This is topic 300 to be next DMR 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=000155
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 01-25-2007, 03:09 PM:
 
Here's the press release
 
Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 01-25-2007, 08:08 PM:
 
Sounds exciting. Too bad they shot it in Super 35.

(The above press release below)

quote:
Warner Bros. Pictures' 300 to be simultaneously released as IMAX(R) film in March 2007
Thursday January 25, 1:32 pm ET

LOS ANGELES, CA, Jan. 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - IMAX Corporation and Warner Bros. Pictures today announced that the highly anticipated film 300, a Mark Canton/Gianni Nunnari Production directed by Zack Snyder and based on the epic graphic novel by Frank Miller, will be simultaneously released domestically to both IMAX® and conventional theatres on March 9, 2007. The film will be digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience® and Warner Bros. Pictures will be the exclusive distributor of the film.
"Warner Bros. Pictures and the filmmakers are very excited to bring this unique cinematic experience to both conventional and IMAX theatres this spring," said Dan Fellman, President of Domestic Distribution at Warner Bros. Pictures. "The immersive IMAX Experience will transform this film, offering audiences an alternative way to view this highly-charged picture."

"300 is an exciting event film which includes many aspects that we believe will appeal to commercial audiences," said IMAX Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOs Richard L. Gelfond and Bradley J. Wechsler. "As a great partner to IMAX, Warner Bros. Pictures has provided many fantastic films that have resulted in significant incremental box office revenue for IMAX exhibitors, and we look forward to continuing this tradition."

"We are delighted that 300 will be the first feature motion picture to open in IMAX theatres in 2007," added Greg Foster, Chairman and President of IMAX Filmed Entertainment. "Audiences that experience 300 in IMAX's immersive format will feel as if they were actually with the Spartans as this larger-than-life epic story unfolds."

Based on the epic graphic novel by Frank Miller, "300" is a ferocious retelling of the ancient battle of Thermopylae in which King Leonidas (Gerard Bulter) and 300 Spartans fought to death against Xerxes and his massive Persian army. Facing insurmountable odds, their valor and sacrifice inspire all of Greece to unite against their Persian enemy, drawing a line in the sand for democracy. The film brings Miller's (Sin City) acclaimed graphic novel to life by combining live action with virtual backgrounds that capture his distinct vision of this ancient historic tale.

Warner Bros. Pictures presents in association with Legendary Pictures and Virtual Studios, a Mark Canton/Gianni Nunnari Production, "300". Directed by Zack Snyder (Dawn of the Dead), the film stars Gerard Butler (Phantom of the Opera), Lena Headey (The Brothers Grimm), David Wenham (The Lord of the Rings trilogy), and Dominic West (The Forgotten).


 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2007, 02:05 PM:
 
Super 35, eh?

I suspect film wasn't involved at all in the making of 300. The movie used many of the same techniques seen in Sin City, which was digitally videographed.

Super 35 or not, I see no point at all in blowing up this movie to IMAX format. It's probably just as likely to look blurry and wanting of detail just like Superman Returns, especially likely if the movie was shot digitally.

I'm sorry to say this, but if IMAX can't get any native 15/70 movies into their theaters and just keep up with this blurry blow-up baloney I won't be too sad to see those theaters disappear.
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-26-2007, 04:51 PM:
 
Agreed, Bobby. Another problem with DMR'ing major studio films is that they feature a lot more flashy camera moves and quick edits. The huge screen takes much more time to absorb information, leaving me a bit unconscious. It becomes confusing. While the quality of BATMAN BEGINS looked like the best of the 70mm blow-up era, it was still hard to follow due to the immense size. There was an IMAX do's and don'ts I saw several years ago for directors and cinematographers. These DMR blow-ups break all these rules, of course. They just weren't made for the IMAX screen.
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 01-26-2007, 05:28 PM:
 
This is a big one that will get people coming in during a somewhat dry season. BUT, in the next month, we're also presenting Hurricane on the Bayou and Roving Mars; and they certainly are not DMR movies. Hopefully we can book more of these, but I'm pleased to have a full booking like this. Dinosaurs 3D: Giants of Patagonia is also opening in March.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-29-2007, 11:48 PM:
 
Commercial/DMR IMAX Release List updated. The 2007 slate thus far looks like:

quote:

300 Warner Bros. / Mar. 9 / 2.39:1 (Super-35)
HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX Warner Bros. / July 13 / 2.39:1 (Super-35)
SPIDER-MAN 3 Sony / May 4 / 2.39:1 (Super-35)

 
Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 02-02-2007, 12:33 PM:
 
We just booked this print at my IMAX SR theatre here in Lansing MI. I am really looking forward to this one. With Michigan State University about 5 miles away, with 45,000 "Spartans" on campus, I thinking a clever marketing campaign is in order. Any ideas?
 
Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 02-09-2007, 03:41 PM:
 
I heardthat only 40 prints are being made, so not everyone is able to get one. Has anyone else heard this?
 
Posted by Tim Rectanus (Member # 3282) on 02-13-2007, 03:31 PM:
 
I heard there was going to be a limited number of prints, as well, although I don't recall ever hearing a number. We won't be one of the 40, although I wish we could get it. I would like to see it but the Strong R and the fact that we are technically a Children's Museum mean that I will have to travel to catch this one. Newman!
 
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 02-14-2007, 05:16 AM:
 
Talking to a friend this evening, he stated that he has never been to an IMAX theater and was thinking that 300 would be a good film to go and visit one out of town. Locally, this film has a ton of buzz, and since we are not opening it, I would echo his thoughts. The film looks great, has a solid cast, and seems like it would be a lot of fun on the REALLY big screen.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-18-2007, 07:13 AM:
 
I don't know about you guys, but I am watching the TV spots for this thing and there isn't a thing about this film that looks even remotely interesting to me. Guys on horses with painted faces yelling "FREEDOM" at the top of their lungs ala Gibson in BRAVEHEART, it's already a cliche and I am sorry, but really boring. It's hard for me to get interested in such remote, foreign subject matter unless there is very powerful, compelling storyline about people who are interesting that goes along with the action. Action has to be subserviant to the storyline. This doesn't look like it qualifies.

It's one thing to grab a title like HARRY POTTER for DMR which has a built-in presale, but come on....300? Even the title is bland and uninteresting. Nothing at all in their marketing campaign so far has sparked even a mild interest in me to go see it. But then again, nothing in the BRAVEHEART trailers made me want to go see that either.

And I totally agree with Paul that this kind of action feature is probably the worst type of film for DMR conversion precisely because of the excessive action and quick cuts. You have to know that those battle scenes are going to have plently of hand-held shots and sweeping camera moves. And that stuff gets very old very quickly in an immersive IMAX presentation, especially when it's not specifically shot for that huge format in mind. Just from the trailer you can tell they are not shying away from extreme close-ups in the battle scenes. Keep that up for 2 hours and people are going to be asking for IMAX barf bags.

As for using a DMR presentation as the first experience of IMAX for an IMAX virgin, well that would really be a shame. How underimpressed is he going to be seeing this blurry bastardization of what a 15/70 IMAX image can really look like? Do your friend a favor and wait till you can bring him to a IMAX presentation that originated on 15/70 film.

And surely this CAN'T be a video blowup, can it? Can DMR be expected to simply generate detail where there isn't any -- isn't that against the laws of physics or something? If it this production did originate in video, and that's what IMAX has been reduced to, then I am afraid Bobby is right -- IMAX is doomed, and all the DMR computer tricks to get marketable product on the screen is not going to save them. IMHO.

Hey how about shooting on 16mm and letting DMR convert THAT to IMAX -- at least the aspect ratio would be correct.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-18-2007, 01:36 PM:
 
Frank, I too had very little interest in this movie. I liked the people involved with it, but the subject matter didn't appeal to me. However, I read the book yesterday, and it wasn't bad at all.

Also, I haven't seen the trailer, but I don't think we have to worry too much about quick cuts and hand-held work, because they shot it ala SIN CITY, recreating panels of the comic as closely as possible on screen. So that should lend itself to a lot of lockdowns.

And have no fear, it was shot on film.
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 02-18-2007, 04:27 PM:
 
We screened this one last night. I didn't watch it, because I too don't care enough or find enough interest to sit through it. But I checked in often enough (ie: stood up and peered through the port) to see it was in sync and built properly. A lot of people were interested in sitting in on the screening, though; so somehow the word has spread and generated some interest. They liked it, I think.

This one was matted Scope as expected, but it's actually framed mid-screen, whereas most previous movies were matted lower in the frame. Not sure why.
 
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 02-19-2007, 12:37 PM:
 
Matting lowere on the frame allows for a more natural viewing field on dome screens. My guess is they're not anticipating this to show on any domes.
 
Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 02-20-2007, 09:29 PM:
 
quote: Frank Angel
How underimpressed is he going to be seeing this blurry bastardization of what a 15/70 IMAX image can really look like?
Where you getting blurry from? I have yet to see a DMR that is blurry. Maybe it's poor presentation at the theater you seen DMR at.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-22-2007, 01:39 PM:
 
I saw this in Imax last night. I can't say I've ever been bothered with the size of Imax during a DMR movie, and 300 is no exception. There's not much in the way of quick cuts, and I can't recall a single hand-held shot in the entire movie. As for the DMR process, they keep getting better and better. Still a little bit of digital mushiness and edge enhancement, but way better than anything you're gonna get in 35mm.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2007, 01:43 PM:
 
I have seen at least one "DMR" feature that looked CRAPPY at a properly set-up IMAX theater: Superman Returns.

That movie simply did not have the native resolution that is required of such a big screen. I think that lack of detail also worked to undermine the quality of the faux-3D sequences. Edges on objects closer in the foreground were blurry and not well defined. On top of that, the editing pace was too fast for the big screen (especially the spastic fast-forward speed 3D renderings in the opening titles -rendered at a resolution even too low for 2K D-Cinema purposes, hence all the pixellation on the title lettering).

Even for movies shot on film, such as The Matrix: Reloaded not enough native detail was there for 15/70 use. Compromises wound up being made to the imagery. Something akin to a low-pass filter was used in many scenes to artificially sharpen imagery. But that filter use wound up collapsing color bandwidth in the shadows and made some images look as though they had taken a run or two through a photo-copier. Not good.

If this whole IMAX DMR thing is going to get continually more use, movie studios must seriously consider 4K digital intermediates and 4K CGI standards at the bare minimum. Shooting live action on 65mm or VistaVision 8/35 and rendering CGI at higher levels like 6K and 8K would do a LOT better for giant screen presentation.
 
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-23-2007, 06:55 PM:
 
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
Matting lowere on the frame allows for a more natural viewing field on dome screens. My guess is they're not anticipating this to show on any domes.
umm also on normal Imax screens. what a horrible idea, one thing about imax and even just stadium seating is that one does not have to look up!

Imax corp camera rentals
quote:
What special framing considerations do I need to consider when filming in 15/70?

Since the IMAX frame is 10 times larger than a standard 35mm frame you must ensure that everything in frame is as pristine and authentic as possible. The smallest details on a poorly dressed set become very apparent on the large screen. The sweet spot of the frame is in the bottom 1/3, framing for the center or above the center will cause the audience to constantly look up thus giving them a stiff neck.

When framing with the 30mm lens it is important to stay away from subjects with strong vertical lines such as tall buildings and trees as they will distort in the shape of a banana. The IMAX camera viewfinder reticle has guideline markings to assist in framing IMAX and IMAX Dome with minimum and maximum cut-offs as well as an optical centre and horizon lines.

 
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 02-27-2007, 04:31 PM:
 
Five friends and I are going to see this at the Star Cinemas IMAX in Madison, WI on Saturday March 10th. I've only seen a few IMAX films in my life, and I'm not yet a projectionist, but I do have quite a critical eye when it comes to picture quality... so I'll be sure to add my two cents when I get back from it. [Smile]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2007, 09:06 PM:
 
quote: Dan Suomi
Where you getting blurry from? I have yet to see a DMR that is blurry. Maybe it's poor presentation at the theater you seen DMR at.
The IMAX DMR process can deliver excellent quality, but compared to well done 65mm 15-perf format origination, some would argue it is "blurry". When it comes to origination formats, size DOES matter.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-28-2007, 12:07 AM:
 
quote: Dan Suomi
I heardthat only 40 prints are being made, so not everyone is able to get one. Has anyone else heard this?
quote: Tim Rectanus
I heard there was going to be a limited number of prints, as well, although I don't recall ever hearing a number.
I'm aware of 43 U.S. and Canadian IMAX bookings of "300" as of Feb. 26.

[EDIT: List revised 3/1 to reflect new information.]
[EDIT: Post edited 3/9 to add link to article]
The IMAX DMR Engagements Of "300"

UNITED STATES (Released March 9, 2007)

ARIZONA
Phoenix: AMC Loews Deer Valley 30 IMAX

CALIFORNIA
Dublin: Regal Hacienda Crossings Stadium 20 & IMAX
Fresno: Regal Edwards Fresno Stadium 21 & IMAX
Irvine: Regal Edwards Irvine Spectrum 21 & IMAX
Los Angeles (Westchester): National Amusements The Bridge: Cinema de Lux IMAX
Ontario: Regal Edwards Ontario Palace Stadium 22 & IMAX
Sacramento: Esquire IMAX
San Francisco: AMC Loews Metreon IMAX
Universal City: AMC Loews Universal Citywalk IMAX

