This is topic Superman Returns 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=000135

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 03-31-2006, 08:38 AM:
 
Warner Bros. Pictures' Superman Returns to Become World's First Live-action Hollywood feature to be Converted into IMAX(R) 3D

Bryan Singer Film Makes History with IMAX's Proprietary 2D to 3D

Conversion Technology

LOS ANGELES, CA, March 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - IMAX Corporation and Warner Bros. Pictures today announced that Superman Returns, directed by Bryan Singer, will become the world's first live-action Hollywood feature to be converted from 2D to IMAX(R) 3D. IMAX Corporation will use its proprietary 2D to 3D conversion technology to convert approximately 20 minutes of the film into An IMAX 3D Experience(R), the most immersive cinematic 3D in the world.

"Releasing select sequences of Superman Returns in IMAX 3D marks a groundbreaking moment in movies," said Dan Fellman, President of Domestic Distribution at Warner Bros. Pictures. "This film is going to give fans an opportunity to be immersed in a major live-action motion picture like never before."

The epic action-adventure directed by Bryan Singer (X-Men, The Usual Suspects), will be transformed into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience(R) through IMAX DMR(R) (Digital Re-Mastering) technology. The film will be simultaneously released to IMAX(R) and conventional theatres on June 30, 2006. Warner Bros. Pictures will be the exclusive distributor of the film to the growing IMAX theatre network worldwide.

"The test scenes that have been converted into IMAX 3D look, sound and feel absolutely amazing," added Bryan Singer, Director of Superman Returns. "The magic of IMAX 3D will envelop audiences in this story, enabling them to feel the emotion, drama and suspense in a completely new and unique way."

During select sequences of the film, a visual cue designed by Singer will indicate when audiences should put on and remove their IMAX 3D glasses.

"We are delighted to partner with pioneering visionaries Bryan Singer and Warner Bros. Pictures to transform part of this highly anticipated release into An IMAX 3D Experience," said IMAX Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOs Richard L. Gelfond and Bradley J. Wechsler. "Today's announcement is a culmination of a great film, a great filmmaker, a great studio, and great technology - all working together to produce the most powerful and immersive cinematic experience available to moviegoers worldwide."

"Five out of the seven films in our 2006 line up now feature IMAX 3D," said Greg Foster, Chairman and President of IMAX Filmed Entertainment. "We are thrilled that moviegoers will be able to experience Bryan Singer's unique and exhilarating vision. Through the magic of IMAX 3D, they will feel as if they are actually flying alongside the man of steel, weaving in and out of Metropolis."

Following a mysterious absence of several years, the Man of Steel comes back to Earth in the epic action-adventure Superman Returns, a soaring new chapter in the saga of one of the world's most beloved superheroes. While an old enemy plots to render him powerless once and for all, Superman faces the heartbreaking realization that the woman he loves, Lois Lane, has moved on with her life. Or has she? Superman's bittersweet return challenges him to bridge the distance between them while finding a place in a society that has learned to survive without him. In an attempt to protect the world he loves from cataclysmic destruction, Superman embarks on an epic journey of redemption that takes him from the depths of the ocean to the far reaches of outer space.

Warner Bros. Pictures presents Superman Returns, directed by Bryan Singer and starring Brandon Routh (Clark Kent/Superman), Kevin Spacey, Kate Bosworth, James Marsden, Hugh Laurie, Sam Huntington and Eva Marie Saint. Written by Dan Harris and Mike Dougherty. Produced by Gilbert Adler, Jon Peters and Bryan Singer; co-produced by Stephen Jones; and executive produced by Chris Lee. Superman Returns is based on the DC Comic Book Superman.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-31-2006, 09:05 AM:
 
This is exciting and stupid at the same time. What the hell? Either do the whole movie in 3D, or don't do it in 3D at all! Doing it partially in 3D just adds to the "3D is a gimmic" mentality. Doing the entire movie in 3D would help to finally widdle away at that mentality.

I'm guessing that this is a last minute decision, and that there is a time constraint in doing the whole movie at this point. I only hope that maybe after seeing what's possible in this movie, others will start to jump on the 3D bandwagon again.

I'll definitely go see it, but the thought of seeing the whole thing in IMAX 3D... wow, that would have been really cool.

And now for a technical question... does this mean that they still need two eye prints, and that one will be mostly black slug? Or can the second eye start up mid show and catch up to the first projector in exactly the right spot?
 

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 03-31-2006, 02:58 PM:
 
Mark:

It depends on which IMAX system you are running. The MPX system has the capability to start and stop so the left eye would not have to be entirely black eye with the 3D print attached. With the SR systems, I think with some software upgrades, this system could do it also. SR do have this capability to a degree, with a changeover feature. But if you are running a GT,then you will be forced to use the black eye. Anyway they do this, it will be interesting and I hope not to distracting for the guests. Now that I think of it, the SR system will be able to run like the MPX system does, due to IMAX writing a software program for a theatre to do this. This program is property of the theatre, so I don't know how this will work out, but the technology is there for MPX and SR systems. We shall see what happens

[ 03-31-2006, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Bob Brown ]
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-31-2006, 05:25 PM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

I'm guessing that this is a last minute decision, and that there is a time constraint in doing the whole movie at this point.

