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

This is topic The Dark Knight - Parts of movie to be filmed in IMAX in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000166

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-29-2007, 09:50 AM:

Link to News Article

quote:
First look: Enter the Joker — in the IMAX format

By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES — All directors promise that their sequels will be bigger and flashier than the predecessors'. But Christopher Nolan doesn't mess around.

The director's sequel to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, will become the first feature film to be partly shot in the IMAX format, an expensive and cumbersome process that typically is the province of documentaries and short films.

Nolan will shoot four action sequences — including the introduction of the Joker, played by Heath Ledger — on IMAX.

The move is one of Hollywood's most pronounced steps yet in its embrace of IMAX theaters, which are increasingly showing commercial fare on their giant screens.

"There's simply nothing like seeing a movie that way," Nolan says. "It's more immersive for the audience. I wish I could shoot the entire thing this way."

Typically, the feature films that play in IMAX theaters are simply stretched out to fill the enormous screens. That can dilute the picture quality and give the movie a wide, squat look.

Shooting on IMAX, Nolan says, will have a twofold effect. The four scenes will fill the IMAX screens, some of which are eight stories high. And in traditional theaters, the scenes will appear more vivid (think high-definition television over standard).

Don't expect many movies to follow suit. Only 280 IMAX theaters are in operation worldwide, and fewer than 100 show feature films.

And shooting in the format is difficult. IMAX film, which is 10 times the size of standard film stock, is costly and must be shot using bulky cameras.

And "they're loud," Nolan says. "We had to figure a way to eliminate the sound so we could shoot dialogue."

In a rarity for Hollywood, the payoff isn't primarily financial, so far. "It doesn't have a huge effect yet on the money you bring in," says Chris Aronson, a distribution chief with 20th Century Fox, which carried Night at the Museum on IMAX. "But it does help make your movie more of an event."

For Nolan, IMAX makes the moviegoing experience unique again.

"You can't do this on any home theater," Nolan says. "Batman has some of the most extraordinary characters in pop culture. We wanted the Joker to have the grandest entrance possible.

"I figured if you could take an IMAX camera to Mount Everest or outer space, you could use it in a feature movie."

I applaud Christopher Nolan for this move. It's certainly a step in the right direction. I assume the rest of the movie will be filmed in anamorphic 35mm (like Batman Begins and Nolan's other movies).

I think some of the same kind of awe and scale Nolan mentions could have been achieved if the entire movie had been shot in 5/65mm format. Cameras like the Arri 765 are much quieter and easier to use than a hulking IMAX camera. It would also make for a more seamless transition to IMAX theaters. A normal 5/70 projector could even be used instead of striking much more expensive 15/70 prints.

It should be mentioned Jean-Jacques Annaud filmed Wings of Courage in IMAX back in 1995. That wasn't a feature length movie (it ran 40 minutes in the U.S. and 50 minutes in France), but it's one of the first dramatic works to be shot in IMAX.

Facing the long term prospect of much higher resolution home video playback formats as well as the possibility of increasing resolution of theatrical digital projectors, it is in Hollywood's best interest to at least keep shooting movies on 35mm and start moving toward using large format processes again. It is very expensive to produce and market a major movie. It would only seem prudent for Hollywood to try to future proof its products.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-29-2007, 04:06 PM:

quote:
Typically, the feature films that play in IMAX theaters are simply stretched out to fill the enormous screens. That can dilute the picture quality and give the movie a wide, squat look.

He is absolutely right.

quote: Bobby Henderson

I applaud Christopher Nolan for this move. It's certainly a step in the right direction. I assume the rest of the movie will be filmed in anamorphic 35mm (like Batman Begins and Nolan's other movies).

I applaud him as well. I wish the rest of the movie was shot in 5/65mm, that would be the best decision.

This could be Kodak's golden opportunity, they could offer Nolan to shoot the rest in 65mm for the same money as 35mm. They could prove how good 65mm could be for IMAX presentations and for 70mm prints and even 4K presentations.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-29-2007, 04:33 PM:

Definitely a move in the right direction (although I agree it would make more sense to shoot the whole thing in 5/65 instead of parts in IMAX). If the joker entrance is composed for IMAX, I wonder if the 35mm prints will be pillar boxed for those scenes.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-29-2007, 04:46 PM:

But this reminds me of the problems with the blow-ups I mentioned in the old 70mm versus digital debate. Because IMAX has been selling the dreadful blow-ups like Batman begins as the IMAX experience, how are they now going to sell this film, which at least in some sections contains the real IMAX experience? People will say, but wasn't Batman Begins in IMAX as well? They killed 70mm with the blow-ups and they may have killed real IMAX with the digital blow-ups. Shame on them!

