu-ray, they will switch between 2.35:1 for the panavision 35mm sequences, and 1.78:1 (from 1.44:1 IMAX source) for the IMAX sequences? It'll be interesting to see the blu-ray for the IMAX is scenes versus the blu-ray for the 35mm panavision....

I have to see this at our local IMAX theater. At an IMAX theater, is the 35mm portion also projected via IMAX? I haven't seen a feature length (2 1/2 hours) presentation at an IMAX theater before, only those 50minute IMAX nature specials.

I assume when this film comes out on blu-ray, they will switch between 2.35:1 for the panavision 35mm sequences, and 1.78:1 (from 1.44:1 IMAX source) for the IMAX sequences? It'll be interesting to see the blu-ray for the IMAX is scenes versus the blu-ray for the 35mm panavision....

I'd assume it will be exactly the same as the 35mm exhibition version in terms of aspect ratio. Does that change?

btw, the trailer that's been shown on hdnet and on apple are extremely sharp. The movie is NOT that sharp...it has the same look that batman begins had and this forum is probably going to blow up over how soft the movie is.

I'd assume it will be exactly the same as the 35mm exhibition version in terms of aspect ratio. Does that change?
Apparently the IMAX version switches from 2.35:1 for 35mm anamorphic scenes, and then "opens up" for the IMAX 1.44:1 scenes, with the image getting 30% taller at both the bottom and top of the image. Does anyone know what the 35mm theatrical version does for the IMAX scenes? Or the digital cinema version?

Yesterday we saw Dark Knight at the Austin IMAX theater, Bob Bullock History Museum. It was an experience! If you're going to see Dark Knight, see it in IMAX. For one thing, most 35mm theaters are very mediocre (except DLP), and for another, the IMAX tall aspect ratio" scenes themselves work surprisingly well, sprinkled throughout the movie.

I didn't think the story itself was on the same caliber as Titanic, or The Prestige, but I'm biased towards well written dramas. Both the Joker and Batman are very complex well acted characters, as is the District Attorney. My son commented that the Dark Knight has the same leading actors as "The Prestige", Christian Bale, and Michael Caine, and is directed by Nolan. This is probably the best Batman movie filmed.

But I think this movie is an HD technical tour de force, in its use of IMAX sprinkled in with regular 35mm. IMAX is the highest quality theatrical presentation format out there. The transfer between 35mm anamorphic and IMAX was very good but the IMAX scenes were noticeably more detailed, as would be expected. Did anyone see Dark Knight in a DLP theater? I assume the DLP presentation didn't make the aspect ratio taller for the IMAX scenes, like it did in IMAX and the upcoming blu-ray.

Yesterday we saw Dark Knight at the Austin IMAX theater, Bob Bullock History Museum. It was an experience! If you're going to see Dark Knight, see it in IMAX. For one thing, most 35mm theaters are very mediocre (except DLP), and for another, the IMAX tall aspect ratio" scenes themselves work surprisingly well, sprinkled throughout the movie.

The problem usually is the IMAX takes the attention from the movie itself. Having no possibility to watch this in IMAX, the movies I have seen in IMAX I usually end up admire the PQ more then the movie itself.

Just saw the IMAX version for the first time tonight (3rd time seeing the movie, though).

I thought it was fantastic! The scenes chosen to be filmed in IMAX were well-picked, in my opinion. It was nice to see a 'true' IMAX presentation of a major motion picture rather than the usual 35mm 'blow-ups'. As already mentioned by others here, the difference in detail between the IMAX shots and 35mm shots was night and day... and the 35mm shots looked pretty damn good (in my previous viewings, they were slightly out of focus or misframed...)

It'll be interesting to see how this is done for Blu-ray. Will they crop the IMAX shots to 16:9? Or will they be pillarboxed in the 16:9 frame? Did I miss the press release on this yet?