---

Either that or the filmmakers assumed -- correctly -- that the audience will get sick of wearing the stupid glasses after a few minutes.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-31-2006, 09:06 PM:
 
I don't think the article used the word "convert" enough.

With Ant Bully, Open Season, Happy Feet, (apparently one more I can't seem to recall, unless it's refering to Deep Sea) and now Superman all full-feature 3D films this upcoming season, the whole ordeal for us is going to be a logistical nightmare, if not downright impossible, given our complete lack of print storage capabilities (and no room to build/install any), and limited platters. Opening one right after another, or--and this is really making me nervous--playing alternating shows on the same schedule, is going to be a feat for us operators if there ever were one.

Also, do we run the polarizer mount during the WHOLE show? It can't be mounted or removed while on screen without, in some way, obstructing the screen for a distracting moment ... but leaving it on the whole time means that the audience is going to fail to enjoy MOST of the feature as brignt and colorful as it should be.

I know this is just a press release so far, but I really hope that Warner Bros. and/or IMAX have given hefty thought to the practical issues and limitations on the operator side.

This ordeal screams "gimmick" and probably had all the execs wetting their pants when someone tossed out the idea. I, however, thought immediately about the extra 10 hours it would take me, pulling a necessary all-nighter, assembling just the 40 reels of black slug film!

Oh, wait, no, I'm not whining. This project excites me and I look forward to working on this, helping to immerse fans in a major live-action motion picture like never before!
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-31-2006, 09:07 PM:
 
They're also referring to this as an IMAX DMR conversion. But isn't that supposed to refer to a film conversion? Grain removal, etc?
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-31-2006, 11:13 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

or the filmmakers assumed -- correctly -- that the audience will get sick of wearing the stupid glasses

---

It's true that there are always a handful of people who boo-hoo about wearing glasses, but those people can always just pay the lower ticket price and see the 35mm show instead. I doubt that had any bearing on them deciding to only do part of the movie in 3D.

Putting the glasses on and taking them off is more distracting for the audience than just putting them on and leaving them on. Talk about being sucked out of the movie while you try to fumble around and find your glasses.

I wonder if all of the black slug reels will be individually numbered (if they do it that way).
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 04-01-2006, 12:28 PM:
 
re: numbering slug film...

Yeah, good question. I would think it would have to be ... with a leader so the person assembling the print knows where to splice. If the operator has to count frames for a whole feature ... that would be wonderful.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-18-2006, 05:20 AM:
 
So the assumption here is, when they say "conversion," are not just talking about the computer-to-film DMR transfer, they are actually about one of those new systems that Lucas is always crowing about which imports a 2D film image, does its digital thing, and out comes two images from the computer, one for each eye and (supossedly) 3D, correct?

Or were these sequences actually SHOT with a two camera 3D rig for REAL 3D?

While I won't go as far as to say I think making 2D into 3D CAN'T be done (usually the way the world works is, you can't make something from nothing....yes, digital zealots, even if you ARE using a computer -- remember what colorization looked like?), I am still very skeptical that 2D original can possibly look as good as REAL 3D shot with a dual eye perspective system.

So if it IS the propriatary 2D manipulated to simulate real 3D, then this SUPERMAN FINDS HIS WAY BACK will be the first commercial test of that process, right? It should be VERY interesting to see.

As for the headgear, I just saw THE DEEP and although the (real) 3D was spectacular, I must say that having to keep that clunky thing on my head any longer and it would have become a real problem. At the end of the hour that thing was actually causing discomfort (I have eyeglasses under it and the weight presses on the ears and the bridge of the nose enough to make it border on pain). The simpler polarization filter system was much less problematic. I saw two other 3D IMAX films using the passive filter system and they went totally unnoticed by me.

Are these two systems interchangable, i.e., is the projection system the same and you just need to swap out the LCD system for the filter system at the front end?

If it comes to pass that a full length feature is actually shot and presented in IMAX 3D, then I would really be worried about sitting for two hours with that thing on my head.

Another question for your IMAX whiz-kids....how did they come up with DMR, for Digital Re-Mastering? Wouldn't that be DRM not DMR or did someone have dyslexia? Or why isn't it DRT? for Digital Remastering Technology? Inquisitive minds want to know. And what exactly does IMAX stand for, if anything. I am thinking Maximum Eye....I-MAX.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 04-18-2006, 07:41 AM:
 
Yep, I think this is the first big roll-out of that 2D to 3D digital fakery. Well, maybe that's not true. Although it wasn't IMAX, I think Chicken Little was the first attempt. A second eye was not rendered from a second camera position, but the single eye movie was digitally fudged into two, to simulate 3D. It wasn't too bad, though ... but considering it wasn't live action, I can't vouch for how "realisic" the 3D was. Superman will be indeed interesting, and I'm curious for the same reasons.

The big, clunky headsets are both polarized as well as LCD flickering. The first IMAX system I worked with had them, and both filtering techniques were used simultaneously (and had ZERO ghosting because of it). If you viewed a movie with a normal set of, say, the paper polarized glasses (45 degree), you'd see double, since THOSE polarizers were 90 degree offset. However, there's no reason one couldn't mount 45 degree polarizers on the projector/port glass instead, in which case the cheapy-glasses would work for you, when everyone around you has the clunky headsets (which would no longer work right, since they're 90's!)

We don't have the shutter/LCD flicker system in the GT projector I work with now, so we'll be passing out the cheap, paper glasses. And since you'll only have to wear them for 20 minutes, it won't be very painful!