COLORADO
Colorado Springs: Cinemark IMAX Theatre at Carefree Circle
Denver: Regal UA Colorado Center 9 & IMAX

CONNECTICUT
Manchester: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Buckland Hills IMAX

FLORIDA
Tampa: Regal Channelside Cinemas & IMAX

GEORGIA
Buford: Regal Mall of Georgia Stadium 20 & IMAX

IDAHO
Boise: Regal Edwards Boise Stadium 21 & IMAX

ILLINOIS
Batavia: Goodrich Randall 15 IMAX
Chicago: Navy Pier IMAX
Lincolnshire: Regal Lincolnshire Stadium 20 & IMAX
Woodridge: Cinemark IMAX Theatre at Seven Bridges

INDIANA
Evansville: Showplace Cinemas East 18 IMAX
Portage: Goodrich Portage 16 IMAX

KANSAS
Olathe: AMC Loews Studio 30 IMAX

KENTUCKY
Louisville: National Amusements Cinema de Lux 20: Stonybrook IMAX

LOUISIANA
Covington: O’Neil Holiday Square Cinema 12 & IMAX

MASSACHUSETTS
Natick: Comcast IMAX Theater at Jordan’s Furniture
Reading: Comcast IMAX Theater at Jordan’s Furniture

MICHIGAN
Grand Rapids: Loeks Celebration! IMAX Grand Rapids North
Lansing: Loeks Celebration! IMAX Lansing
Sterling Heights: AMC Loews Forum 30 IMAX
Ypsilanti: National Amusements Showcase Cinemas Ann Arbor IMAX

MINNESOTA
Apple Valley: Great Clips IMAX Theatre at the Minnesota Zoo
St. Michael: CineMagic Metropolitan IMAX

MISSOURI
Sappington: Wehrenberg Ronnies 20 Cine IMAX

NEVADA
Las Vegas: Brendan Theatres and IMAX at the Palms

NEW YORK
Gates: Cinemark IMAX Theatre at Tinseltown USA
New Rochelle: Regal New Roc City 18 & IMAX
New York (Manhattan): AMC Loews Lincoln Square IMAX
West Nyack: IMAX Theatre at Palisades Center
White Plains: National Amusements City Center 15: Cinema de Lux IMAX
Williamsville: Regal Transit Center Stadium 18 & IMAX

OHIO
Columbus: AMC Loews Easton Town Centre 30 IMAX
Springdale: National Amusements Springdale 18: Cinema de Lux IMAX

OKLAHOMA
Tulsa: Cinemark IMAX Theatre at The Tulsa

PENNSYLVANIA
King of Prussia: Regal UA King of Prussia Stadium 16 & IMAX
Tarentum: Cinemark IMAX Theatre at the Galleria at Pittsburgh Mills

TENNESSEE
Nashville: Regal Opry Mills Stadium 20 & IMAX

TEXAS
Colleyville: Metro Cinema IMAX + Indigo Grille
Dallas: Cinemark IMAX Theatre at Cinemark 17
Houston: Regal Edwards Marq*E Stadium 23 & IMAX
San Antonio: Santikos Palladium 19 IMAX

UTAH
Sandy: Megaplex 17 IMAX at Jordan Commons

WISCONSIN
Fitchburg: Star Cinemas IMAX

CANADA (Released March 9, 2007)

ALBERTA
Calgary: Cineplex Paramount Chinook IMAX
Edmonton: Cineplex SilverCity West Edmonton Mall IMAX

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Langley: Cineplex Colossus Langley IMAX
Richmond: Cineplex SilverCity Riverport IMAX

NOVA SCOTIA
Halifax: Empire IMAX

ONTARIO
Mississauga: Cineplex Coliseum Mississauga IMAX
Ottawa: Cineplex SilverCity Gloucester IMAX
Toronto: Scotiabank Theatre Toronto
Vaughan: Cineplex Colossus Woodbridge IMAX

QUEBEC
Montreal: Cineplex Paramount Montreal IMAX
[/QUOTE]
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-01-2007, 09:07 PM:
 
AMC website on 3/1 seems to indicate that Columbus and Kansas City have added 300 on 3/9.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-01-2007, 11:01 PM:
 
And the AMC in the Detroit area, as well as some venues in the Cinemark and National Amusements circuits. There have also been a few new IMAX venues built/retrofit in the past few months who have booked "300."

