Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Inception.

This is topic Inception. 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=000210

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-22-2010, 06:42 AM:

Our booker went to see it at the Real Imax in town and complained of a soft focus in one part of the screen at various points in the movie. When he mentioned it to the distributor who was running the show they said they'd had other complaints elsewhere.

Now, the Sydney IMAX will have a soft RHS if you go for super-super sharp. It has to be brought back a tad to just super sharp to get an all-over focus so I'm thinking that's what it was and the distributor didn't quite get it.

Anyone else playing it in Real Imax having any focus issues? (Fake Imax people need not reply for obvious reasons).

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-22-2010, 10:11 AM:

John i am only playing it in 35mm but have observed some issues with the photography that i found a surprise at first.

It for sure has some soft top and bottom anamorphic lens shots where its sharp in the center.
I found some of the wide shots(70mm or Vistavision) to be less sharp than i expected,maybe because of effects work going on.
I think the movie looks great but may be intentionally softened at times for a certain effect or what not.

When i watched it the focus kept drifting and i had to run up and focus it 4 times! It had just been film gaurded the day before and the gate tension may have been tighter than needed?

These drifting issues have cleared up but i see it being a softer film than i hoped for due to my expectations.
Still better than most stuff out there though!

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 07-22-2010, 09:28 PM:

Saw this in digital IMAX, which we all know is only 2K, but of course had razor sharp focus. The trailers were very sharp, the entire presentation of Inception was noticeably soft... with that softness being worse at times at the top and bottom of the frame, and other random spots. It's just the way the film was shot, for some reason.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 07-25-2010, 10:01 PM:

Saw a 15/70mm print at the Esquire IMAX in Sacramento. (My first visit to this cinema!)
Presentation was excellent. VERY VERY sharp throughout. I was able to tell when the source camera negative format changed but it was tough to see. No complaints there. The floor seemed understaffed. There were still people in line buying snacks 15 minutes past the start of the presentation. My wife overheard someone say "it's like this every time" (this is a standalone single screen IMAX theater).

I really really enjoyed this movie mostly for reasons already echoed here from others. The only reason I would probably give it only 4.5 out of 5 stars is the fact that it felt too much like a Christopher Nolan movie. At times I thought I was watching Dark Knight again. I'm glad I heeded Brad's advice and went in cold having not seen any trailers or read any reviews. I think it enhanced the experience. I intend to see it again soon.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-26-2010, 03:38 AM:

quote: Sean Weitzel
There were still people in line buying snacks 15 minutes past the start of the presentation. My wife overheard someone say "it's like this every time" (this is a standalone single screen IMAX theater).

We have that problem on any busy night here. I may be going out on a limb a bit, but if that theatre's anything like ours, much of the problem stems from people arriving 5 minutes before showtime, then expecting that a cashier will be waiting just to serve them... and then getting peeved when they find that's not the case. Thankfully, most people here consider the line part of the adventure... mainly, I think, because most of them consider it all worth the wait.

A few will show up 30 minutes after it turns pitch dark out here. "WHAT?... you've started the show already???!!" (sigh)

Womens' bathroom lines are the same thing. You can't have too many stalls on a busy night. Quadruple the number that any sane person would consider reasonable and you'll still have a line at intermission time.

Ya gotta love the general public! [beer]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-26-2010, 01:32 PM:

The Esquire IMAX Adventure

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 07-27-2010, 06:04 AM:

Nice Brad,

You even got the film cleaner in the shot.

To bad IMAX is no longer making IMAX film projectors. The Museum of Civilization just went IMAX 3d uphere and they had to get the projectors used from Japan. An IMAX is a Canadian Company!

So noew they have three IMAX film projectors that are going to be the biggest boat anchors you can find in 5 years.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-29-2010, 12:20 PM:

Paul, IMAX will still make you a projector. But its going to cost you more then your going to want to pay. So its cheaper by a long shot to buy it second hand. As long as it came from a well run booth with some people who took care of it, its like buying a new one anyway.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2010, 12:55 PM:

How do the 15/70 projectors from Iwerks compare?

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-08-2010, 08:12 AM:

quote: Sean Weitzel
I was able to tell when the source camera negative format changed but it was tough to see

The July 2010 edition of American Cinematographer carries a typically detailed and authoritative account of the production and post-production phases of Inception;

Dream Thieves pp 26-39 AC July 2010

This paragraph gives interesting information about the release print workflow for both 35mm and IMAX versions, particularly in relation to the 65mm material (VV was also used, for aerial shots):

The 65mm negative was scanned at 6K at DKP 70mm Inc. under the watchful eye of company president David Keighley.

Those 6K files were then turned over to Technicolor in Hollywood, where a team extracted from the 6K data to generate 4K 35mm filmouts that could be combined with the native 35mm footage.

Pfister did all of the color timing photochemically at Technicolor, working with longtime collaborator David Orr.