Although it's heresay, I've been going along with the knowledge that "Image Maximum" was the etymology behind the brand. Can't help you with the "DMR" thing, though. I agree, however. It was never made clear how the acronym fit.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-18-2006, 06:59 PM:
 
DMR=Digital Movie Remastering?

Is there a technical term for "grain" that starts with an "M"? If so it could be Digital M_____ Reduction.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-18-2006, 08:29 PM:
 
From looking around on the IMAX site, DMR does not seem to be an abbreviation or acronym. It is listed as being the NAME of the software that does the Digital Re-Mastering.

I don't think they would use DRM, as that is commonly known as Digital Rights Management, and it might get confusing.
 

---

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 04-20-2006, 10:22 AM:
 

quote:

---

We don't have the shutter/LCD flicker system in the GT projector I work with now, so we'll be passing out the cheap, paper glasses. And since you'll only have to wear them for 20 minutes, it won't be very painful!

---

quote: Dan Suomi

---

That is really sad to hear that you are going to go with the cheap paper 3D glasses. ...

---

quote: Dan Suomi

---

That is really sad to hear that you are going to go with the cheap paper 3D glasses. I think that really cheapens the experience and your guests will be not to happy either. I would be angry that I just paid 12-13 bucks to see Superman and you give me paper glasses, especially since I have seen IMAX 3D with the better glasses.

---

Dan, because the passive filter glasses may be "cheaper," that doesn't mean that they are not as capable of providing good left/eye separation as the massive active LCD headset gear; the passive system is good enough to avoid ghosting and that's all any glasses are supposed to do. Since the passive filters accomplish that, then their cost is irrelevant. It is the quality of the polarizing filter that us used in the frames that determines the effectivness of the 3D illusion.

And btw, they do make passive glasses in very nice plastic frame versions -- they don't all have to be made of paper. You are not getting cheated with the passive system as long as you see ghost-free 3D, and I can vouch for the fact that passive so-called "cheap" glasses can work beautifully. I saw THE LAST BUFFALO in the Vancouver IMAX and they used passive glasses. The 3D was perfect. I sat through 10 days of the World 3-D Film Expo a number of years ago in the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood and we watched 3 films a day and the 3D illusion was without eyestrain and had perfect separation without ghosting.

And again I contend that wearing the heavy LCD headgear for more than the short documentaries but for a full-length feature would become very uncomfortable whether you are fitting them over regular glasses or not.

The IMAX does included "surround" speakers built-in (or so I am told -- I never heard any surround on any of the films that I've seen where the headset was used), so I suppose you can say you don't get that with the passive glasses. On the other hand, if the presentation is using the passive system, then surround sound would be coming from surround speakers. You'd still get the surround sound; you wouldn't be missing anything either way.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 04-21-2006, 10:48 PM:
 
The speakers on the headsets were different channels than the "normal" surrounds. Not all 3D IMAX films offered it either.

--

As to the 2D to 3D conversion being done for a commercial film, wasn't there some testing of that on Siegfried & Roy: The Magic Box from 1999. Just one shot, and it was a tiger print or something (so, not humans). I seem to remember hearing or reading about that, back when I ran that film ... but perhaps it's a different process or something.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-22-2006, 12:43 AM:
 
I have a sneaky suspicion that if they were to just move an object - for example, Superman himself - in a shot, then even though you're basically looking at a 2D image in a 2D environment, your eyes and brain would be fooled just enough by the shading and tones and all of that for your brain to think it's seeing real 3D.

I imagine the hard part is reconstructing the part of the background that was hidden behind the object you moved. How do they do THAT? Is that something that has to be painted by hand?

I agree on the passive filters working just fine. Although after seeing Chicken Little with the circular polarized glasses, I think they do a better job with the ghosting than the linear glasses do. Circular glasses and the projector filters are more expensive though apparently.

If the IMAX field sequential LCD shutter glasses work anything like the Chicken Little field sequential thing, then I suspect a "strobing" effect is introduced, which I thought was annoying as hell. You might not be able to notice it in IMAX branded films because they generally try to avoid quick motion on the screen since the image is so big - they don't want to make their customers sick. However in a movie like Superman, quick motion on the screen will be there. You can be sure of that. And when the quick motion is there, the strobing effect will become much more noticeable - especially to the trained eye.

The only way to avoid the strobing is either a) make sure both the left eye and right eye are on the screen simultaneously - which is exactly what a field sequential LCD shutter system does NOT do, or b) make sure you don't move things on the screen too quickly, which you can't avoid in main stream movies.

Now maybe you're thinking that if you just up the frame rate, you can make the strobe go away. But if I remember correctly, Chicken Little was running at something ridiculous like 140 fps, and it still had strobing. The only Chicken Little presentation that didn't strobe was the one that used TWO DLP projectors to project the left and right eyes simultaneously, which was done at the El Capitan theater. Oh, and you can forget about upping the frame rate on IMAX anyway beyond where it is now. Can you imagine how much film would be required for a 48fps field sequentially printed two and a half hour 3D movie in the IMAX format??

Frank... sometimes it was FIVE films a day.

