Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Film Stock Improvement/Older IMAX doesn't look so hot

This is topic Film Stock Improvement/Older IMAX doesn't look so hot 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=000199

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-21-2009, 09:30 AM:

I recently went to Niagara falls and stopped by to see the Legends and Daredevils IMAX which I guess was filmed in the mid 80's.

The image quality didn't look so hot. It was still rock steady but it didn't have the visual "pop" that I'm used to from IMAX. The quality of the image wasn't any better than the 35mm filmed and DMR'd portions of Dark Knight.

Has film stock improved that much or was this particular film not done very well?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-21-2009, 11:25 AM:

Other variables could be involved.

Is the theater running a really old print or something newly struck? What kind of elements were used in making the print? A dupe of a dupe of a dupe? The more generations that come between the original negative and the release print will equate to image detail becoming increasingly soft and colors being more muted.

The projection setup is also a factor. Less than optimal brightness and focus that is out of adjustment will make even the very best film prints look like crap.

Film stocks have improved dramatically over the last 20 years. However, IMAX has been able to show razor sharp detail on giant sized screens for longer than that.

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 07-21-2009, 01:58 PM:

I was there about 3 years back. They were using a 4k lamp according to the voice-over intro - far to small for the size of the screen, resulting in a very dark picture. Total waste of money and the theatre itself was quite shabby and could have done with a refurb. looks like things have not changed.
Tim.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-25-2009, 05:18 PM:

Dye stability is affected by heat, and thus by the number of times it is projected before a bright lamp. In a well-maintained large format system, fade from repeated projection is the number one cause of prints being replaced. Try searching for some old John Pytlak posts, but I think somewhere around 10,000 runs is what you should expect as the lifetime for dyes before the fading becomes a problem.

So for a twenty-year old movie that could likely be the cause.

--jhawk

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-01-2009, 11:27 AM:

Will IMAX even strike new prints anymore given their new digital direction, or just tell their partners that they can use exisiting prints until they are no longer playable and then it's either they install the Christies or shut down. Or does IMAX have a contractual committment to support 15/70?

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-06-2009, 12:13 PM:

I saw the Grand Canyon movie up at the Grand Canyon a few months ago and the print was fantastic. I don't think I got the "wow" factor either, but I noticed that the right side of the image was a little dark, so their bulb is misaligned or not at full capacity.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-06-2009, 12:48 PM:

Pyramid Place Niagra I believe has one of the original aircooled "classic" imax projectors that use a 4K lamp
It used to be relatively good light in that theatre in the past
Most Imax prints are struck of the O neg or a slow stepped print protection master

Posted by Tim Rectanus (Member # 3282) on 08-06-2009, 02:22 PM:

I haven't been in a while but I thought the Lights outside used to illuminate the Falls at night were 4K Xenons and the IMAX projector boasted a 15K. I could be totally wrong though.

My guess on the poor quality, they show the same movie over and over again. No telling how many runs they have on those prints (they had at least 2 of the same movie when I was there), they say prints can run for a long time without losing quality but we know that isn't always true, even if it is handled with great care. Plus, running the same movie over and over again, I would think it is easier to get complacent about the quality.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-06-2009, 04:04 PM:

The air cooled classic is 4 or 4.5k the same print should be able to get several thousand passes on it with out an issue been there and done it many times

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-06-2009, 04:06 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
the Grand Canyon movie up at the Grand Canyon

Grand Canyon was re-cut several years back and new prints were issued.

Posted by Tim Rectanus (Member # 3282) on 08-06-2009, 05:11 PM:

They still running the 2D Classic air cooled Gordon? If they are, they got some false advertising issues on the website going on.
From web page

quote:
"Light from the 15,000-watt lamp in an IMAX® projector is so bright that if it were on the moon we could see it from earth with the naked eye.

If a large log were held in front of the light beam from the projector, it would spontaneously combust.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-07-2009, 09:15 AM:

The last time I was there and visited the booth they still had the aircooled classic
The booth is so small and low ceiling I doubt the 15K classic would fit but nothing is beyond the realm of possibility

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 12-05-2013, 02:00 PM:

It has been 1581 days since the last post.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-05-2013, 02:00 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
I recently went to Niagara falls and stopped by to see the Legends and Daredevils IMAX which I guess was filmed in the mid 80's.

The image quality didn't look so hot. It was still rock steady but it didn't have the visual "pop" that I'm used to from IMAX.

I saw the Daredevil movie in mid September. I noticed as well that the image did not look so breathtaking. I was told that new prints are struck every six months at this location and they use two different prints of the same movie and they alternate them every other hour. The light source was upgraded to about 7k recently.

What I did notice was that the sound was something to behold, way better than the 2K digital set ups.

