Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: SW:EP2 in Imax ??

This is topic SW:EP2 in Imax ?? in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000037

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-09-2002, 06:03 PM:

Ep2 in Imax

As mediocre as the film looked in 35mm, how are they possibly going to massage that source material to look good in Imax?? If they do this, I will have to see it...

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 09-09-2002, 07:38 PM:

Plus an IMAX version would have to be a pan and scan version of the scope original.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-09-2002, 07:52 PM:

Over on the http://www.1570.com large format group, early reports say that the 70mm IMAX prints of "Apollo 13" (shot on 35mm color negative film and enhanced with the IMAX DMR process) look very good. It will be interesting to compare the image quality of each.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 09-09-2002, 08:14 PM:

>>Plus an IMAX version would have to be a pan and scan version of the scope original<<

Since this was a movie recorded entirely in the DIGITAL domain, Lucas could always 'digitally re-render' it for the IMAX aspect ratio a la 'A Bug's Life' Maybe this is what the 'DMR' system does? Perhaps they should use a tried-and-true proccess such as FlikFX!

All kidding aside, it might end up being a letterbox image in an IMAX frame...

-Aaron

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-09-2002, 08:16 PM:

The problem I'm having with all this is that no matter how much they can degrain the material, it still wasnt filmed with IMAX in mind. Regardless of whether or not they open up the Super 35 frame, the composition is still wrong. Human close-ups that fill the screen instead of staying in the lower third, rapid camera movements and quick cuts are all generally avoided in IMAX format. The proportion is all so different. With Cameron's HD photography of TITANIC REVISTED (or whatever he's calling it, a blurb in our local paper referred to the new super lightweight cameras used to shoot it), IMAX may go the way of Todd-AO, Cinerama and other large format processes that found "new lightweight cameras" to shoot with and release in the big formats.

And how are the bookings of these "IMAX" films being handled? In addition to whatever IMAX films are out there, there's APOLLO 13, Disney's TREASURE PLANET at the end of November and Disney's LION KING in December. Is Disney repeating the full schedule demands they dictated for FANTASIA 2000 and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST? If so, TREASURE PLANET will have a VERY short life in IMAX, with APOLLO 13 not getting much more playing time.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-09-2002, 08:49 PM:

If they can digitally "enhance" the original HDTV material to give it Imax quality (which I doubt), then how come they didn't use a similar process to make the Ep2 35mm release prints look better?

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-09-2002, 10:09 PM:

Treasure Planet is slated for a 4-6 week window between its Thanksgiving release and the opening of The Lion King on Christmas Day. Since TP is being simultaneously released in 35mm houses, the LF version is just icing on the Disney cake. LK will likely be a full-schedule-demanded contract.

Not everybody playing LK is playing TP and not everybody playing AOTC is playing A13.

Apollo 13 (clocking in at 116 minutes and "adjusted" to about 1.66) will likely not be required to play all day and neither will AOTC.

I watched A13 this weekend and it looks good. You can tell it wasn't filmed in 15/70, but we're talking about people who think "digital" is great. Time will tell regarding AOTC's image quality.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-09-2002, 10:11 PM:

Regarding Cameron using video for an LF shoot, consider the fact that he's at the bottom of a murky ocean, anyway.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-09-2002, 10:33 PM:

Adam Martin noted: "Regarding Cameron using video for an LF shoot, consider the fact that he's at the bottom of a murky ocean, anyway."

I recall that Cameron's shots of the actual Titanic hulk in "Titanic" were shot with 2-perf TechniScope, and the grain/unsharpness of TechniScope's smaller image area were not obvious through the underwater murkiness and floating debris. So the Sony HDCAM's deficiencies may likewise not be obvious in "Ghosts of the Abyss", especially with separate 3D images for each eye.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-09-2002, 10:44 PM:

Adam, I am assuming that you meant "AOTC" and not "ATOC" for "Attack of the Clones" right?