[ 04-22-2006, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Mark J. Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 04-23-2006, 09:28 AM:
 
Oh I wasn't refering to the big IMAX 3D head gear. I was refering to the IMAX XR Polarized glasses vs. old time paper glasses. I hate those big ones too, I saw Space Station 3D with those at Navey Pier in Chicago and I had such a headache half way through because of the weight.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 04-23-2006, 10:30 PM:
 
The downfall of Superman will be the putting on and taking off of glasses. Pain in the neck during a film especially if with kids.

Agree about the motion sickness, should be fun for floor staff (last time someone was sick in our site it took weeks to clear!), although like I always say when a customer thinks the volume is too loud, that's what you've paid for

Out of interest anyone know if Superman Returns or any new IMAX DMR presentations will end up in the UK? We missed out on Harry Potter and V for Vendetta in large format because of the stupid Odeon exclusive release policy in Central London.

Regarding Chicken Little the digital 3D on that suited the film well and was far better than anything I've seen in IMAX 3D. Probably made it worth paying for actually.

I know that a lot of people will say 70mm is better than digital however can a consistent 3D effect be created with print artefacts and deterioration and reel changes?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2006, 10:58 PM:
 
I am not sold on the 2D to 3D conversion thing.

The very fundamental physics of stereoscopic vision and how it works points to the 2D to 3D process being proposed having very unconvincing looking results.

With real 3D the objects have volume in 3D space. It's all but impossible to create that working with material shot natively in normal 2D process.

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann

---

Yeah, but that's not what they did with Chicken Little.

---

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

Out of interest anyone know if Superman Returns or any new IMAX DMR presentations will end up in the UK? We missed out on Harry Potter and V for Vendetta in large format because of the stupid Odeon exclusive release policy in Central London.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Even if you can successfully mask out and isolate all the objects in the frame, get them isolated on their own layers and able to animate in After Effects those objects are still going to look flat.

---

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann

---

Also, do we run the polarizer mount during the WHOLE show? It can't be mounted or removed while on screen without, in some way, obstructing the screen for a distracting moment ... but leaving it on the whole time means that the audience is going to fail to enjoy MOST of the feature as brignt and colorful as it should be.

---

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan

---

I know that a lot of people will say 70mm is better than digital however can a consistent 3D effect be created with print artefacts and deterioration and reel changes?

---

Yes. Between all of the Disney and Universal theme parks it's probably done several hundred times a day if not more.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-22-2006, 11:35 AM:
 
I think the noticeable change in light density would be masked quite easily by the audience putting their glasses on. That's enough of a momentary distraction. And if the automatic polarizer does it smoothly enough, I think it would be an effective switch.
 

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 05-22-2006, 12:04 PM:
 
Hey Brian:

From what I have been told from my Tech, the mechanical polorizer lifter will be mounted on the hood of the SR projectors and I am not sure where on the GT as I don't run one of those systems. They are using the same air driven piston that is now installed for the field flatters and will be controlled from the DTAC. DKP will be forwarding the exact time code numbers to load into the DTAC as an "event" in the events menu. Lets just hope that the numbers are correct. BTW, all my tech has seen is a picture of the contraption,I am scheduled for install at the end of the month. so this should be fun. Since this build will reach up to 100 reels of film, I wonder how much time, WB and IMAX will give us on this one????

What are your plans on the glasses issue? Are you going with the lanyards that IMAX is suggesting? We are still trying to figure out a good alternative.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-22-2006, 08:58 PM:
 
I'm not sure what you mean by lanyards. I haven't heard anything about that. But we are changing glasses from the ones we've been issuing for the past several 3D films. Instead of the disposable paper crappies, we're using multicolored plastic frame (in yellow, black, and red!), 45 degree polarized glasses starting with Superman.

Although I think a mechanical polarizer lifter would be cool, lined into the air system and triggered with a DTAC event, that hardly seems like a necessary upgrade. I mean, HOW MANY MOVIES are we going to be playing that will require a SWITCH from 2D to 3D and back mid-show?

For our GT system, where operators have access to the hood and front area of the projector while running (as opposed to, say, IMAX Dome theatres where the projector is transported to inaccessable Show Positions), it seems a simple, non-mechanical, sliding mount would be sufficient, manually operated at a point in the movie. We operate the lighting cues manually, in synch with the presentation. I would think a manual switch at, say, 02:16:54.23 would be easy enough. As operators, we're present with the projector at all times, right? Put us to work!

If this film is as long as Harry Potter & The GOF (which it really can't be longer than!), then that's 46 reels times two. And, by my calculations, 92 reels will take me (at my most time-efficient rate) between 18-20 hours assembly time alone. That's three overnight shifts, a fourth one to screen it, most likely. Poseidon's original delivery schedule from DKP was the DAY before our first public screenings (and luckily, we actually received the print two days before then!). I'd love to get the print a week before opening (which will undoubtedly be something like a 9:00pm and midnight show, that Thursday), but we'll see when DKP has 'em ready to go.
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 05-23-2006, 02:27 AM:
 

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann

---

I haven't been told any more specifics than this, but my guess is that the thing will slide polarized glass into and out of the mount "automatically" at the "manual" flick of a switch. Anyone know if it's any more complicated a mechanism than that?

---

Brian

It's quite a few years since I was in your theatre but I think I am right in saying that you have a port mounted polariser as opposed to the later hood mounted model.

In that case you will have a system that slides the polariser mount across using a pneumatic actuator.

