Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And in IMAX.

This is topic Star Trek sequel in 35mm. And in 3D. And 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=000231

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 03-12-2012, 07:17 AM:

This must be one of the more bizarre shooting processes in recent years. JJ Abrams is filming the Star Trek sequel in 35mm and converting it to 3D. That's a fairly odd decision in itself, but a recently released on-set shot also shows an IMAX camera in use - have a look here.

If that's the new digital 3D IMAX camera, why not just use it for the entire film to save on the negative scanning and conversion process ? Or are they planning to letterbox the 35mm footage and have the screen expand vertically for the digital IMAX footage ?

If it's a film camera, it doesn't look big enough to be an IMAX 3D rig. In which case, are they planning to release the movie in 2D on IMAX screens with the native IMAX footage cut in, as with The Dark Knight ?

Given that there are probably going to be precious few 15/70 installations left by the time the movie is released, I suspect the former. Either way, it's a strange business.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-12-2012, 09:01 AM:

your link doesn't work.

here's a excerpt from collider.com regarding the 3D/film stock issue you ask, no mention of an IMAX camera though:

Are you shooting Star Trek 2 in 3D, or will you be converting it later?

ABRAMS: We’re shooting on film, and the reason for that is I wanted to shoot with anamorphic, and you can’t shoot 3D in anamorphic.

Do you plan on using lens flares again, and have you thought about how the 3D will affect that, in converting it later?

ABRAMS: I’ve had some people make fun of me about that. Yeah, we’ve done some tests. Not only lens flare tests, but we’ve done 3D tests. We actually converted a bunch of the original movie, which looked really good. That was the thing that made me feel like, maybe that would be okay. But, I didn’t want to shoot the movie digitally.

But, it will be in 3D?

ABRAMS: It will be converted, for those who want to see it in 3D. But, I wanted to match the look of the first one and shoot it anamorphically.

Because the popularity of 3D has died down some, are you worried about the commercial viability of 3D?

ABRAMS: I did not fight for the 3D. It was something that the studio wanted to do, and I didn’t want to do it. And then, when I saw the first movie converted in sections, I thought that it actually looked really cool. So, I was okay with their doing it, as long as I could shoot the movie the way I wanted to, in anamorphic film, and then let them convert it. So, those who want to see it in 3D, which looked pretty cool, can do it, and those that want to see it in 2D can do that too.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-12-2012, 09:03 AM:

certainly a ringing endorsement of 3D and digital [Wink]

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 03-12-2012, 09:09 AM:

Another attempt at a link.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-12-2012, 09:30 AM:

well...

you're right (as well as the captured on-set still). screenrant also is stating the film is being partially shot in IMAX

http://screenrant.com/star-trek-2-imax-3d-sandy-156554/

the story also states the movie will be post-converted for 3D

I hope Abrams doesn't do a Brad Bird and not present the IMAX shot scenes in compromised 2.35 AR for it's eventual home video bluray release.

in regards to the actual IMAX camera used for filming, it's possible it's the new Phantom 65 IMAX digital cameras that was used for 'Born to Be Wild' - which are lighter, quieter and can shoot more footage than the typical IMAX camera

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 03-12-2012, 11:27 AM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
it's possible it's the new Phantom 65 IMAX digital cameras that was used for 'Born to Be Wild'

That's the guess I was making. I think the one used on 'Born to be Wild' was just a prototype but they've probably got a production model available by now.

So he's shooting on 35mm because he wants to use anamorphic lenses and convert the footage to 3D, yet he's also using a non-anamorphic digital 3D camera for some of the shots ?

As I say, it's a bizarre decision.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-12-2012, 12:20 PM:

I got the sense that the 3D conversion was done in post production none of it captured in-camera.

Posted by Jonathan Froes (Member # 5861) on 03-12-2012, 05:53 PM:

here's a good view of the camera in several scenes...

http://sciencefiction.com/2012/02/28/star-trek-2-set-video-of-quinto-and-cumberbatch-fighting/

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 03-12-2012, 08:16 PM:

That looks like one of the MSM film cameras.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 03-13-2012, 04:21 AM:

quote: Shawn M. Martin
That looks like one of the MSM film cameras.

I think you're right.

In which case, I'm guessing it will be released in 2D in both 15/70 and Digital IMAX theatres, given that the company is so desperate to maintain that there's no real difference between the two.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-13-2012, 12:53 PM:

quote:
new Phantom 65 IMAX digital cameras that was used for 'Born to Be Wild'

THAT'S WHAT WAS WRONG WITH BORN TO BE WILD! I knew that footage just didn't look quite right, and I've been stumped about why for quite some time. Now I get it.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 03-14-2012, 08:11 AM:

Not all of Born To Be Wild was shot on digital, it was split between 1565 and digital.

