Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Dark Knight - Parts of movie to be filmed in IMAX

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Large Format Forum » The Dark Knight - Parts of movie to be filmed in IMAX (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: The Dark Knight - Parts of movie to be filmed in IMAX

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-19-2008 06:26 PM

Here's a little snippet from American Cinematographer about how the prints were produced.

http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/July2008/TheDarkKnight/page5.php

| IP: Logged

Thomas Dieter
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 234
From: Yakima, WA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-19-2008 09:46 PM

I am sad to report that my experience of Dark Knight was slightly tarnished. I went to the 12:20 pm showing on friday at the Regal Point Orlando 20 Plus Imax, the 5th or 6th showing of that print, and got to experience a roller scratch just below center from right to left. It disappeared very quickly and never showed again, but needless to say, I was slightly disappointed.

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 07-19-2008 11:57 PM

That's a great article with lots of interesting details, Greg, thanks for sharing.

Interesting to hear David Keighley (executive vp of Imax) claim that "35mm film captures the equivalent of 6K."

But my favorite quote from the article is:

quote:
“It’s ironic,” muses the cinematographer, “because many filmmakers are trying out digital cameras that actually capture less resolution and information, and we’re going in the opposite direction, upping the ante by capturing images with unparalleled resolution and clarity.”

Bravo!

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 07-20-2008 01:46 AM

Indeed. I love that quote.

Hats off fellas. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester

Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 07-20-2008 07:07 AM

quote: Thomas Dieter
a roller scratch just below center from right to left.

Nope, that ain't from a roller. Someone threaded it around the foil sensor rather than through it, I'll bet. Emulsion side. We had that happen years and years ago. Very light and black if visible at all. Ours went green for a few seconds during one reel, but most of the print appeared okay on-screen, even though the entire print was technically scratched.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-21-2008 01:22 PM

Does anybody know what aspect ratio the DMR'd 35mm was projected in? It didn't look like it was 2.4:1.

The IMAX sourced scenes looked phenomenal. They did a great job with the transitions. There were a lot of exterior establishing shots filmed in IMAX but it worked well when they went indoors back to letterbox.

I have to say that the DMR'd parts looked very good as well (although the Warner Brother's logo at the beginning showed some jaggies).

Somebody should introduce Mr. Nolan to the new process known as 5 perf/65mm to shoot the non-IMAX scenes in the next one.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 07-22-2008 07:34 AM

It's not going to matter if IMAX has their way and converts all of their theaters to two stacked 2K projectors. He may as well shoot it on 16mm. No one will know the difference.

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 07-27-2008 02:42 PM

I finally caught TDK in IMAX at the UA Colorado Center (Denver). The image looked great, both the IMAX footage and the 35mm footage. Bravo to Nolan for making this happen.

On the downside, man the picture was dim. Here's the full review I posted at my cinema review blog:

quote:
Watching The Dark Knight projected in IMAX is a thrilling experience. Christopher Nolan has created a real event with The Dark Knight, and it works. Thanks to his efforts, the 35mm sequences look spectacular, and the IMAX sequences are overwhelming. The hard cuts from one sequence to another are barely noticable.

However, the UA Colorado Center's IMAX projection was painfully dim. The Dark Knight looked brighter in 35mm at AMC Flatiron Crossing 14, and that simply should not be the case.

Also, there were a half dozen small marks on the screen (or the projector lens?) that were distracting during bright scenes.

On the plus side:
The image was otherwise well projected: steady, focused, and clean. The sound was rich, expansive, engulfing, and loud (without being uncomfortable). The audience was respectfully quiet.

Prior to the show, there were no annoyiong slides or commericals. Instead, we were treated the The Dark Knight score. A manager came in at show time to welcome everyone and asked folks to slide toward the middle and turn off their cell phones. Bravo!

After the show, I spoke with a manager, and thanked her for the lack of advertisments and for the greeting. Then I politely complained that the image was far too dim and there were marks on the screen. I asked that they please get a new bulb or do something to address the problem. She listened politely but did not really seem eager to take action.

I have heard that the projection failed completely during a press screening a few weeks ago, and wonder if they are having problems with their equipment.