This might seem like splitting hairs but think about it - two years from now it might not be so easy to decipher what that was supposed to mean.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-09-2002, 11:51 PM:

>Sony HDCAM's deficiencies

HDCAM's severe compression makes it deficient even compared to full blown HD, let alone film.

BTW, when Disney advertises "...at IMAX and other Large Format Theatres" is that a just nod to non-IMAX 15/70 or are their films also made available in 8/70?

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 09-10-2002, 02:38 AM:

Steve

Yes the Disney releases are also in 870. The Edwards Theatres that changed from IMAX to 870 ran Beauty and The Beast.Don't know if they are signed up for Lion KIng and/or Treasure Planet

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 09-10-2002, 11:15 AM:

Bumping this back to the top.

Posted by Jan Hackett (Member # 1231) on 09-10-2002, 11:35 AM:

Disney will distribute to 8:70 while IMAX won't distribute to any one but IMAX. >>>> since IMAX developed DMR I do not think A 13 or ATOC will be made available in 8:70......

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 09-10-2002, 11:39 AM:

It's on CNN now. There are several other threads on this, but this has the most replies, so I'm replying here.

You gotta love this quote from a Fox executive:

quote:
You couldn't find a movie better suited to the Imax format.

Well, actually you could. Like a movie made in the proper aspect ratio.

I have mixed feelings about this new endeavor IMAX is embarking on. On the one hand, it feels a bit like a return to the days of 5-perf 70mm blow-ups, which is good. On the other hand, it involves changing aspect ratios, editing the movies for length, and showing them in a viewing environment that doesn't necessarily fit with their intentions, which is bothersome. In any case, it will no doubt do marvelous business for the IMAX corporation, which I'm sure is the reason they're doing this.

Not that there's anything wrong with trying to make money. It's just the whole square-peg-in-a-round-hole nature of it that gives me pause. I don't like seeing movies altered from their original form. The great thing about the days of 70mm six-track was that, after some horrible first attempts with things like "Gone with the Wind" being cropped to 2.20:1, studios finally settled on the practice of preserving the original aspect ratios of films when blowing them up. Now we're taking a step back.

Still, I'll be very interested in seeing the results. Anything will be better than the current practice of showing standard 35mm prints on the IMAX screen.

EDIT: Since Ep. II was shot in a 16:9 format and cropped to 2.39:1 scope, they could just open up the image to its full 1.78:1 height and letterbox it within the IMAX frame, similar to what is being done with Apollo 13. But what are they going to do if/when audiences start clamoring for the rest of the Star Wars series? The rest were all in 35mm scope, and have no extra image area to work with.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-10-2002, 11:57 AM:

My main concern is image quality (resolution), as opposed to image composition. Now on the other hand, if they could take an earlier SW film, like Empire Strikes Back, work some kind of digital magic on it, and show it in, say, 2.20:1 on an Imax screen [letterboxed] that could be a pretty impressive experience. Anything but those horrible 35mm "drive-in" prints.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-10-2002, 01:16 PM:

David wrote: "Now on the other hand, if they could take an earlier SW film, like Empire Strikes Back, work some kind of digital magic on it, and show it in, say, 2.20:1 on an Imax screen [letterboxed] that could be a pretty impressive experience."

I agree. Probably wouldn't need to do much "digital magic" either, as the "magic" was already there in the 70mm prints decades ago. Although enhancement using "digital intermediate" allows the best of both film and digital:
Kodak "Digital Intermediate" Tools

I assume the sound on these 70mm large format reissues is being remixed to take advantage of the IMAX-style speaker placement?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-10-2002, 01:30 PM:

I should have specified In 70mm. "Attention Imax: Please don't waste your time with a 35mm release." A 70mm blowup from the original negative would be great, but I'd be curious to see what they could do with it in the digital domain first, then blown up to 70mm. I mentioned the 2.20:1 ratio since that's what the original 70mm blowups were (or thereabouts).