Up to 61 bookings as of 3/1. List posted above has been updated.
 
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 03-05-2007, 11:00 AM:
 
Also the new Imax screen at Silver City Gloucester in Ottawa, Canada will be playing 300. They have a 12:01am show on Thursday March 8th.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-05-2007, 07:38 PM:
 
Paul:
Did you not notice that Gloucester is on the list I posted last week? [Mad]
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-06-2007, 12:43 AM:
 
For anyone not convinced "300" originated on film...

GRAPHIC LEAPS: DIRECTOR ZACK SNYDER MIXES TRICKS TO CREATE A COMIC-BOOK GRANDEUR FOR "300" ON THE SCREEN by Sheigh Crabtree; Los Angeles Times; Mar. 4, 2007.

quote:

A few of the key ingredients in Snyder's secret cinematic sauce: thousands of hours of visual tests, shooting on film and shooting everything lighted as if it were golden hour, overcast or under shimmery moonlight.

Although high-definition video has become a de rigueur medium for bluescreen shoots — for one thing, film has to laboriously be scanned into the digital realm — [Director of Photography Larry] Fong shot film because Snyder relies heavily on variable speed lensing, which new digital cinematography cameras aren't so good at yet.

"I'm glad we didn't shoot in HD," Fong said. "When you think period, you think film, which is funny because in ancient Greece there was no film. But for us, the cinematic experience was informed by film artifacts. We wanted the film grain to show."

 
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 03-06-2007, 06:56 AM:
 
Sorry about that... I didn't notice Ottawa on the list so I skipped by Gloucester(which is part of Ottawa!)Its not really a true Imax screen though they just converted a 35mm theatre by putting in a Imax projector... I'll have to see what it looks like, super short throw I'm sure...
 
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 03-08-2007, 01:40 PM:
 
I've always been curious about this... do they show your standard set of trailers before an IMAX DMR film? Are they also "upscaled" like the feature film, or will they appear small on the screen? Any ideas which trailers were shipped with the DMR version of 300? (From what I gather, they upscale it to 70mm, correct?) I suppose I'll find out on Saturday anyways, but I let my curiosity take over - I had to ask. [Smile]
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-08-2007, 05:42 PM:
 
I've only seen trailers for 15/70 films on IMAX movies. Sure got sick of seeing YOUNG BLACK STALLION in the old days, and can't tell you how many times I saw the HAPPY FEET trailer recently.
 
Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 03-08-2007, 07:18 PM:
 
There were no trailers shipped with 300, we just moved the Spiderman trailer from NATM to 300. Normally, the studios decide if they will create a IMAX trailer. I have been told, the cost to print a 1.5 - 2 minute 15/70 trailer is in the $1,500.00 range. I was hoping the Harry Potter would be shipped, but still waiting on that one. As far as showing a trailer pack in front of a DMR, that would be up to each individual theatre, depending on their trailer stock and what they wish to exhibit. There is no way you could show a conventual 35mm trailer unless you had a 35mm projector in the IMAX booth, or had a trailer DVD pack made up and used that with your video projector prior to the start of the feature. But I feel that is a terrible way to exhibit your IMAX screen. We only show one or two 15/70 trailers along with our company's signature tag. The IMAX branding trailer is now attached to all DMR prints, so there is one more for ya. Hope this answers your questions.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-08-2007, 08:25 PM:
 
quote: Mark Lensenmayer
I've only seen trailers for 15/70 films on IMAX movies. Sure got sick of seeing YOUNG BLACK STALLION in the old days, and can't tell you how many times I saw the HAPPY FEET trailer recently.
When I watched the "IMAX" version of Superman Returns at Cinemark Carefree Circle in Colorado Springs, it had a Happy Feet trailer on it in 3D. I thought that was ultimately funny since the movie itself ended up not being 3D. Open Season did, however.
 
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 03-09-2007, 03:52 AM:
 
Thanks for the info! I haven't been to an IMAX movie in so long... our local Milwaukee one is in a public museum, and is the dome style... since it's in a museum they won't show anything above PG, I believe, so no 300. I do think I remember them showing one of the Harry Potter movies, however. (I'm going to Madison for 300 with a large group of friends.)

If I'm remembering correctly (I was quite young), I think they did something before the movie where they brought the lights up behind the screen to show off the sound system. Does that sound familiar at all?
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-09-2007, 10:41 AM:
 
Different theatres have different pre-show routines. We used to have lighting rigged behind the screen for that purpose, but they've been long since pulled out.

