Why not IMAX with anamorphic lens? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 03:25 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
luca_frontino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The Dark Knight and Revenge of the Fallen both have directors whom love the anamorphic photography, but they decided to experiment with IMAX thanks to its greater image definition.
But to abandon the beauty of the anamorphic surreal effects is a crime, so why not ask IMAX Corp. to build anamorphic lenses for their cameras?
luca_frontino is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 04:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

The Dark Knight and Revenge of the Fallen both have directors whom love the anamorphic photography, but they decided to experiment with IMAX thanks to its greater image definition.
But to abandon the beauty of the anamorphic surreal effects is a crime, so why not ask IMAX Corp. to build anamorphic lenses for their cameras?

Because one of the benefits with shooting IMAX is that you dont need anamorphic lenses.

And shooting IMAX with the distortions anamorphic gives you would really be one step forward and two steps backward.

And since focusing is hard as it is with IMAX shallow DOF, it would be even worse with an anamorphic lense.

And finally, there is no IMAX theaters that can handle it.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is online now  
post #3 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 05:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You might as well shoot in non-IMAX 70mm.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #4 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 05:33 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

The Dark Knight and Revenge of the Fallen both have directors whom love the anamorphic photography, but they decided to experiment with IMAX thanks to its greater image definition.
But to abandon the beauty of the anamorphic surreal effects is a crime, so why not ask IMAX Corp. to build anamorphic lenses for their cameras?



Lee Stewart is offline  
post #5 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 07:42 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
luca_frontino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
You clearly don't have any idea what is the difference between shooting with spherical lenses and cylindrical ones.
It's not just the scope format, but also the horizontal lens-flare and the wide field of view of the anamorphic lens that makes it special.
BTW current IMAX theaters could present anamorphic shows by compressing the projected image vertically.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #6 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

You clearly don't have any idea what is the difference between shooting with spherical lenses and cylindrical ones.
It's not just the scope format, but also the horizontal lens-flare and the wide field of view of the anamorphic lens that makes it special.
BTW current IMAX theaters could present anamorphic shows by compressing the projected image vertically.

While there certainly is an esthetic difference between anamorphic and spherical.

The reason why they shoot IMAX, is to get IMAX quality, if you shoot anamorphic, you would destroy alot of the IMAX quality.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is online now  
post #7 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 03:03 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Is any of Transformers ROTF shot in IMAX ?
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #8 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 03:14 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Is any of Transformers ROTF shot in IMAX ?

Yes - but at this time there is very little about how many minutes. If you go to IMDB and click on the Aspect Ratio, you will get some info.

Here you go:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1055369/technical
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #9 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 05:27 PM
Member
 
Chad R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post

You clearly don't have any idea what is the difference between shooting with spherical lenses and cylindrical ones.
It's not just the scope format, but also the horizontal lens-flare and the wide field of view of the anamorphic lens that makes it special.
BTW current IMAX theaters could present anamorphic shows by compressing the projected image vertically.

I don't think you understand the difference between lenses if the greatest value you find in anamorphic is horizontal lens flares. Anamorphic was a cheap trade to get the shape of 70mm at less cost. They sacrificed quality, depth of field and in some cases proper geometry to achieve the same effect. But anamorphic 35mm has never rivaled 70mm presentations and only won out due to cost.

IMAX is all about grandeur when projected on a six story screen. It fills your entire field of vision as is without help of going wider, and compressing the image vertically (as is done with scope 35mm conversions already) actually robs the audience of that impact.

Anamorphic lenses on IMAX is just absolutely unnecessary.
Chad R is offline  
post #10 of 60 Old 04-29-2009, 07:33 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad R View Post

I don't think you understand the difference between lenses if the greatest value you find in anamorphic is horizontal lens flares. Anamorphic was a cheap trade to get the shape of 70mm at less cost. They sacrificed quality, depth of field and in some cases proper geometry to achieve the same effect. But anamorphic 35mm has never rivaled 70mm presentations and only won out due to cost.

IMAX is all about grandeur when projected on a six story screen. It fills your entire field of vision as is without help of going wider, and compressing the image vertically (as is done with scope 35mm conversions already) actually robs the audience of that impact.

Anamorphic lenses on IMAX is just absolutely unnecessary.

Agree 100%

IMAX stands for Image MAXimum

Lee Stewart is offline  
post #11 of 60 Old 04-30-2009, 01:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
CRT Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How about Ben Hur 2 on anamorphic Vistavision.
CRT Dude is offline  
post #12 of 60 Old 05-01-2009, 09:45 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Having not been to an Imax to see a 35mm blow up, how does it fill the screen ?
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #13 of 60 Old 05-01-2009, 12:12 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Having not been to an Imax to see a 35mm blow up, how does it fill the screen ?

It doesn't. It is presented in OAR with portions of the IMAX screen unused (above and bekow the image)
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #14 of 60 Old 05-01-2009, 01:41 PM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
So is it a bigger projection than you would see normally ?
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #15 of 60 Old 05-01-2009, 02:25 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

So is it a bigger projection than you would see normally ?

Not necessarily.