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-29-2007, 05:24 PM:

Shades of Doug Trumbull's BRAINSTORM?

Sounds like a silly idea to me. Most of the new Imax installations are of the "Imax Junior" variety with the MPX units. These are nowhere NEAR a full old-style Imax screen. It would be great to see a scope-type image bloom out to full Imax splendor, but they can't do that anymore with the MPX screens. There would be some difference, but slight.

I don't think its going to be a difference that is really noticed by most.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-29-2007, 06:29 PM:

quote:
Typically, the feature films that play in IMAX theaters are simply stretched out to fill the enormous screens. That can dilute the picture quality and give the movie a wide, squat look.

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
He is absolutely right.

How so? Unless I'm misunderstanding the passage, the writer is either confused or is not effectively articulating his point.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-30-2007, 02:11 AM:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typically, the feature films that play in IMAX theaters are simply stretched out to fill the enormous screens. That can dilute the picture quality and give the movie a wide, squat look.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is absolutely right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How so? Unless I'm misunderstanding the passage, the writer is either confused or is not effectively articulating his point.

I think he refers to 35mm being shown on IMAX screens through IMAX's propietary digital blow-up system. 35mm origination is not good enough to be shown on such big screens, even on blow-ups. I think this dilutes the picture quality. This is how I understood him.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-30-2007, 02:28 AM:

So how will this film end up being post produced? Will the IMAX footage be scanned down to a 2k digital intermediate (blech) along with the rest of the 35mm originated film, and then use the DMR process to output the IMAX version? Or will they use the DMR'd stuff and splice in the IMAX footage with that, so that the IMAX originated footage is at it's highest quality (I dont know how IMAX films are post produced)? Coate will have a field day trying to figure out what I'm saying here, but hopefully someone gets the gist of it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-30-2007, 09:50 AM:

Some of that will depend on whether the native-IMAX sequences have CGI effects in them.

If the IMAX 15/65 footage is live action with practical sets and effects then I would figure the native IMAX material would just be spliced into the other stuff that is blown up DMR style.

CGI and digital intermediate makes the process more problematic. If the IMAX filmed material has to be scanned and digitally manipulated, then there's a serious risk the sharpness and level of image detail in the IMAX imagery will be softened and "diluted."

I would say even 4K resolution is just stupidly low for anything the scale of the IMAX format. 6K or 8K might possibly yield more acceptable looking results, but it still may not have the "pop" of a native 15/70 image. Laser film recorders have been able to output to formats like IMAX at up to 16000 lines of resolution. Newer models may be able to go even higher than that. But it's all a question of rendering time.

Computer technology is many times more powerful than it was just a handful of years ago. I see little excuse for mainstream movies to keep using 2K, other than it just being a cost cutting measure. 4K is a very practical standard. But moving up to 8K or even 16K may be very demanding even with the most state of the art rendering farms, especially if the effects are really complex.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-30-2007, 10:35 PM:

YES! This is a good sign. I hope this turns out to be a huge success if for no other reason than to serve as a "proof of concept." And I hope the WB studio execs realize the advantages of doing things differently like using this format by the time HP 7 gets filmed. Whether they shoot HP 7 in IMAX (unlikely), 5/70 (somewhat less unlikely) or 3D (more likely) it will be a huge step in the right direction of making the theater experience something that can not be replicated in the home.

As far as what it will take to create CGI for the IMAX resolution, I sincerely hope that the film makers have every intention of doing this right.

Kudos, and best of luck to Chris Nolan. Maybe we have a director in Hollywood that gets it after all. And kudos to WB for letting it happen.