If Christopher Nolan can shoot the third installment entirely with IMAX, I wonder if he'll use the full frame, or crop to 2.35:1...

The PQ in the theater I saw was very soft. I saw it about a week after it opened. Is this the way it meant to look or was my local theater showing it out of focus? I'm expecting a bunch of complaints on the soft PQ when the BD comes out if this is actually the way it is.

The PQ in the theater I saw was very soft. I saw it about a week after it opened. Is this the way it meant to look or was my local theater showing it out of focus? I'm expecting a bunch of complaints on the soft PQ when the BD comes out if this is actually the way it is.
We're all spoiled by the sharpness of blu-ray. Also, the guys running the local 35mm theaters seem to be getting worst, and the soft focus is exaggerated by the large screen. Digital DLP theater seems like the way to go.

The IMAX scenes in the IMAX presentation of Dark Knight were tack sharp, and the 35mm scenes in the IMAX were softer, probably as sharp as a tier-0 or tier-1 blu-ray.

What we need is improved 4k+ Digital Cams.

What we need is improved 4k+ Digital Cams.

Red Epic is on its way... :)

We're all spoiled by the sharpness of blu-ray. Also, the guys running the local 35mm theaters seem to be getting worst, and the soft focus is exaggerated by the large screen. Digital DLP theater seems like the way to go.

The IMAX scenes in the IMAX presentation of Dark Knight were tack sharp, and the 35mm scenes in the IMAX were softer, probably as sharp as a tier-0 or tier-1 blu-ray.

You are seeing the difference between shooting in 15/70 (IMAX) and transfering 35mm to IMAX - there is a HUGE difference between the two formats for resolution.

But it should have been better (the 35mm portions) then if you saw it as a 35mm only dupe print due to the severe loss in resolution.

Going back and forth between 2.39:1 and 1.78:1 on the Blu-ray will really screw up viewing this film on a constant height scope home theater screen.

I really like the resolution of IMAX, but have always thought the ratio was very weird because your vision is more horizontal than vertical. A lot of shots seem to have an inordinate amount of dead space on the top of the frame.

I'd rather have the resolution of IMAX with at least a 2.20:1 ratio. And the frame rate should be bumped to at least 30 fps to get rid of some of the nasty judder of 24 fps.

I'd rather have the resolution of IMAX with at least a 2.20:1 ratio. And the frame rate should be bumped to at least 30 fps to get rid of some of the nasty judder of 24 fps.

It would be a technical problem of creating the same resolution with 2.20 since you would need to develop a new camera and create a new type of film for it. And since IMAX camera is extremly bulky its not gonne be used for movieproduction in any great sense.

You can always crop, but then it would make more practical sense to shoot 70mm instead.

But in the end, studio se little sense right now to shoot with anything else then 35mm (for most movies) since the majority of the audience will come to the threater no matter what you shoot the movie with.

As for 30fps, it will not do very much for the judder, and it will create problem for deliverychain.

Theaters run at 24fps, PAL market converts the movie to 25P for DVD. So 24P is much more logic if you are aiming for the worldwide market.

Going back and forth between 2.39:1 and 1.78:1 on the Blu-ray will really screw up viewing this film on a constant height scope home theater screen.

To keep the movie consistent I don't believe thats how the Blu-Ray will be.

I would bet that the disc will be minted from the same master as the 35mm prints were made.

To keep the movie consistent I don't believe thats how the Blu-Ray will be.

I would bet that the disc will be minted from the same master as the 35mm prints were made.

You know I thought the IMAX going from 2:35 to 1:33 would be a huge change but it actually wasn't bad and didn't take me out of the movie at all.

You know I thought the IMAX going from 2:35 to 1:33 would be a huge change but it actually wasn't bad and didn't take me out of the movie at all.

Thats because the display is so huge in an IMAX theater and you sits so close to the screen.

It will not work as good in a hometheater. The black bars would end up much more in your viewing field.