The hood mounted polariser systems will have a rotating system to put the polariser across the 2D/3D eye, the black/3D eye polariser can remain in place all through the show.

Bizarrely ,as my base theatre is SR, I haven't seen the mod for that system but is probably similar to the hood mounted GT.

I know that there is also a power pack mod for some of the QTRU's but IIRC you had/have MkII's so not sure what happens with them.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-23-2006, 03:30 AM:
 
You're correct that we originally had the port-mounted polarizer. However, when the IMAX's were pulled from Edwards in 2001, our location had an 8/70 machine put in its place ... and the port glass was replaced with a 5' by 4' window, which remained when the IMAX was re-installed in 2003, and which we still have. Our polarizer is mounted to the hood.
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 05-23-2006, 08:14 AM:
 
Ah! I'd forgotten about the in and out IMAX story at your theatre. Put it down to old age. I must come back and visit next March/April after the GSCA conference

In that case you get the swinging polariser update. I am still waiting to see how the air lines are routed from the skinner valve to the actuator
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-28-2006, 03:03 AM:
 
We got in some information in the last few days:

It turns out that four different segments of the feature will be in 3D, and the segments TOTAL about 20 minutes. This means that a little green glasses icon will distract the audience four different times in 150 minutes, informing them to put on glasses. And five minutes after each of those times, a little red glasses icon will interrupt the 3D "experience" and glasses will have to be removed.

Information sheets with FAQ's were received with things for box staff to know and relay to customers, and things for a pre-show announcement to point out. They really want us to name drop Bryan Singer as the director, it seems.

At least we can have a handle on what the public will be paying for so we can tell them what to expect for their money.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-28-2006, 09:20 PM:
 
While I have seen some DMR IMAX films, the more I hear about this 3-D version, the less I'm being drawn into seeing it. Add that to the fact that SUPERMAN RETURNS was shot in HD, I'm figuring it won't look really good on this big a screen.
 

---

Posted by Tim Rectanus (Member # 3282) on 05-31-2006, 05:07 PM:
 
Hey, My first post. I will introduce myself soon but for now, be gentle, I bruise easily.

They moved the Superman release date to June 28th instead of the 30th. They also changed the Ant Bully 3D release to July 28th, a week earlier than the previously scheduled August 4th. That will be our first time having 2 DMR'd 3D movies to move on and off, should be fun, I guess you could call it fun.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-01-2006, 07:49 AM:
 
Our good friend, Harry Knowles, has provided us with the complete text of the Imax Superman FAQ. This page also shows a poster with the film advertised in IMAX 3D. Going to be LOTS of confusion about how much of the film will be 3D.

Ain't Harry Cool?

quote:

---

I. Key Messages and Q&A Reference Sheet for Box Office / Hosting Staff Get ready to experience the next step in the evolution of the world's most immersive movie-going experience - the introduction of live-action Hollywood film content in IMAX 3D in Superman Returns: An IMAX 3D Experience. This document will help you communicate infromation about the IMAX 3D version of Superman Returns to your customers so that their expectations are exceeded.

Fast Facts and Key Messages

-With Superman Returns: An IMAX 3D experience audiences will experience live-action Hollywood film content in IMAX 3D for the first time!

-Four special scenes have been selected by Bryan Singer the film's director to be shown in IMAX 3D

-Audience members will need to wear their 3D glasses for the four 3D scenes and for the movie preview trailers. (the glasses should be removed for the other portions of the movie.)

-There will be on-screen cues to direct the audience as to when they should put on and take off the glasses. The cues are:

-Green flashing glasses symbol - place glasses on

-Red flashing glasses symbol - take glasses off

Questions and Answers

Q: How much of Superman Returns: An IMAX 3D experience is shown in IMAX 3D?

A: 4 segments lasting approximately 20 minutes in total.

Q: How were the IMAX 3D scenes created?

A: These scenes were created from digitally enhanced 2D film images using patented IMAX technology. This process enables the conversion of almost any 2D film into IMAX 3D. The film's director, Bryan SInger, chose the scenes for you to see in 3D.

Q: Why were the glasses symbol chosen as the on-screen cue and not something else?

A: The Film's director selected this icon to allow for the least obtrusive cue possible and to maintain the integrity of the film.

Q: Why wasn't the whole film in 3D?

A: There wasn't enough time to convert the whole film given its production schedule. IMAX is working to improve the timing so it will be possible to fully convert entire films in the future.

Q: Which Hollywood films will be released in IMAX 3D next?

A: The next films to be released in IMAX theaters will all be full-length IMAX 3D animated features: The Ant Bully: An IMAX 3D Experience debuts on Aug 4th, Open Season: An IMAX 3D Experience debuts on Sept. 29th and Happy Feet: An IMAX 3D Experience debuts on Nov. 17th (or insert appropriate release dates for your theater.)

---

 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 06-01-2006, 08:19 AM:
 
Any word on if the black film will include framelines?
 

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 06-01-2006, 08:29 AM:
 
As of yesterday, DKP has not finished the DMR'ing. They hope that this will be completed sometime next week. No information was offered on specific questions put to DKP about this film.

BTW Joseph, What happened to your web site? I logged on to it, and I get a parking space
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 06-01-2006, 09:51 AM:
 
Bob,

I parted with my business partners and started a new one at www.kinotechnologies.com.