The UA Colorado Center is selling out all of its weekend and weeknight IMAX showings of The Dark Knight. Thousands of people are making the effort to see the film in IMAX, driving past other theatres with less crowded showings. Those movie-goers (and the film-makers) deserve that The Dark Knight be as bright and beautiful as possible.
Regal, PLEASE improve the brightness of your IMAX projection.

quote: Lyle Romer
Does anybody know what aspect ratio the DMR'd 35mm was projected in? It didn't look like it was 2.4:1.

I agree. It looked just over 2:1 to me. It definitely seemed taller than the 2.4:1 trailers that preceeded it.

Geoff

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-06-2008 10:42 AM

quote: Lyle Romer
The IMAX sourced scenes looked phenomenal. They did a great job with the transitions. There were a lot of exterior establishing shots filmed in IMAX but it worked well when they went indoors back to letterbox.

So from all that everyone has said, my understanding has been that the IMAX 5/65 filmed portions of DK go to the full IMAX screen, i.e., opens up to the top and bottom of the 15/70 - 1.4:1 screen and then back down to 2:1 for the rest 4/35mm filmed portions. correct? I ask this because a friend of my specifically traveled to Louisville KY to see DK in the "IMAX Experience" and said that he was extremely disappointed because the picture remained, as he put it, "almost CinemaScope" thru the entire movie....no switch to the much larger IMAX screen as he expected it would (what with the hype about the "IMAX Experience and all). It didn't get larger to fill the screen, in fact, he said the screen didn't have any additional expanse top and bottom for the image to expand to -- it was scope-ish (he knows from scope and said it wasn't full scope....in fact, he knows from IMAX too, and hence his disappointment). How is this even an IMAX theatre if it's only got a scope ratio screen? I don't know how many IMAX theatres there are in Louisville, he didn't give me the location or if it's an AMC (could this have been digital projection?).

My first thought was that this is IMAX Light (MPX) but even those have a full IMAX screen, no? He said no, this definitely was not an IMAX and that he couldn't tell when the IMAX sequences occurred only that at some points in the film he thought the image be a bit sharper than others. This sounds like a 4/35 print version to me -- or maybe digital?

It is bad enough that IMAX is bastardizing their own product and sneaking lower rez stuff under the radar, but if they are creating this kind of outright confusion in the marketplace, their demise will happen sooner than later. He said, if this is what they call IMAX, he will never make the trip (from Lexington) to go to the IMAX theatre again. Who could blame him?

quote: Mark J. Marshall
It's not going to matter if IMAX has their way and converts all of their theaters to two stacked 2K projectors. He may as well shoot it on 16mm. No one will know the difference.

I thought IMAX had teamed up with Sony to go the 4K rez video instead of the conventional 2K?

Mark, how bout they just stack two 16mm projectors?! [Roll Eyes]

Hey, at least it will be FILM! [Big Grin]

When a paying customer can't tell if he's watching IMAX or not, they are on a one way ticket to mediocreville.

Oh, and PS -- he said the trailers and ADVERTS (trailers, yes, but ADVERTS....in an IMAX theatre?) had no image on the screen, just the sound....for the whole preshow; it never was fixed. Me thinks even in this IMAX theatre they've found a way to run the shows with those Push-The-Start-Button, minimum wage kids.

What a disaster.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 08-06-2008 02:28 PM

quote: Frank Angel
My first thought was that this is IMAX Light (MPX) but even those have a full IMAX screen, no? He said no, this definitely was not an IMAX and that he couldn't tell when the IMAX sequences occurred only that at some points in the film he thought the image be a bit sharper than others. This sounds like a 4/35 print version to me -- or maybe digital?

No this is an imax (Equipped) auditorium however the screen is not the size you would find in a typical Imax theater. I saw Batman Begins there and was very annoyed by the fact that the image around the screen was filled with weird shadow effects

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-10-2008 11:03 AM

quote: Geoff Jones
I agree. It looked just over 2:1 to me. It definitely seemed taller than the 2.4:1 trailers that preceeded it.

I had exactly the opposirte effect at the Brenden in Las Vegas. I thought the 35mm stuff was wider (more letterboxed) than the teaser for HP and for another Warner feature for 09. It did look like 2.4 to me.

BTW, the 35mm sections looked far sharper than I normally see in IMAX (while this is a standard IMAX set-up, it is the smallest IMAX screen I've ever seen).

I found it interesting that Brenden Theatres in Vegas was really hyping the 70mm IMAX vs 35mm quality differences with explanations at the Box office (complete with info sheets. Its nice not to see digital vs film comparison at a theatre today (their website does the same thing).

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.