Anamorphic has certain issues that makes it look different then a movie shoot on Super35. Despite both having the same aspect ratio.

...like higher resolution, perhaps?... ;)

-THTS

...like higher resolution, perhaps?... ;)



I would say higher density and more distortion.

To keep the movie consistent I don't believe thats how the Blu-Ray will be.

I would bet that the disc will be minted from the same master as the 35mm prints were made.


looks like I bet wrong.

warner announced the DVD release will be constant ratio where the blu-ray
will maintain ratio then switch to 1.78 for imax scenes.

cool!

I would say higher density and more distortion.

More distortion than Super35? Ummm...

-THTS

More distortion than Super35? Ummm...

-THTS

Yes.

More distortion than Super35? Ummm...

-THTS

Super35 uses Spherical lenses. They are alot easier to make, then a anamorphic thats not only have to twist the image in an optical way, it also must be able to focus, at different object at different distances.

Under certain circumstances, the Anamorphic can create fantastic images, but sometimes its a 1 step forward and 2 step backward process.

But if you put the technical aspect aside, it produce a certain look aswell, that makes it a creative choice among other things.

Super35 uses Spherical lenses. They are alot easier to make, then a anamorphic thats not only have to twist the image in an optical way, it also must be able to focus, at different object at different distances.

Under certain circumstances, the Anamorphic can create fantastic images, but sometimes its a 1 step forward and 2 step backward process.

But if you put the technical aspect aside, it produce a certain look as well, that makes it a creative choice among other things.

Yes, I understand all of that, but I still prefer to look at true anamorphic moving images...warts and all.

Me thinks that Super35 is being more widely used by movie directors because of the facility it provides for video transferring more than anything else, particularly high-definition--it better lends itself to various framing modes, a facility that anamorphic scope doesn't have, without having to pay serious penalties (i.e., cropping, etc.).
Vide the 16x9 video transfer of "True Lies" that HBO ordered and which was aired some years ago, for example; really looks great at that framing mode even though it differs from the so-called "scope" theatrical version in some interesting ways, but still remains a different version. That can't be be done with true anamorphic-shot films without incurring severe visual penalties...

-THTS

The below is all perfectly understandable, but your beef based on your initial single line response seemed to be with MovieSwede pointing out that anamorphic has more distortion vs. Super-35, which is undoubtedly does.

Vincent

Yes, I understand all of that, but I still prefer to look at true anamorphic moving images...warts and all.

Me thinks that Super35 is being more widely used by movie directors because of the facility it provides for video transferring more than anything else, particularly high-definition--it better lends itself to various framing modes, a facility that anamorphic scope doesn't have, without having to pay serious penalties (i.e., cropping, etc.).
Vide the 16x9 video transfer of "True Lies" that HBO ordered and which was aired some years ago, for example; really looks great at that framing mode even though it differs from the so-called "scope" theatrical version in some interesting ways, but still remains a different version. That can't be be done with true anamorphic-shot films without incurring severe visual penalties...

-THTS

The below is all perfectly understandable, but your beef based on your initial single line response seemed to be with MovieSwede pointing out that anamorphic has more distortion vs. Super-35, which is undoubtedly does.Vincent

Beef? :rolleyes: I believe I was having a civil discourse with someone who by all I read is quite versed in cinematography!

And yes...anamorphic lensing does have greater distortion than Super35 spherical lenses (plus the ability to focus better), yet I still prefer scope-shot films...WARTS and ALL! ;)

By the way...aren't you the dude from Uruguay who's selling all of that film projection equipment in the Film Tech Forum?... :confused:

-THTS

...
By the way...aren't you the dude from Uruguay who's selling all of that film projection equipment in the Film Tech Forum?... :confused:

-THTS

No.

Vincent Pereira

The light effect used in this sequence is a defect from the Panavision Hawk C-Series anamorphic lenses from early 1996... It's normally used for steady cam.