Joe
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-14-2006, 08:27 AM:
 
Soooo... I'm curious. Which eye will be the primary print?

And as for the other eye, will that be a complete full length print of all black film except for the 3D sequences? If so, that sucks.

Maybe in their efforts to "improve the timing so it will be possible to fully convert entire films in the future," IMAX can start by encouraging directors to SHOOT their movies in 3D in the first place. Then the timing problem would practically disappear.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-14-2006, 08:36 AM:
 
Over on 1570.com, it is reported that the left eye print will be all scenes, and the right eye print will be mostly black leader and the 3D segments, with the polarizer cues. Heath Poe posts it is on 90 reels with about 2 minutes of credits.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-14-2006, 09:53 AM:
 
Am I right in thinking that there will be no 2D Imax presentations?
 

---

Posted by Tim Rectanus (Member # 3282) on 06-14-2006, 11:06 AM:
 
No, As I understand it there will be 2D IMAX presentations of Superman Returns but only in places that do not have 3D capability. The only reason I say that is I heard that 2D theatres are getting their prints after the 3D theatres, which is hard to believe with the short Build time we will have. But It makes sense, 3D theatres have twice the work so they get the first shipments.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-14-2006, 12:13 PM:
 
Thanks, John. Also, are theaters using their existing polarizer filters modified with the swivel attachment, or are they receiving new polarized filters? My real question is, what is the configuration of the 3D glasses? ^, |_, circular, ...?
 

---

Posted by Tommie Evans (Member # 2674) on 06-14-2006, 03:08 PM:
 
I am guessing the 2D to 3D conversion would either be a pain staking frame be frame process similar to rotoscoping or color-timing or partly aided by computer image interpolation.

If you examine a series of frames taken from a camera moving left to right it is easy to see that one or two previous frames will be close to the left eye view and the current frame will be the right eye. i.e.:

left eye = Frame X-1 Right eye = Frame X

(data is easily extracted for the conversion process)

This is based on the camera moving at a constant speed in a horizontal direction (most 3D is taken from two images with a horizontal offset) and the subject matter does not change. It is simple to create a software program to analyze and combine two frames of film to achieve a 3D frame.

However, each frame of film will have depth, perspective, focus, motion, subject movement and colour changes. Complicated pixel interpolation may come into play filling in the missing gaps between L/R eye. and/or expanding areas of the image especially in the foreground and background. This creates two images out of one, each tilted and distorted to generate the illusion of depth when combined. Also motion tracking algorithms may look a couple of frames in advance to ensure fluid 3-D motion.

A similar effect was used on the Matrix Trilogy flo-mo sequences to add frames to the sequence i.e. from 125 still camera shots 5-6 interpolated frames were added between frames to smooth the effect and or speed up/slow down the movement of the camera/action. This process works for a single image, however using pixel by pixel interpolation and pixel/motion tracking enough data can be provided to create a believable 3D image?
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-14-2006, 04:37 PM:
 

quote:

---

^, |_, circular, ...?

---

I don't believe any IMAX systems use a circular polarization. But, to use your notation, our location has ^ and will still use ^ after the upgrade.

We're scheduled to receive our print on Saturday the 24th. We have a screening for Pepsi/Power106 on Monday the 26th at, like, 8:00pm. Polar Express 3D took me a total of 21 hours to assemble, which was 60 reels total. (Granted, that's when I still took the time to properly paint the splices, which had to dry before taping ... a practice I've abandoned--due to numerous late print delivery times--in honor of a quick Sharpie on the very points of the splice, just to eliminate all time that's not used actually loading film.) This one's 90-92, with three trailers. I'm excited! I'm supposed to do this without exceeding 12-hour shifts per day? I think I may get some double-time pay out of this, if this has to be done properly.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-14-2006, 05:28 PM:
 
In terms of footage, how long is an Imax reel in comparison to a 35mm reel?
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-14-2006, 06:14 PM:
 
3-3.5 minutes versus (as I recall) 17-20 minutes. IMAX is also 24 frames per second.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-14-2006, 06:45 PM:
 
Brian, what would that translate to in terms of actual physical length?
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-14-2006, 07:01 PM:
 
15 sprockets per frame as opposed to 4 sprockets per frame. The mathematics are left to you. I'm sure these technical details of the format have been covered many times in more appropriate threads.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 06-15-2006, 12:12 AM:
 
I don't want to hear a peep out of Warner Bros. about how expensive these prints were to strike.

And here's the list of venues scheduled to show "Superman Returns" in IMAX (& IMAX 3-D, well, sort of).
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 06-15-2006, 01:26 AM:
 

quote: Mike Schindler

---

Brian, what would that translate to in terms of actual physical length

---

1570 24FPS runs at 337.5 feet per minute so 3 minutes = 1012.5 feet

That means a 2D 150 minute feature is 50625 feet therefore Superman Returns 3d weighs in at just over 100000 feet of Mr Eastman's finest 70mm stock.

Should put a smile on John P's face
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-15-2006, 03:13 AM:
 
And just shy of half that is going to be the finest quality blacked-out slug that money can buy!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-15-2006, 07:30 AM:
 
Indeed, Kodak's manufacturing folks have been very busy making an additional 5 million feet of 70mm print film for this production. Who said "70mm is Dead"? It's just been reborn in another format.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-15-2006, 07:55 AM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

And here's the list of venues scheduled to show "Superman Returns" in IMAX

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

I'm kind of excited about this. But for all of this work and expense on the presentation side, to not shoot the thing in 3D and/or 65mm in the first place is profoundly lame.