One of the interesting things about this location is that it is one of the largest IMAX theatres for seat count at 600+ seats, but the screen is just 60 feet.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 08-31-2014, 09:23 AM:

Earlier this year, I've been to a Philadelphia OMNIMAX at The Franklin Institute to see "Ring of Fire" (1991). The 20+ year old print was pristine with very, very light scratches and dirt. Having been struck from a film source rather than digital, the picture was very good, though there were some abnormalities.

The grain was more prelavent than the 15/70 scenes of The Dark Knight Rises. I wonder if this could be due to the OMNIMAX lenses if they enlarge the grain. The colors were very natural with reds (especially in the opening) standing out. For some reason, Samsara projected digitally had better contrast. The reason I bring that up is because both movies have night time scenes with lava rivers or what you call them.

For anyone saying that IMAX sound is shrill, "Ring of Fire" was made in a time without tastes being "bright." The magnetic soundtrack had TONS of low end. The drums were insanely low, but not as clear as a modern QSC sound system.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-31-2014, 02:51 PM:

quote: Connor Wilson
Earlier this year, I've been to a Philadelphia OMNIMAX at The Franklin Institute to see "Ring of Fire" (1991). The 20+ year old print was pristine with very, very light scratches and dirt. Having been struck from a film source rather than digital, the picture was very good, though there were some abnormalities.

I am curious to know, how do you know that the print was an original print?

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 08-31-2014, 05:53 PM:

It may be a re-print, but the soundtrack was most definitely analog, as I heard the clicks and pops in the soundtrack. So if it was a reprint, it's pre-DDP, which also means pre-1995.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-01-2014, 06:32 AM:

For what it's worth, I was in Phantasialand yesterday. A theme park in the vicinity of Cologne.

They do have an IMAX dome/OMNIMAX "HD" ride system there, running just a single short film in front of a bunch of simulator vehicles.

I will not judge OMNIMAX based on this experience because I had quite a few good experiences in purpose built OMNIMAX theaters, but it was rather awful.

The movie they're currently playing called "Race for Atlantis" is a computer generated feature and dates back to 1998. This movie originally ran in France (I guess Futuruscope and seemingly in OMNIMAX 3D, a one of a kind install). It replaced a previous movie, called "Asteroid Adventure/Galaxy" in 2006. I might notice that this previous movie was far better than this one.

Given the rather fluid motions, I guess the feature is in 48 FPS. Unfortunately, this whole ride is falling to pieces and the projection side of things is, unfortunately no exception:

- The picture is extremely dark, I guess they're running their Xenon bulb at the lowest possible Wattage.
- Focus generally wasn't the best, but at regular intervals the whole film went totally out of focus.
- The sound is terrible and had several glitches throughout the show. I would expect such a venue using a digital system, but it feels like they're still running from mag tracks.

There were lots of other issues that aren't related to the IMAX system, so I omit it here.

IMAX still lists this as an IMAX venue. I know IMAX doesn't give too much about quality anymore, but in this case I'm rather astonished the park can still use IMAX in their advertising.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-01-2014, 12:37 PM:

quote: Connor Wilson
It may be a re-print, but the soundtrack was most definitely analog, as I heard the clicks and pops in the soundtrack. So if it was a reprint, it's pre-DDP, which also means pre-1995.

If the film is an older IMAX distributed release, then there is no current DCP of the films. The older IMAX distributed films just recently went to scanning for the upcoming laser release.

Posted by Ivan Plamondon (Member # 7637) on 09-02-2014, 11:33 AM:

The Niagara "Miracles, Myths and Magic" movie was filmed in less than optimum lighting conditions back in 80's. Back in 2009, we were running two prints, alternating every hour (MK I reel unit). One had considerably more passes than the other. Also, July 31st was the next scheduled lamp change (normal life span is around 6 weeks during that time of year). We were using an air-cooled, 7kw Superior lamp.

Since June of 2014, we've upgraded to a Quick-time Reel Unit allowing the use of a single print every hour (currently Print # 65). This decreases film damage from the former MK I reel unit rewinding process.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-03-2014, 06:53 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If the film is an older IMAX distributed release, then there is no current DCP of the films. The older IMAX distributed films just recently went to scanning for the upcoming laser release.

It has nothing to do with a DCP being present or not. IMAX introduced the digital version of their sound system somewhere around 1995. The analog sound used a 35mm magnetic "tape" with 6 discrete analog audio tracks. So all releases somewhere before 1995 feature only analog sound, with the common issues resulting from worn out magnetic tracks.

You would expect that they would've created DDP releases of their more popular "vintage" documentaries though.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-03-2014, 09:33 PM:

If there was a huge difference in resolution then the original camera negative may be 8/70 and not 15/70. That was common for a while to keep the costs of a production down and the cameras were smaller-lighter.

Mark