Our "300" plays with only the Spidey 3 (teaser) trailer, with the "in IMAX" card spliced in where it used to say "next Summer". Our preshow consists of the audience staring at our screen until the show starts. Our screen currently displays the "300" logo, via our spotlight gobo. After a kick-ass introduction announcement spiel recording (by yours truly) over a music track from the film, the lights dim and the trailer plays, followed by the feature. It's awesome.
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-09-2007, 02:31 PM:
 
It looks like the final tally for domestic bookings has topped 60. My post from Page 2 of this thread has been updated.

I'm surprised to read that a "Harry Potter" trailer wasn't sent with the prints of "300." I predict there'll be one before the "300" run ends.

When I saw "Superman Returns" in IMAX at The Bridge: Cinema de Lux (and, yeah, I agree it looked crappy), there were three trailers: "The Ant Bully," "Happy Feet" and "Open Season."
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-09-2007, 03:17 PM:
 
Harry Potter 5 trailers do exist, but apparently in very limited quantities. We don't have one ... yet. Usually we get an important trailer like that delivered a week after opening the film it's absolutely supposed to be attached to, with some top priority "add this NOW" kind of note. You can't just drop in an IMAX trailer between showtimes. [Mad] It would have been great to receive it with the print.
 
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 03-10-2007, 11:09 PM:
 
I saw this tonight on the IMAX in Fitchburg, WI, which is owned by Star Cinema... it's the flat style, not dome. No complaints about the picture quality, it looked great, but there were 2 other issues. 1. The ceiling light in the projection booth had an area of 2-3 seats (we were in the 2nd to last row) where the light completely shines through. A friend and I had light shining on our arms and torsos through the whole movie, and I could kind of see it out of the corner of my eye. That really takes you out of the "IMAX" experience. Is this common? It seems like something they should account for if they must leave the light turned on in the booth.
2. Where's the low end? I didn't hear it, my friends didn't hear it. If it wasn't for two slight very low rumbles, I'd think they have no subs at all. It was ridiculous, even the "earthquake" scene had no punch, and the Spidey 3 IMAX teaser didn't have much (if any) LFE action either... and I know what that trailer is supposed to sound like. Could this have something to do with our seating position? The sound level seemed rather low, too... some of the quieter speaking scenes, you were almost stressing to hear what they were saying. That's not what I think IMAX should be about... mild sound.

Any thoughts?

Oh, and does anyone know which format of IMAX the screen at Navy Pier in Chicago is? Would this movie lends itself well to a dome style?
 
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 03-11-2007, 05:59 AM:
 
Navy Pier is a flat screen 3D, Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is a dome .
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-11-2007, 07:54 PM:
 
The opening weekend numbers for 300 are pretty interesting. The movie opened with an estimated opening weekend gross of $70 million.

Spread across 3103 movie screens, the estimated average is $22,500 per theater. The 60 or so IMAX theaters playing the DMR version took in $3.1 million. That's over $55,000 per screen. Not bad at all. That will probably encourage even more DMR treatments. Too bad it may not encourage some actual 5/65 or 15/65 production.
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-16-2007, 09:26 AM:
 
quote: Mark Strube
Would this movie lends itself well to a dome style?
The only movies that lend themselves well to being watched in a dome are the ones that were shot intended to be projected in a dome. Everything else is a distorted mess. Some people don't seem to mind seeing a movie image warped across the inside of a sphere, but for the same reason that I don't stretch 1.33:1 content to fit a 1.78:1 screen at home, I don't watch movies projected at the Humphrey IMAX Dome in Milwaukee.

I did a search on the IMDb, and found that 16 titles were filmed using the Omnimax format (the one intended for dome viewing):
I've enjoyed Africa: The Serengeti on the dome (from what I recall), and I've really enjoyed seeing the flat IMAX films projected onto a flat IMAX screen, but after watching Mission to Mir on the IMAX Dome, I'll never see another IMAX movie shown on a dome again.
I can't imagine how bad a DMR movie might look on a dome. I certainly am not going to pay $8 to find out.

It would be interesting to know if a movie could be manipulated with a fisheye effect in the digital post-processing stage so that the spherical distortion of a dome could be accounted for, and then a print struck with that distortion in place. Theoretically, the image should look better than a non-manipulated image. The small number of dome installations probably would make such an effort impractical, though...
 
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 03-16-2007, 10:59 AM:
 
Space Station (2002) has dome prints. Only certain sequences were converted for dome prints.
 