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-10-2002, 02:50 PM:

quote:
Adam, I am assuming that you meant "AOTC" and not "ATOC" for "Attack of the Clones" right?

Oops. To add to the confusion, some folks are calling it "SWAC".

Posted by John Gordon (Member # 523) on 09-10-2002, 03:26 PM:

What is the maximum running time for 15/70, without an intermission?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-10-2002, 03:36 PM:

AFAIK, about 2 hours with the QT upgrades being installed for Apollo 13:
http://www.1570.org/discus/messages/2/669.html?1031340427

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-10-2002, 06:33 PM:

"Attack of the Clones" in IMAX. Jeez. I imagine it won't look like pixels the size of ceiling tiles. However, I strongly expect a lot of the stuff to be blurry as hell.

This kind of thing is a grave insult to the IMAX format.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-10-2002, 06:58 PM:

I saw "SPECIAL EFFECTS" in IMAX a couple of years ago and I was very impressed with the way how the opening of the original "STAR WARS" looked on the full IMAX screen. I do not know if this footage was specially set up and photographed in IMAX or it was taken from a digital scan from the original 35mm negative. As far as the IMAX version of "ATTACK OF THE CLONES" is concerned, I dont knoow how George and IMAX will do it but I feel it will look great! George Lucas is not a fool and I doubt he will risk his reputation by using IMAX for his latest "STAR WARS" movie if the process will show a lot of the flaws of his digitally captured production. Although I do not like the man for his hard ball business pratice, George Lucas is a genious when it comes to film making and we must all give him credit for that.

-Claude

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-10-2002, 07:48 PM:

The current incarnation of upgraded QTRU is a 150-minute arm with a 120-minute reel. I don't know if there is a 150-minute reel or not at this point.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 09-10-2002, 08:41 PM:

Claude,
I'm not absolutely positive, but I seem to remember hearing (in the film itself, I think) that that sequence was created specially for the IMAX film.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-10-2002, 10:02 PM:

Quote:

quote:
I doubt he will risk his reputation by using IMAX for his latest "STAR WARS" movie if the process will show a lot of the flaws of his digitally captured production.

Well, many people thought the process he shot AOTC in showed a lot of the flaws of a digital production on standard 35mm film. As far as me, it happened when he screwed with the original STAR WARS trilogy. Hans Solo shot FIRST, DAMN IT!

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-10-2002, 10:50 PM:

That footage in Special Effects was recreated. It was not original 35mm material.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-10-2002, 11:55 PM:

The blockade runner sequence in "Special Effects" was very different looking from the original film. It was composed for the IMAX frame (whereas the original was in 'scope). The footage was garishly more colorful than the original, and even had those extra shockwave blasts happening in the air. On top of that, you could tell by the razor sharp imagery it had to have been originated in large format 70mm.

BTW, "Special Effects" was a pretty cool feature. I really like all the stuff related to "Independence Day," including their footage of the white house model being exploded.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 09-11-2002, 02:47 PM:

IMAX Apollo 13 is apparently letterboxed, I don't know the actual image ratio.
The digital "magic" involves increasing the pixel density from the original data scanned off the negative. Imax has been working for quite a few years on the ways this is possible. Essentially yo don't gain any actual detail but the image doesn't have obvious pixellation or aliasing artifacts.
Scanning was done in LA (Cinesite?); the data manipulation, rendering, and film recording was done at Imax in Mississauga Canada.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-11-2002, 03:06 PM:

More on the IMAX DMR process:
http://www.redhat.com/partners/press_partner_dell2.html
http://www.bigmoviezone.com/articles/index.html?uniq=91
http://millimeter.com/ar/video_features_imax_6/

The Millimeter article says the (mostly Super-35) 35mm film negative of "Apollo 13" was scanned at 4K resolution, so they are starting out with many million more pixels than "Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones".