[thumbsup]

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-11-2007, 07:44 PM:

article

quote:

Dark Knight Gets IMAX Preview

Friday, December 07, 2007
By: Ryan Ball

The first six minutes of Warner Bros.' Batman Begins sequel, The Dark Knight, will screen at IMAX theaters next week prior to screenings of Warner’s adaptation of the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. According to The Hollywood Reporter, director Christopher Nolan used IMAX cameras to film portions of the movie, which has Christain Bale returning as the caped crusader and Heath Ledger taking on the role of The Joker. The preview will roll out on Dec. 14.

The six-minute prologue involves a team of crooks entering a bank wearing clown masks for a heist that goes wrong. Audiences will get their first look at Ledger as Batman’s arch enemy, a role origniated on television by Cesar Romero and more recently embodied by Jack Nicholson in the Tim Burton movies.

When the movie screens in IMAX theaters, scenes shot in the 70mm IMAX format will fill the entire screen, while the 35mm footage will be letterboxed. The effect will be similar to early experiments with the Cinerama format, which had theater curtains open wider to reveal more screen real estate for certain sequences in films. The Dark Knight is scheduled to debut on July 18, 2008.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-11-2007, 08:43 PM:

Are they going to have 2 different versions of this: One for the MPX units with the smaller screens and one for the traditional units with the higher screens?

There really won't be much impact on those smaller screens, but it should look great on the taller ones. Shades of early Imax films like TO FLY!

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 12-12-2007, 11:06 PM:

While I was assembling the prologue onto the beginning of the I Am Legend print, I took a gander at several scenes. While it is indeed full frame IMAX, and it looks as crisp as any IMAX documentary, it apparently was not shot with the traditional IMAX low horizon!

I'm used to seeing IMAX frames exhibit an awful lot of sky, but on screen it will look amazing, as most of that sky is meant not to be "looked at" so much as give the center of the screen lots of contextual, ambient, peripheral vision. The Dark Knight footage looks like the action was centered and fills the frame in a traditional manner. So I'm worried that, on screen, everything will just look too big. We'll see ... I'm screening this tomorrow morning.

EDIT: I take it back! If viewed on a television, you would probably think the cinematographer liked looking at ceilings. There was a good balance between things happening all over, and a rather low horizon. It looked really good! The opening shot is an aerial shot of buildings that zooms in, and it's just as crisp and engulfing as it would be if MacGillivray Freeman Films did a documentary on Gotham City.

As for the story, this is a good opening to a movie. I can't wait to see Dark Knight this summer. ESPECIALLY with its IMAX sequences thrown in.

I really hope that more directors see how beautiful this is and start getting ideas!

[ 12-13-2007, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Brian Michael Weidemann ]

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-20-2007, 10:35 AM:

Has anyone else seen the IMAX Dark Knight intro before I Am Legend?

I'm trying to decide whether it's worth a road trip to Madison or Lincolnshire, IL to see it.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-20-2007, 06:07 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson

quote: Bobby Henderson
I applaud Christopher Nolan for this move. It's certainly a step in the right direction. I assume the rest of the movie will be filmed in anamorphic 35mm (like Batman Begins and Nolan's other movies).

Yah, well Mr. Nolan had better hope he gets to release his film before IMAX rips out their film projectors to put in those two Sony 4K video projectors instead. Once they do that, that branding phrase "IMAX Experience" will be quite a joke. It won't matter what they choose to film it in, the end product will be the same -- The IMAX 4K VIDEO Experience [puke]

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 01-05-2008, 06:57 PM:

Yes, We are showing the six minute "teaser" All I can say is WICKED!!

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-27-2008, 12:52 PM:

Have the digital imax installations begun yet? What does that mean for them with this particular title?

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 06-27-2008, 01:39 PM:

Digital installations in the DC area are due to start around now .

However The Dark Knight :The IMAX Experience will not be screened on any of them.

Christopher Nolan, after going to the trouble of filming sections of the movie on IMAX 15 perf /65mm negative ,refuses to have his movie shown this way. [thumbsup]

There are rumours from a well placed source that an upcoming 3D feature will also be filmed in IMAX. [Cool]

Oh and by the way The Dark Knight in IMAX is earth shatteringly, mind bendingly ,intensely awesome even when viewed on a MPX system [beer]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-28-2008, 10:59 AM:

Any word on how this movie (the IMAX shot scenes in particular) was edited?

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 06-29-2008, 01:43 AM:

Pick up a copy of this month's "American Cinematographer" for the full scoop.