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 03-16-2007, 05:26 PM:
 
Magnificent Desolation has a dome print with certain images modified to work on a dome screen. It actually works very well.
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-16-2007, 06:33 PM:
 
HAIL, COLUMBIA had different versions for dome and flat, if I recall correctly from many years ago. I saw both in a relatively short time, and I remember some definite differences.
 
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 03-17-2007, 09:08 AM:
 
My print of Dolphins is IMAX format, not a dome version.

in70mm.com IMAX
 
Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 03-20-2007, 03:53 PM:
 
Two weeks on and 300 is practically still selling out during weeknight shows.

This DMR title is clean and sharp... a little too sharp for the quality of CGI used in production.

Less can be said for the Spiderman 3 trailer attached at the beginnig! The DMR process tore apart the CGI in that film, making it look horrible! I won't even mention the terrible artifacting in the whites :-(
 
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 03-20-2007, 05:07 PM:
 
And to think it only took 10 days to DMR the entire film. Boy has this technology really advanced!
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-20-2007, 07:41 PM:
 
quote:
And to think it only took 10 days to DMR the entire film. Boy has this technology really advanced!
Progress? [Roll Eyes]

In the timespan of ten days, you could blow-up a 35mm neg and strike, stripe and sound a few dozen 5-perf 70mm prints.
 
Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-22-2007, 02:52 PM:
 
300 opened today here, I saw it in 35mm and the film is quite grainy. Does that look bad in IMAX? Does anyone know if this film was shot with DMR in mind. It was either on here or somewhere online that I read a guide of what shots not to do in large-format and there seemed to be an absence of these when perhaps they would have been suited to the film.
 
Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 03-22-2007, 04:35 PM:
 
Hi Caleb,

The film was purposely grainy... it is based on a comic book.

In IMAX it looks great, a little too sharp though. The sharpness of the DMR takes way from the dreamy look it has on 35mm.

Camera related sharpness problems are in the last 1/2 hr, as the focus puller got a little sloppy.
 
Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 03-22-2007, 11:13 PM:
 
I would have bought the graphic novel if it wasn't around $25 here! Will wait until the paperback comes out.

Fair enough about the grain, although if you've seen any of Casshern you'll understand my reservations about grain as a visual effect. Casshern had the second most walkouts I've seen after the Aristocrats, and the latter only had idiots leaving our showings [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Patrick Watkinson (Member # 4237) on 03-28-2007, 11:51 PM:
 
The films looks great in IMAX, however it is a shame it is scope/anamorphic. Also, the lower black band is quite large compared the top one. It is quite humorous to hear guest running out the theater saying “there’s something wrong with the picture…”
It’s even funnier to hear floor staff complain that it’s out of frame. My reply is: “Sorry, you are incorrect,: the film moves stage right to left, not top to bottom: try again…”
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-29-2007, 12:53 AM:
 
quote: Brian Michael Weidemann
This one was matted Scope as expected, but it's actually framed mid-screen, whereas most previous movies were matted lower in the frame.
quote: Patrick Watkinson
the lower black band is quite large compared the top one
Well, which is it?!
 
Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 03-29-2007, 02:46 AM:
 
It was framed in the middle. Would've been nice if it was framed higher... a tall person's head was blocking a small area. [Wink]
 
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 03-29-2007, 06:35 PM:
 
Mmmmm?

Does the image position vary if it's a MPX or GT theatre? [Confused]

AS GT (and SR) are 1.43:1 and MPX is 1.75 (ish) :1 and they use the same print could it be the be the top / bottom margins are different depending on how the MPX is set up.??

Something I should have considered before .
 
Posted by Patrick Watkinson (Member # 4237) on 03-29-2007, 09:36 PM:
 
It is the print itself. If you look at the actual frames on the print you will see the top band is not as large as the bottom. Now perhaps the mpx screen set up amplifies this? Regardless, when compared to the flat IMAX logo trailer and the flat Spiderman 3 trailer, the format is quite noticeable
 
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-02-2007, 02:53 AM:
 
Boxofficemojo's take on the weekend's figures

quote:

'Blades' Takes Gold, 'Robinsons' Merits Silver
by Brandon Gray
April 1, 2007

Two broad comedies, Blades of Glory and Meet the Robinsons, skated to the top of the box office as last weekend's releases slipped. After four up weekends in a row, overall business was down eleven percent from the same time last year when Ice Age: The Meltdown opened to a spectacular $68 million.