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-11-2002, 05:18 PM:

Still, 4K is not quite like 8K or 16K depths more appropriate for IMAX. I remember all the jaggie titles from "Fantasia 2000" which was partly to blame over a 4K res.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-11-2002, 09:09 PM:

The AR for Apollo 13 is about 1.66.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 09-17-2002, 09:24 AM:

TheForce.Net reports that the IMAX Version is to be 23 minutes shorter so that it can fit on most IMAX Platters.

Click Here

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-17-2002, 10:36 AM:

Paul Konen wrote: "TheForce.Net reports that the IMAX Version is to be 23 minutes shorter so that it can fit on most IMAX Platters."

Is that enough to COMPLETELY get rid of Jar-Jar Binks?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-17-2002, 03:15 PM:

Oh man, they sure would sell a LOT of tickets if it did!

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 09-18-2002, 05:10 PM:

Was it not the aim and vision of the pioneers of 15/70 Imax, was the shooting and screening the process at special designed Imax Theatres? or am I living in the past that the public will flock in to see Digital blow ups of cinema movies that you can get on DVD at the local Blockbuster Video store?.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 09-18-2002, 06:34 PM:

Paul Konen wrote: "TheForce.Net reports that the IMAX Version is to be 23 minutes shorter so that it can fit on most IMAX Platters."

Pasted from a UK Forum on STAR BORES.

STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES is getting the IMAX treatment, but it looks like the film will also be getting a running time "haircut." The maximum 120-minute capacity for most IMAX platter systems dictates a cut of 23 minutes from the original release of the film's 143-minute running length.

It might just be watchable if they cut 120 mins out and left you with 23mins...!

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-18-2002, 09:59 PM:

Maybe half the theatres will get the 23 minute versions.

The best way to edit it would probably be to skip the first seven reels.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 09-19-2002, 01:47 AM:

Here is to address a few issues regarding the imax release, and also to bring up a few.

First, ILM has been working on the IMAX version for months now. The conversion will be better than the original one. Hopefully that's a good thing.

Second, and here is my question, regarding the cut to 120 minutes. DigiLucas had announced that new scenes would be added to the IMAX version. If that is still true, just how much of the film will be missing?

Could we lose the following characters..

Jar Jar Binks,
Anakin Skywalker (only when he is whining like a baby),
and anyone NOT fighting with a light saber or blowing up stuff...

Dave

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-19-2002, 03:57 AM:

Since it is digital, perhaps NOTHING will be lost, but Lucas will time compress the existing movie and cram in more scenes with a total run time of 120 minutes.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-19-2002, 08:24 AM:

Brad said: "Since it is digital, perhaps NOTHING will be lost, but Lucas will time compress the existing movie and cram in more scenes with a total run time of 120 minutes."

Digital, Smidigital. Theatre owners did that with silent films by simply running the projector faster.

BTW: Anyone notice how many more radio ads now use digital pitch-shifting to fit more information into commercials, especially for legal disclaimers (e.g., contest rules, cell phone plan "fine print")? No one can talk that fast! Talk about "information overload", thanks to digital technology.
http://www.real-image.com/audio/others/purepit.asp
http://www.etro.vub.ac.be/Research/DSSP/dssp.htm
http://www.dspdimension.com/html/timepitch.html

Myb Bd shd us dgtl cmpr tch 4 Fm-Tk 2 sv bw n svr spc.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 09-19-2002, 09:49 AM:

Very Nice John !

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-19-2002, 12:10 PM:

How long before the Digital activists crawl out of their comfortably-ignorant woodwork and shout that if "IMAX was Digital and not on Film, Lucas could have fit the whole movie AND added scenes to it..."

=TMP=

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-19-2002, 01:26 PM:

Quote:

quote:
How long before the Digital activists crawl out of their comfortably-ignorant woodwork and shout that if "IMAX was Digital and not on Film, Lucas could have fit the whole movie AND added scenes to it..."