---

quote: Paul Linfesty

---

The Regal stack ad in the Fresno Bee indicates that it will play at the Edwards Theatre there in IMAX 3-D

---

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann

---

Yep, it's my understanding that Fresno is opening IMAX 3D just in time for this release.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

So does this mean that the Valencia location is now IMAX-less?

---

I would hope not. The Valencia location is the only IMAX theatre within driving distance to me.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-15-2006, 08:10 PM:
 

quote: Dick Vaughan

---

1570 24FPS runs at 337.5 feet per minute so 3 minutes = 1012.5 feet

---

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

A couple of the "take glasses off" cues are a bit hard to see.

---

There's a reasonable explanation for this: either one eye goes black, which is the only eye that flashes the red "take glasses off" symbol, while the other eye sees the movie properly, before the polarizer swings away ... OR ... (if the polarizer timing was adjusted), it swings away immediately before the right-eye goes black, which allows both eyes to see an image which is mostly the left-eye print's main movie images, with the right-eye's flashing symbols difficult to make out because they're superimposed (dimly) on the screen, PLUS the fact that the polarizer that swung out of the way is now obscuring the right eye deck THAT MUCH MORE, because it is held in front of that lens. There was a lot of thought to this upgrade, and it makes some sense (because it allows the left-eye print to play alone as a 2D), but it's hardly perfect from a presentation standpoint.

I've been sitting on these for a few days, but here are some images from the Superman Returns IMAX debacle ...

The print came in a total of 88 reels, 44 per eye. The right eye was mostly black slug, in the red-labeled boxes.



When the print assembly was completed, there was a pile of plastic bags which had held all the reels, and the unfolded boxes which is, I'm sure, a good deal of recyclable cardboard.



The 3D sequences are indicated by three symbols displayed along the bottom of the right eye print frame.



The four 150-minute 72" platters of the QTRU, at full speed during the beginning of the presentation; two feed, two take-up. (A 120-minute platter is leaning against the wall on the right.)



I've got a video of these things ramping up, but I'll have edit it first and adjust contrast/brightess settings to make it presentable before I link to it, or send it to Brad for posting, or something. These things sure do haul ass!
 

---

Posted by Tim Rectanus (Member # 3282) on 07-02-2006, 09:45 AM:
 
Brian, what clamps are those that you are using? Are those the unadjustable screw in ones that just look like one continuous thing at speed or is that actually a continuous piece around the whole print. I have seen those for 35mm platters, I think, but not for 70mm. and Is your booth as large as it looks in that picture? {Insert witty joke here}

Superman has been a bit of an ordeal but the crowds that are coming makes it all worth it, well most of it at least. Maybe the concessions sales make up for the rest of it. As problems go, "I can't find seat" is a good one to have, from our perspective at least. Superman really may Save the Day for a few theaters.

BTW, do other Large Format theaters have problems/complaints/protests from 35mm houses when they get DAY AND DATE Hollywood releases?
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-02-2006, 02:05 PM:
 
Yep, each print is fitted with eight of the screw-in clamps. That's not a single band, that's just the speed they're spinning ... well, the extended exposure necessary from the camera in order to get a decent light reading, that sure helped the illusion.

And our booth really is not too cramped, despite the angle of the picture.

Yes, the large crowds are what make it all worth it! The IMAX is the only auditorium selling out (546 seats) for this movie, and each day so far has seen the last available day's tickets all sold by noon or 1:00pm. They all cheer and laugh and leave happy! (Well, at least they all did when we finally got our auditorium's AC up to 100%) The funny part is people excited over a movie like this usually cheer after the trailers, when the feature begins. We get people booing at that point! Surely, however, it's due to the first "remove your glasses" prompt.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-02-2006, 08:31 PM:
 
Not sure how the 3D bits fit in or if the opening titles open the film, but maybe the opening should have been 3D as well? Kind of sad for anyone involved to have the start of the film booed...if Michael Bay had directed it, this would make sense, but...


 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-18-2006, 09:04 AM:
 
Well, I finally got a chance to catch this last night at the UA King Of Prussia Stadium 16. This was, I think, my third time seeing this movie, and it was kind of late (10:30 show) and I was a little tired, so take all of that into account when reading my review.

First of all, unlike Brian's theater, these guys did change their polarizer config from |_ to /\, which was cool, because I got to wear my comfortable glasses that I bought for Jeff's first 3D festival. And it's always fun to tell the ticket taker that I don't need the glasses. Unfortunately, they told me that the polarizer config was only changed for this one movie. Every other customer was given the cheapo theme park ride square glasses.

The picture seemed a little softer than other DMR films in my opinion. While some of the other films went from extremely sharp to a little soft, this one stayed relatively consistantly soft throughout the show. I'm not sure if I prefered it that way or not. And I could have swore that I detected some blown up film grain in a couple of shots too. Are we sure that the whole thing was shot in HD? The volume was a little low for IMAX standards I thought, but that was probably the operator's fault. COME ON GUYS, I WANT TO HEAR THAT BOOMING SUPERMAN MARCH BLOWING ME THROUGH THE BACK OF THE THEATER WHEN I SEE IT IN IMAX!!!