In addition to 35mm and digital-cinema presentations, Inception will be released on 70mm Imax in select markets, and DKP 70mm Inc. scanned the 35mm color-timed interpositives to create those prints.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-08-2010, 03:17 PM:

So it is safe to say that IMAX is continuing to release 15/70 film prints of the big Hollywood releases like INCEPTION? It was my understanding from what the president said when they first introduced digital LieMax was that making 70mm prints was prohibnitively too costly ($28,000 each) to continue and they were going to phase out film as digital installs took over.

How long will the traditional IMAX theatres be able to continue running Hollywood releases on film? The whole idea was that going thru the process of making IMAX 15/70mm release prints was going to bankrupt the company and they wanted to move away from that economic modle as quickly as they could while still honoring their existing contracts.

It is also my understanding that the IMAX installations at museums and theme parks and such own their 15/70 prints of the 50min films and they can run them, rotating them if they so wish, until the prints wear out. I would imagine this wouldn't be the case with Hollywood releases such as INCEPTION. It's hard to believe that a studio would let an IMAX theatre OWN a print of one of their titles. Do you think?

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-09-2010, 05:49 AM:

The first attempt at a major Release not getting released to film based theatres was "Iron Man 2", this did not work like they wanted it to. The film based theatres basiclly spoke up and said that they should not get the short end of the stick because they are staying faithful to the format. So IMAX struck 24 or so 15/70 prints for their film based theatres. The big issue that IMAX film based theatres face, and this is what the issue was with "IRON MAN 2". The release schedule is so crammed, with a new movie coming out every two weeks. That it is not cost effective to strike and release 15/70 prints. On average DKP strike about 90 prints for major release.

quote: Frank Angel
It is also my understanding that the IMAX installations at museums and theme parks and such own their 15/70 prints of the 50min films and they can run them, rotating them if they so wish, until the prints wear out. I would imagine this wouldn't be the case with Hollywood releases such as INCEPTION. It's hard to believe that a studio would let an IMAX theatre OWN a print of one of their titles. Do you think?

While some locations may own their "Doc" prints, we have a library of 20+ films and we do not own them. We also are a first run Hollywood IMAX and don't run the "Docs" except for school rentals. We have sent a few films out to other locations over time since we acquired our location in December. We also still have some of the Hollywood films we've played since Decemember. In the end, these films are still owned by DKP or any of the other production companys that made the Doc.

We also have some prints Frank that are over 15 years old, and for the most part look brand new. Some locations I know have prints that are 20+ years old. Its going to be hard to wear out one of these prints. As an example, we've run the "Tron: Legacy" trailer everyday since December 18th and it looks like it did the first day. 15/70 film is very resilient and as long as its taken care of will last forever.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 08-09-2010, 10:55 PM:

Hi Kurt
What is the reason for the Hollywood films being at the theater since December?
Do the studios ask you to store them or...

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-10-2010, 05:18 AM:

Hi Victor,

No the studios have not asked us to store them and they have also not asked for them back. We've circuited a couple prints out to other IMAX's so they can be shown, and junked one print. We still have our print of "Avatar" which we ran for over three months and to over 170+ sold out shows and will be running that starting August 27th with the additional footage added in.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 09-01-2010, 02:26 PM:

In the 2 hour + runtime how much of it was atually shot in IMAX, are we talking half the film? 30 minutes?, 5 minutes?, less than that?

I wasn't that impressed watching it in IMAX. Most of it looked like 35mm Super35 (via digital intermediate) blown up to IMAX.
And it was all cropped to 2.35:1. Was excpecting it to open up to 4:3 at somepoint, which it never did. [Frown]

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 09-01-2010, 06:22 PM:

Not one frame was shot in IMAX.

From what I've read, it was mostly 35mm and 65mm 5-perf, with 2 digital high-speed shots.

So it was not "cropped" to 2.35:1, that was the native aspect ratio of the vast majority of the photography.

I saw it in real IMAX (King of Prussia), and in 35mm (Newark Cinema Center) and to my eye the IMAX print looked appreciably better than the 35mm, but to the average viewer, I imagine the difference would be negligible.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-13-2010, 09:51 PM:

in all honesty I couldn't tell what the 65mm scenes were in the IMAX version - I saw this at the Udvar Hazy Imax screen (at Air and Space in Chantilly Virginia) and it really didn't impress - the image still seemed a tad to hazy for my taste.

Posted by Brian Rose (Member # 5919) on 10-24-2010, 02:17 PM:

I saw Dark Knight at a 15/70 theatre, and it was glorious! Two years hence, I discovered the theatre had been converted to digital Liemax. I saw Inception, and I knew in advance from other cinematographers what scenes were in 65mm, so I could spot it in advance. But damned if I could. The scenes which I knew to be 65mm looked uniformly and rather blah. I've seen "Hamlet" in 70mm, and it was probably my favorite movie experience (the other being Baraka). Inception should've blown my eyes out but instead...

I could've cried!