OK, I'll bite:

If IMAX was Digital and not on Film, Lucas could have fit the whole movie AND added scenes to it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-19-2002, 03:06 PM:

Paul Linfesty wrote: "If IMAX was Digital and not on Film, Lucas could have fit the whole movie AND added scenes to it."

If you had a higher resolution image to start with, a larger capacity server for digital projection would be just as much needed as a larger platter for film. Whether it's an image on film, or data in a server, higher resolution and better image quality will take more space. The image carrying capacity of a 70mm IMAX print far exceeds any current digital cinema format. For that matter, so does a 35mm print.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-19-2002, 04:15 PM:

My 80GB harddrive takes up for physical space than my 123GB drive.

So the longer digital movie might take up less 'space'.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-19-2002, 09:28 PM:

Physical space is usually not the issue. Having to purchase a new server system to handle higher resolution/less compressed data is the issue, just as a new platter system would be required for longer films that overfilled current platters.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-19-2002, 09:49 PM:

quote:
First, ILM has been working on the IMAX version for months now. The conversion will be better than the original one.

The DMR process is a proprietary technology of Imax, so I fail to see what ILM has to do with anything. Unless you're referring to the new/deleted content.

This is the movie that will tell us what DMR is made of. I walked out of a 35mm screening of AOTC after five minutes because the look of it made me want to puke. I fully intended to see it in DLP, but never quite made it.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-19-2002, 09:50 PM:

I know, I was joking... our QuBit server would probably have a 'heart attack' if it had to decode 'Imax Resolution'.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-19-2002, 10:26 PM:

Daryl wrote: "...our QuBit server would probably have a 'heart attack'..."

I've even witnessed "arrhythmia" with the one of the current Digital Cinema formats too (see the thread on "Digital Hiccups" when I saw "Ice Age" at the AMC Empire 25 in NYC last March).

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-20-2002, 08:58 AM:

I've seen SWEP2 in DLP studder and flash 5'x5' white squares. Oddly nothing I've ever seen from film.

Signs in DLP had more negative dirt than my 35mm prints.

"See it the last time, everytime. Only in DLP!"

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 09-20-2002, 10:36 AM:

What I meant by the ILM bit about them working on the IMAX version for months, was not that they were doing the conversion, but rather they had been working on resolution tweaking on the video source for months long before it went through the IMAX conversion.

Dave

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-20-2002, 11:02 AM:

What exactly did Lucasfilm deliver to IMAX for them to use with their proprietary DMR process to make the 65mm IMAX printing negative? Other than editing and adding the additional scenes, was it the same Digital Source Master (DSM) used for the May 35mm/DLP release, or did it need further "optimization" or "tweaking" by Lucasfilm?:

Here's a flow diagram to show the likely process:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/mastering.shtml

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-20-2002, 12:18 PM:

quote:
resolution tweaking on the video source

You mean something which should have been done for the 35mm release.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-20-2002, 01:31 PM:

Let us not forget that until now, IMAX productions usually originated on 65mm color negative film. For the sake of comparison, EVERY current Kodak Color Negative Film has a MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) response that extends well beyond 50 cycles per millimetre:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/negative/

Conservatively taking 50 cycles per millimetre as a measure of film's sharpness (it's usually greater), that translates to the equivalent of 6960 x 4859 pixels on the 2.74 x 1.913 inch (69.60 x 48.59 mm) projectable area of the IMAX film print. Other origination formats don't even come close!

Posted by James B. Openshaw (Member # 1310) on 09-20-2002, 04:13 PM:

I would rather see IMAX DMR put to good use on a movie like "Empire Strikes Back".

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-20-2002, 06:03 PM:

I saw this interesting tidbid in the current issue Boxoffice concerning converting "The Lion King" to IMAX. Quote is from Don Hahn, the film's original producer and supervisor of the IMAX version. Article doesn't mention anything about DMR though.

quote:
"When 'The Lion King' was made 10 years ago, it was drawn by hand but was archived digitally--so all 1300 or 1400 scenes are stored in such a way that we can actually increase the resolution and then reprint it on large-format, 15 perforation IMAX film with great resolution and pristine color. And or course we went through and looked at 80 or 90 different shots in the movie, where when we blew them up to the big screen [we saw] MAYBE CHARACTERS DIDN'T HAVE FACES (emphasis added), or there were some anomalies or color problems or things. In those cases, we went back in and corrected, fine tuned, touched up and changed little details......."