The gist of it, Nolan shot the scenes in 15/70 as previously stated. Since the IMAX release prints will contain 35mm anamorphic DMR'ed, all of the 15/70 negative was scanned at 8k and the 35mm scanned at 4k. The IMAX prints will have the IMAX scenes 1.33 while the remainer will be "letterboxed" 2:40 35mm anamorphic source. The transitions will be "hard cuts". overall, about 30 minutes of material out of the final cut is 15/70.

For conventional 35mm release prints, the IMAX segments had a 2:40 frame extracted from the 1.33 IMAX frame. The DP went on record with a few comments: Notably, (paraphrasing) "in the 35mm release prints, the imax segments had visably more detail..."

Geez, might as well shot 5/65. Seriously, what is keeping these people from shooting 5/65???

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-29-2008, 08:01 AM:

quote: Sean Weitzel
"in the 35mm release prints, the imax segments had visably more detail..."

No shit.

quote: Sean Weitzel
Geez, might as well shot 5/65. Seriously, what is keeping these people from shooting 5/65???

An excellent question. I'm wondering what's keeping them from RELEASING a few 5/70 prints of this title?

Thanks for the tip, Sean. I will look for American Cinematographer.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-29-2008, 11:28 AM:

Too many people in the movie industry are eaten up with that "digital" word rather than truthfully looking at what really delivers the best image quality at various stages of production.

Motion picture film cameras still deliver better image quality than any video camera. And large format, be it 8/35, 5/65 or 15/65, is superior to 4/35.

The sad thing is a lot of "digital" equipped theaters would see improved image quality with movies shot in large format and scanned at high resolutions (like 6K, 8K) before being down-sampled to formats like 2K and 4K. The movies would even look better on Blu-ray.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-29-2008, 05:23 PM:

Am I missing something here? If the 35mm negative is scanned in at 4K, then shouldn't the IMAX shot footage be scanned at something like 40K?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-29-2008, 05:47 PM:

Since it was shot in Chicago, I have a number of friends who worked on the movie in some form or another. I asked one of them why they didn't just shoot the whole thing in Imax. He speculated that it would have been much more costly, not just because of cameras and filmstock, but from a production design standpoint as well. Since Imax has such more detail than 35mm, it's much less forgiving of (comparitively speaking) cheaply-made sets and costumes.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-30-2008, 12:06 AM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
shouldn't the IMAX shot footage be scanned at something like 40K?

it shouldn't be scanned at all!

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-30-2008, 07:35 AM:

The 4k etc refers to the resolution of the image width, not the total resolution. IMAX is not 10x the width of 35mm. For the equivalent detail, IMAX should probably be scanned at 16k or so. I'm not sure if there are scanners that can do that resolution.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 06-30-2008, 11:04 AM:

The 2008 March "LF Examiner" Digital Cinema 101 issue states the 15/70 frame is theoretically equivalent to a 16K digital image, 16,000 x 12,000 (190 million) pixels.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-30-2008, 12:04 PM:

The midnight premier at UA IMAX King of Prussia, PA is sold out already. They added a 3:10 am show. A couple of the weekend shows are already sold out too. Nice. Should be some booooomin business!

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 06-30-2008, 02:20 PM:

Shooting large format presents a number of challenges, including recording production sound.

While cameras like the Arri 765 are designed for sync sound, IMAX cameras are not, and most likely all the IMAX scenes will be looped due to the sheer noise of the camera.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-30-2008, 03:41 PM:

According to a great article in the current issue of Wired magazine, any and all looping necessary (for this production anyway) is still done while on set, not months later in a studio. Nolan reported how important it is to have the set ambient sounds, and the actors still in character.

I'm sure it's easy if you have a second video camera just getting the takes they can play back. You can't really loop the IMAX dailies in as timely a manner, I would imagine.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 06-30-2008, 04:06 PM:

Interesting.

The tracks were most likely recorded " wild " meaning the camera wasn't running and the actors go through the scene as if they were filming it.

Good alternative to ADR.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 06-30-2008, 05:45 PM:

here's another really cool article about the IMAX photography for Dark Knight

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/9645.html

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-30-2008, 10:16 PM:

One would also think that the size of the IMAX cameras and limitation on film-loads would also take their toll on just what scenes they could be used for.