Advantages:

1. IMAX theater seating - higher "rake" than normal stadium seating (see photo above)

2. IMAX sound system

3. 35mm to IMAX blowup should result in higher quality image. Definitely brighter image.

4. IMAX previews are in IMAX format.

Disadvantages:

1. Cost more than a normal theater presentation.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #16 of 60 Old 05-02-2009, 07:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
CRT Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Looking at TDK I'd say IMAX DMR=DNR&EE.
CRT Dude is offline  
post #17 of 60 Old 05-10-2009, 06:24 AM
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Your think the DMR system introduced the EE and DNR
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #18 of 60 Old 05-10-2009, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Your think the DMR system introduced the EE and DNR

Thats basicly what their DMR system is. An upconversion with a set of different tools/filters.

Its no different from other upconversion tools.

Good movies are as rare as an on topic discussion.
MovieSwede is online now  
post #19 of 60 Old 05-15-2009, 08:20 AM
Senior Member
 
jmdajr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: houston, tx
Posts: 403
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kram sacul View Post

you might as well shoot in non-imax 70mm.


this

I see no point of an anamorphic lens on an imax camera. It was never intended for that purpose.
jmdajr is offline  
post #20 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 06:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Everdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry, this is a little off topic, but I didn't think it was worth starting a new thread fo this...

I went to see Star Trek and an IMAX theater last night, and I was very un-impressed with the DLP presentation. First, I could see pixelation (it was terrible on any text), through out the who movie, and 2nd there were lip sync issues during the whole movie. Are video and audio split? What is the resolution for DLP projectors at IMAX theaters?

I was amazed that a digital presentation could look and sound so bad. It makes me appreciate Blu-ray and my HT setup even more.
Everdog is offline  
post #21 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 07:22 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everdog View Post

Sorry, this is a little off topic, but I didn't think it was worth starting a new thread fo this...

I went to see Star Trek and an IMAX theater last night, and I was very un-impressed with the DLP presentation. First, I could see pixelation (it was terrible on any text), through out the who movie, and 2nd there were lip sync issues during the whole movie. Are video and audio split? What is the resolution for DLP projectors at IMAX theaters?

I was amazed that a digital presentation could look and sound so bad. It makes me appreciate Blu-ray and my HT setup even more.

Welcome to the "new" IMAX theaters.

The resolution is 2048x1080 for the Christie DLP projector(s) they are using.

I believe the AR is 1.90

Real IMAX theaters use 70mm film turned sideways so that each frame is 15 perforations (called 15/70) and the resolution is somewheres in the neighborhood of 18,000 x 15,000. The AR is 1.44. This is for native IMAX movies.

For Hollywood movies, they do a 35mm to 15/70 blowup with the final IMAX print letterboxed so the image uses the center portion of the IMAX screen.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #22 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Everdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Welcome to the "new" IMAX theaters.

The resolution is 2048x1080 for the Christie DLP projector(s) they are using.

I believe the AR is 1.90

I may be wrong, but it looked like they squeezed several scenes into that 1.9 AR.

As you said, that was not "real" IMAX, and IMHO a waste of money.
Everdog is offline  
post #23 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 08:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everdog View Post

I may be wrong, but it looked like they squeezed several scenes into that 1.9 AR.

Star Trek has a lot of close-up shots using lenses that distort picture geometry, leaving people's faces looking a little squished. It was done for artistic effect, just like all the lens flares. I'm pretty sure that's what you were referring to.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #24 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 09:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Everdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Star Trek has a lot of close-up shots using lenses that distort picture geometry, leaving people's faces looking a little squished. It was done for artistic effect, just like all the lens flares. I'm pretty sure that's what you were referring to.

I bet you are correct. I noticed that the film being displayed was not 2.35:1 and as Lee pointed out it was probably 1.9:1 and because of that I had it in the back of my head while watching that they needed to do something to get it to fit.

I could live with the AR though. Seeing pixels and having the the lip synching off (that was extremely distracting) made it painful to watch. It may have just been the rectangular pixels, but I could swear there was a screen door effect too (which shouldn't happen with DLP right?). It was like watching a movie on my old Sanyo Z1 (964x544) on a 106 inch sceen...although the DLP colors were far better.
Everdog is offline  
post #25 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 11:05 AM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
While not the intention of the initial post, IMAX projection with an anamorphic lens sounds very intriguing.

Let's say you have the original 1.43 IMAX frame encoded anamorphically at 1920x1007p on a Blu-ray disc (1.91:1). Now, take your standard 1.33x HE lens, rotated sideways (is this possible?) and you have vertical expansion of 1.33x (1.91 / 1.33 = 1.43). Now you have the original AR and can project full scope width, but much taller for that massive experience.

Not 70mm, but a better experience for home theaters than 1544x1080p pillar-boxed on a 16:9 screen to see the original frame I would imagine. I guess a variable stretch function in a VP could do the same thing (1920x1007) with the pillarboxed source right now, but I would think an anamorphic BD would be slightly better with 16% more native res. Still a long way off from a true IMAX experience in the home though ...