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-20-2002, 09:22 PM:

As wonderful as digital technology is, if the image detail is not captured when the scene is shot, it's just not there. Images can be "sharpened" with edge enhancement and deblurring algorithms, grain can be softened, and dust "busted", but "up-rezzing" an image cannot create real image detail that isn't there in the first place.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-20-2002, 09:43 PM:

Amen to what John said. Take a look at a Sony TV with "Digital Reality Creation" and see what it tries to do with up-rezzing standard NTSC video. The result is just not very good, and it's plain awful if the source signal quality isn't pristine. You can't take thousands of dynamically changing moving images and consistently up-rez them to always look "better" than the source material using canned software manipulation algorithms.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-20-2002, 10:13 PM:

Apples and oranges. Disney is not using the Imax DMR process.

They are using the same process for Lion King that they used for Beauty and the Beast -- when they archived the films as data files, they did so in such a way as to be able to up-rez it easily. The same concept as using vector imaging instead of pixels.

Someone else can probably explain this much better than I can, but I'm gonna try anyway. A very over-simplified explanation with many details skipped ...

If you've used Adobe Illustrator, you've used vector graphics. In a vector image, things such as lines are not stored as a series of pixels, but as a concept ... for example, a curved line is not a series of neighboring pixels, but a rendering of just a few points along the line and how they relate to each other.

So say your source material has a line with end points A and B that are X inches apart with point C in between (but not in line) Y inches from point A and Z inches from point B. There is an algorithm (or whatever) that can draw the curved line of A-C-B.

Take that same algorithm (or whatever) and take points A and B, placing them X feet apart and it can recalculate where point C should be based on values Y and Z and then re-draw the curved line of A-C-B on a larger scale.

You can see how this would work really well with animated material.

And now Bobby or Evans can un-confuse everybody.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-21-2002, 11:20 AM:

Animation is a special case (which you are probably right about though). I'm talking about live-action.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-21-2002, 04:02 PM:

I don't pretend to know how Imax DMR does it on live action, but I'm pretty impressed with the results on A13. Drive up to the Pacific Science Center or (if you can stand the 7.5 hour drive) come down to Sacramento to see it and I'll even give you a tour of the booth.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-21-2002, 08:49 PM:

The Super-35 mm film negative from "Apollo 13" is much sharper than movies shot with the Sony HDCAM format, so the DMR process has more image data to work with.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 09-22-2002, 04:03 AM:

So Apollo 13 is out?

Anyone know if its headed to this side of the pond?

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-22-2002, 05:24 AM:

Apollo 13 was released to 20 Imax theatres in the U.S. and two in Canada. No word yet on any worldwide releases.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-23-2002, 10:34 AM:

Leonard Maltin and his TV reviewer-partner both gave the Imax version of Apollo 13 very favorable comments. Maltin said the image quality is "fabulous" and the 19 minutes that were trimmed from the running time doesn't hurt the story.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-10-2002, 04:45 PM:

Ep2 opens in IMAX on Nov. 1st:
EP2-IMAX

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-07-2003, 12:55 PM:

Here is the final totals for the IMAX release of "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" The IMAX Experience.

It made $8,485,488.00 [Eek!]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-07-2003, 09:51 PM:

Sounds like it lost money or barely broke even.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-08-2003, 06:29 AM:

I think that is a pretty good total, considering that it was not a current film and that it played only a limited number of theatres.

The real test of things will be when THE MATRIX film open in 35 and IMAX simultaneously in November.

TREASURE PLANET opened in both formats, but that film was so bad it wouldn't have done business in any format.