Shooting 5/65 remains the most logical choice yet it isn't done. It has the easiest time of being blown up or down as needed and plays on 5/70 just great!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-01-2008, 08:40 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
One would also think that the size of the IMAX cameras and limitation on film-loads would also take their toll on just what scenes they could be used for.

Thats not necessarily a problem if they have more than one camera... a common thing to find on almost any large format production. Size and weight of the camera only matters to today's prima donna cinematographers... I'd like to see any of today's cinematographers even attempt filming with the 65mm cameras used back in the 50's!

Mark

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-01-2008, 10:31 AM:

For those who have seen it, is the prologue which appeared with I AM LEGEND part of the movie?

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 07-01-2008, 03:18 PM:

Yes it's the opening sequence

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-01-2008, 03:38 PM:

Thanks!

Posted by Owen Shave (Member # 1156) on 07-05-2008, 02:55 PM:

Just in case anyone is interested, the Wired article is online at http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-07/ff_darknight
The article talks about the scanning resolution for the Dark Knight IMAX film (up to 8K they say).

[ 07-05-2008, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-07-2008, 08:44 PM:

Chris Nolan and crew talk about filming DK parts in IMAX

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-08-2008, 09:28 AM:

What I heard was that with the three IMAX Digital screens opening in July in and around the DC/Baltimore area, Nolan did not want the film to go out digitally but in true IMAX 'film' resolution - which I have to applaud him in his decision, if he shot it that way, then one should see it that way.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-14-2008, 01:43 AM:

quote:
When the movie screens in IMAX theaters, scenes shot in the 70mm IMAX format will fill the entire screen, while the 35mm footage will be letterboxed. The effect will be similar to early experiments with the Cinerama format, which had theater curtains open wider to reveal more screen real estate for certain sequences in films.

What is this fool talking about? Do these reporters just pull this stuff out of their butts? Yes, there was the prologue projector where only the center panel opened for the Lowell Thomas intro speech, but then when the prologue film ended with his famous, "Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Cinerama" line, the three projector engaged and yes, the curtains did open to reveal the entire screen for the actual Cinerama movie, but that wasn't done for "certain sequences in the films." Once a Cinerama film began, the full three panels were always used.

Posted by Sally Ann Burgess (Member # 4746) on 07-14-2008, 04:26 AM:

What will the Imax-filmed scenes look like when played back in 35mm? And before you ask, Brad, I'll be posting my pic tomorrow! [Smile]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-14-2008, 09:14 AM:

I read a little snippet some place where Nolan said that for home video, the aspect ratio would change to 16:9 during the Imax sequences.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-14-2008, 03:22 PM:

Successfully run the print through ...

There were a LOT more IMAX sequences than I thought there would be, however, most of them were quick 5-second aerial establishing shots, thrown in just for a single cut, and then back to letterbox for the rest of the scene. But that's not to discount the several actual FULL sequences that appear in IMAX. This movie looks great! The shift back and forth, full screen to widescreen, wasn't jarring. I thought the editing was effective.

I'm sure I'll review more in the actual review thread when it appears.

Oh, an in that last link to Nolan talking about it ... someone mentions that while regular film is wider than it is tall, IMAX is taller than it is wide. Um, what? That sounds like poorly worded misleading information got minced up, flat out misinterpreted, and churned out again. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-14-2008, 08:00 PM:

I have to sort of laugh at this because in an article over at Yahoo Groups where they were interviewing the DP and he said he absolutely hates working on films that involve any digital intermediates.

Mark

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 07-19-2008, 06:26 PM:

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

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

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 07-19-2008, 09:46 PM:

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

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-19-2008, 11:57 PM:

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

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

But my favorite quote from the article is:

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

Bravo!

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-20-2008, 01:46 AM:

Indeed. I love that quote.

Hats off fellas. [thumbsup]

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-20-2008, 07:07 AM:

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

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

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-21-2008, 01:22 PM:

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

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

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

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

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-22-2008, 07:34 AM:

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

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-27-2008, 02:42 PM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoff

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-06-2008, 10:42 AM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a disaster.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-06-2008, 02:28 PM:

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

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

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-10-2008, 11:03 AM:

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

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

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

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