Anyways, all of that flashed through my brain when I read the thread title.
LilGator is offline  
post #26 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 12:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
hconwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Welcome to the "new" IMAX theaters.

The resolution is 2048x1080 for the Christie DLP projector(s) they are using.

I believe the AR is 1.90

Lee ... you may know something I don't ... but I thought the new DLP Imax platform was 4K. If it is, it's still vastly inferior to 15/70.

Imax is doing to Imax what Cinerama did to Cinerama. The course they're on now will bring an end to an extraordinary era.

Second point ... people in this thread have been bad mouthing anamorphic photography. I don't think that's warranted. Panavision's anamorphic lenses are fabulous ... they do not, by most DPs accounts, degrade the image. Yes, early B&L CinemaScope lenses were mediocre at best ... but not the glass from Panavision. An Imax native frame with a, say, 1.5 squeeze would produce a fabulous image. But they're (Imax) going the other way ... trying to reduce their size & quality to save money ... so adding extravagance to the process is just not in the cards.

All just my opinion.

Hank Brown

"Being at the right place at the right time is purely a function of being at the right place a lot."

JPEG's of my Home Theater.
hconwell is offline  
post #27 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 01:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Everdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Lee ... you may know something I don't ... but I thought the new DLP Imax platform was 4K. If it is, it's still vastly inferior to 15/70.

I was sitting in the middle of th IMAX theater and saw distinct pixels in all the text and I do not have perfect vision. As I mentioned, it reminded me of the days when I had a quarter HD (540p) projector. My bet is that Lee is right.
Everdog is offline  
post #28 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 01:28 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

Lee ... you may know something I don't ... but I thought the new DLP Imax platform was 4K. If it is, it's still vastly inferior to 15/70.

AFAIK - they are using Christie DC PJ's and Christie doesn't make a 4K PJ. Only Sony and JVC do.

DLP invades IMAX, replaces film

"At the heart of every DLP chip is an array of up to 2.2 million microscopic mirrors which switch incredibly fast to create a high resolution, highly reliable, full color image."

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/11...replaces-film/

Quote:


Imax is doing to Imax what Cinerama did to Cinerama. The course they're on now will bring an end to an extraordinary era.

IMAX is "pimping their name" to make a company expansion at the cost of the quality of the product delivered. Do they even show IMAX nature and documentary films in these new "less than IMAX" theaters? Or are they strictly using them for Hollywood movies to be . . . Ahem . . . shown in IMAX.

For me, my local IMAX theater (Ft. laud) is part of the Museum of Science and Discovery. It is a real IMAX 15/70 theater and according to the manager - they are going to stay that way.

The issue that has been huring IMAX is the print costs. A 35mm film print costs about $1200. An IMAX 15/70 print costs about $40,000. A IMAX 3D 15/70 setup makes the print(s) cost around $80,000.

And here is the big

Hollywood is FINALLY looking at IMAX for movie making. It started with The Dark Knight, continues with Transformers 2 and is followed up with the new Harry Potter film (segements filmed and shown in 15/70 IMAX 3D.)

How is that going to be presented on one of these "fake" IMAX screens?

Quote:


Second point ... people in this thread have been bad mouthing anamorphic photography. I don't think that's warranted. Panavision's anamorphic lenses are fabulous ... they do not, by most DPs accounts, degrade the image. Yes, early B&L CinemaScope lenses were mediocre at best ... but not the glass from Panavision. An Imax native frame with a, say, 1.5 squeeze would produce a fabulous image. But they're (Imax) going the other way ... trying to reduce their size & quality to save money ... so adding extravagance to the process is just not in the cards.

All just my opinion.

Anamorphic cinematography does have some limitations and issues that flat/spherical does not have. So what did they do to get a 2.39 AR? They invented the Super 35 format. Picture quality from film has always been based on "real estate" - how big is the taking negative.

IMAX was never intended to have anamorphic capability. As has been mentioned - there is no reason for it. And it would present a real problem for the audience, that being there wouldn't be anywheres in an IMAX theater where you could sit (like today) and have the entire screen fill your field of view (last few rows in the theater). The screen would be too big. It wouldn't fit in the building!

My IMAX theater is a 300 seat theater with a screen measuring 60' x 80' That is a 1.44 AR. The screen is literally floor to ceiling, wall to wall. If it was still 60' high and had a 2.35 AR - that would make it 141 ' wide.

The photo on the top is what my IMAX theater looks like:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...num=3&ct=image

Which brings up another issue. Do these new IMAX theater have that same very steep rake in the seating positions? Or it is normal stadium seating like a regular theater?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #29 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 01:52 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
hconwell:

The problem with Cinerama was totally different. It was a VERY complicated process and VERY labor intensive (for presentation). That is why so very few 3 strip Cinerama films were ever made.

Ultra Panavision/MGM Camera 65 replaced it and was very effective. The loss was the 3 different surround channels (became mono) but it got rid of the join lines which were very apparent due to the way film is processed and printed.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #30 of 60 Old 05-22-2009, 02:00 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
IMAX stands for:

Image MAXimum

Well it used to.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off