As for the 3D, I have mixed feelings on that. Going in, I had the experience of seeing a lot of dual strip 3D films in 35mm at Jeff's festival, and at Pete's theater. I've also seen the 70mm 3D stuff at Disney World and Universal Studios about a hundred times, and I've seen a few IMAX 3D films as well. All were dual strip, and all were actually FILMED that way to begin with. I was a little skeptical about the possibility of converting a 2D image to 3D. Now, having seen this movie, I can tell you that it can be done. But it looks like it might be a pain staking process right now which needs some refining.

There were a couple of "money" 3D shots. Some close ups of Lois Lane looked absolutely realistic and phenomenal. Some of the other shots looked forced, and totally off. But most of the shots were somewhere in between. There was at least one shot that I caught where the background looked like a two dimensional rear projection screen behind the action. You actually see that quite a bit in the old 3D westerns from the 50s, but the difference is that back then, it actually WAS a rear projection screen behind the stage coaches. In this case, the film makers probably either ran out of time or overlooked it.

But that all has to do with the 2D to 3D conversion technique. Given the money shots, I believe that this is something that can be done. But it might not be something ready for prime time. I guess we'll know next year when Star Wars comes out. But even that will be plauged with the field sequential flickering problem that's inherent in the DLP systems.

To make matters worse, something was off with the 3D in this theater. Either the operators threaded it wrong, or the projectors aren't in sync for some reason. I don't know enough about IMAX projectors to speculate what the problem could have been. All I can tell you is that the left eye was VERY SLIGHTLY ahead of the right eye. This created a very annoying flickering effect almost like the field sequential flickering effect of DLP. This was only really noticeable to the average viewer during shots where there was a lot of motion on the screen, like the plane crash scene. But somehow, I detected it from the first shot of the green band for the first trailer. For a while, all I knew was that there was a problem, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. Eventually I spotted the left eye being ahead of the right. I don't believe that it was off by a full frame though because that's painfully obvious when that happens. Maybe the shutters are out of sync? No idea. One of our IMAX gurus can comment.

Anyway, it was "neat". It was "cool". But overall, I was under impressed by the lack of consistancy in the quality of the 3D shots, and the out of sync problem. But the money shots do give me hope that one day this process will be perfected.

Edit: Here's my other two questions that I forgot to mention:

1... Why even take the glasses off for the 2D scenes? Once the polarizer swings out of the way, you can see the left eye print with both eyes anyway, so what's the point of the distraction? Did they just want to say to the audience "Here comes a 3D scene, so get ready!" ?

And 2... Is there a changeover that closes on the right eye while it's black, or is the black film from the right eye print being projected on top of the left eye print?

[ 07-18-2006, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Mark J. Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-18-2006, 03:14 PM:
 
Wearing the glasses the whole time would prevent you from seeing the image as bright and colorful as it's being projected. And it's not healthy for your eyes anyway.

The black right eye is projected during the whole film, however, if they are using the same polarizer set up, that black is filtered through two polarizer plates as well (since the left eye swings up into the right eye path).

If the right eye wasn't a full frame off, then it had to be in synch (if it was a GT system, with both eyes playing physically off the same rotor). I don't know how the SR's play together, since those are physically different projectors for each eye. I don't know what system King of Prussia uses. My guess is that, whatever their system, it was indeed a frame off. I couldn't know for sure without seeing it myself.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-19-2006, 12:06 PM:
 
Thanks, Brian.

Good points on the glasses and the right eye projection. I hadn't considered those things.

Given how big those prints are, and how fast they're spinning, if they do have a problem where they thread it one frame off, and then they spot the problem, how difficult is it to stop the show and re-thread to fix it?

I have some younger cousins coming to visit me next week, and I may take them to see it. We'll see if the problem is still there. I'll also ask which system they have at KOP.
 

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 07-19-2006, 01:56 PM:
 
Mark:

By reading your description, I really sounds like one of the "eyes" was off by one frame. This really should be caught at the thread up as one eye will not show "Picture Start when looking into the lens, but things happen in certain booths. There is an outside chance that the motor controller may be failing, but this should trigger the system to generate a E-Stop. I run SR projectors, and as Brian has stated, his projector is a GT where the twin rotors are stacked and locked together, where the SR system has two projectors with just one rotor each. I have during test screenings, had a 3D print jump out by one frame, and it sure is noticeable. I am sorry that you had to sit thur this less the desirable show. Hope your next visit is much better.....
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-19-2006, 03:25 PM:
 
Yeah, see.... I'm going to go out on a limb and guess they have an SR then and that they were off a little bit. But I'll ask which system they have when I get there, and report back.

Thanks, fellas.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-24-2006, 10:46 AM:
 
When I saw Superman, I noticed my cousins and a few people near me expressed initial disappointment at how much smaller the projected image was going to be. I wasn't since I knew about the letterboxing. I was actually glad to hear my cousin remark what I was thinking inside - a conventional 70MM movie in a big scren would be the same size as the IMAX presentation without the odd seating layout.
It's too bad Hollywood neglected 70MM over the years. If people are willing to pay 12 bucks for an IMAX version, I would assume they would pay 10 bucks for a 70MM version. They could always jazz up the name.
 

---

Posted by Jason Setzer (Member # 3949) on 10-01-2006, 07:39 PM:
 
What was everyones build time for Superman?
 

---