Taking a comparable tack as Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby but with figure-skating instead of car racing, Blades of Glory landed an estimated $33 million on around 4,400 screens at 3,372 venues. In the vicinity of DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story's debut, the over $60 million picture starring Will Ferrell and Jon Heder scored the fourth highest-grossing start ever for a sports comedy and was the second-highest for Ferrell behind Talladega. Paramount Pictures distributed the DreamWorks and MTV Films co-production, which was also produced by Ben Stiller's Red Hour Films (Dodgeball).

In Blades of Glory, Ferrell reprised the over-the-top, boorish, wittily dim-witted type of character that served him well in Talladega Nights and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, his only post-Elf successes. Though Heder (Napoleon Dynamite) was promoted as the co-lead early in Blades' marketing campaign, television ads, posters and billboards leading up to the picture's release pushed Ferrell and excluded Heder. "You lead with your strongest hitter," said DreamWorks spokesman Marvin Levy, though he did not cede the Ferrell focus late in the game. Levy added that the audience was 53 percent under 25 years old and slightly female, according to the studio's preliminary exit polling, while moviegoer pollster CinemaScore's grade was "A-."

Meet the Robinsons launched at $25.1 million on 4,400 screens at 3,413 theaters, which included digital 3-D presentations on 587 screens at 484 locations. Though distributor Buena Vista didn't have a precise breakout, the 3-D presentations grossed twice as much on average as the regular version. The computer-animated comedy's debut was solid by the recently lowered standards of the genre, but it was significantly less than Chicken Little and Robots among similar movies.

"It's right on the expectation level [of $25 to $28 million]," said Chuck Viane, Buena Vista's president of distribution. "And of course we're playing into the Easter holiday which begins Monday and by Friday 80 percent of kids will be out of school." Buena Vista's polling indicated that the audience was 78 percent families and 53 percent female, while the CinemaScore was "A-."

Meet the Robinsons's manic ads sold the comedy, centering on gags involving a Tyrannosaurus Rex, singing frogs and a hyper lady with caffeine patches, but not the story, which could only be gleamed from the trailer.

Among holdovers, 300 was still in the fight, falling 44 percent to an estimated $11.2 million for $179.7 million in 24 days. Its IMAX runs accounted for $1.5 million of the weekend, down 29 percent, and $15 million of the total. March's other breakout hit, Wild Hogs, had its steepest drop yet, 39 percent, but nonetheless grossed an estimated $8.4 million. With $135.4 million in 31 days, it surpassed Bringing Down the House, which distributor Buena Vista had used as a model for its release.

Aside from Shooter, last weekend's slew of new releases plummeted in their second weekend. After being heralded as a franchise revival upon its No. 1 debut, TMNT devolved 62 percent to an estimated $9.2 million for $38.4 million in 10 days and, at its current trajectory, will likely be the least-attended of the four Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies.

Particularly alarming was The Last Mimzy, the New Line Cinema family picture that was depending on word-of-mouth for long-term playability. It slid 60 percent to an estimated $4 million for a mere $16.2 million in 10 days. The Hills Have Eyes 2 dove 59 percent to an estimated $3.9 million, when its predecessor was down 49 percent in its second weekend with twice the gross. Two dramas, Reign Over Me and Pride, evaporated as well.

Shooter had a typical drop of 45 percent to an estimated $8 million. The $60 million-plus action picture's 10-day total stands at a flabby $27.2 million.

The weekend saw a marketing experiment from Universal Pictures. The studio re-issued Peaceful Warrior, a drama that made a meager $1.1 million last summer under Lionsgate's tutelage. To build word-of-mouth, Universal offered $15 million worth of tickets through retailer Best Buy that people could redeem for free at 615 theaters on this weekend only, and another $2 million was spent on prints and advertising. According to Universal, about 250,000 tickets were redeemed and the movie generated the equivalent of $2.1 million, 11 percent of which came from paying moviegoers. The unconventional release means the picture will not be listed on the box office charts, though it will continue for paying audiences through the week.

Also opening, The Lookout limped to an estimated $2 million at 955 sites, which ranks near the bottom among heist pictures.
Who's good at math?

Question #1: "15" (the gross of the IMAX engagements) is what percentage of "180" (the film's total gross)?

Question #2: "62" (the number of IMAX engagements) is what percentage of "3280" (total number of engagements at widest point of release)?

In order to believe that the IMAX presentations were preferred by moviegoers, then the answer to question #1 should be a higher percentage than the answer to question #2. (This assumes, of course, that I've properly set up the questions.)
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-02-2007, 03:07 AM:
 
The Imax presentations grossed 8.33% of the total gross.

The Imax playdates accounted for 1.89% of the total playdates at widest release.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2