From Film production notes :

"Shooting the IMAX documentary in the spectacular IMAX 15/70, while also capturing nuanced animal behavior, called for a special camera in addition to the cumbersome 70mm IMAX film camera. Director of photography David Douglas helped the IMAX camera team develop a new digital 3D IMAX camera prototype that would address some of the limitations faced by wildlife filmmakers. Douglas, who has been lensing IMAX films for 35 years explains, “At just a quarter of the IMAX film camera’s 300-pound weight, the digital camera allowed us to go into places and situations that would have been impossible before. The result was a striking improvement that has redrawn the practice of large-format wildlife filmmaking.”

The camera is not only lighter but quieter, which made it possible to use natural ambient sounds and also solved another of the filmmakers’ concerns. Fellman attests, “One of our biggest fears was how the animals would respond to this terribly loud, enormous camera and crane. The last thing we wanted was for them to change their behavior or retreat all together.”

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-14-2012, 12:38 PM:

That all totally makes sense. I was always just a little bit perplexed when I saw the footage for Born To Be Wild. Some of it looked pretty cool, and some just looked ... weird. I don't think it looked bad. Just different for some reason.

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 03-14-2012, 11:40 PM:

I should also add that the DP of this movie, Dan Mindel, is not a fan of digital, he likes to shoot exclusively in 35mm anamorphic, which is how almost all of his pictures have been shot, including his other two with Abrams. In fact, were it not for him, Abrams probably wouldn't even know what anamorphic is.

So it's more likely to me that, given the opportunity to shoot some of this in IMAX, both Mindel and Abrams would prefer to go "all the way" so to speak and use the real thing (film) and not digital.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 03-15-2012, 04:25 AM:

quote: Dick Vaughan
Not all of Born To Be Wild was shot on digital, it was split between 1565 and digital

I read somewhere (can't find the article again) that the original plan was to shoot only around 10 per cent digital, but they were so pleased with the footage they got with the digital camera that it ended up around 50/50.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 03-21-2012, 06:28 PM:

quote:
Do you plan on using lens flares again, and have you thought about how the 3D will affect that, in converting it later?

ABRAMS: I’ve had some people make fun of me about that. Yeah, we’ve done some tests. Not only lens flare tests, but we’ve done 3D tests. We actually converted a bunch of the original movie, which looked really good. That was the thing that made me feel like, maybe that would be okay. But, I didn’t want to shoot the movie digitally.

Yeah, people like me. [Big Grin]

I groaned when I read that he's apparently gonna do the flare crap again....

Oh, and I won't even waste my time or money watching this in 3D.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 02-05-2013, 08:44 AM:

So ... IMAX are now trailing Star Trek Into Darkness: An IMAX 3D Experience.

I'm guessing the 15/70 prints will be 2D DMR with the IMAX film footage cut in ?

So much for the the IMAX Corporation's pretense that there is no difference between their digital and film houses. Or maybe there are so few of the latter left they don't care anymore.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-06-2013, 09:58 PM:

Here is the pic Allan tried to (naughtily) link to...

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-07-2013, 02:01 AM:

quote: Allan Young
I'm guessing the 15/70 prints will be 2D DMR with the IMAX film footage cut in ?

So much for the the IMAX Corporation's pretense that there is no difference between their digital and film houses. Or maybe there are so few of the latter left they don't care anymore.

Allan, IMAX pioneered the 3D conversion process originally. If released on film ( that's the distributors choice ) it would be all in 3d.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
THAT'S WHAT WAS WRONG WITH BORN TO BE WILD! I knew that footage just didn't look quite right, and I've been stumped about why for quite some time. Now I get it.

Born To be Wild due to using digital footage was most likely one of the first post produced digitally and not cut on film. Hence the look.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 02-07-2013, 05:30 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
IMAX pioneered the 3D conversion process originally. If released on film ( that's the distributors choice ) it would be all in 3d.

Well, I guess we'll find out shortly. But I'm having trouble understanding why they would go to the expense of using the IMAX MSM camera only to scan the footage for conversion to 3D. If the 15/70 prints are going to be in 3D, why not just shoot with an IMAX 3D rig in the first place ? It makes no sense.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-07-2013, 05:09 PM:

Creatives do what creatives do, it rarely makes sense but that's the art of film making. I personally liked the look and feel of the first film, lens flares and all but I would not like it if many films were shot that way! He can not recreate that look of 35mm scope with IMAX equipment, though he could use anamorphic lenses on some digital cameras if he wanted to.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-07-2013, 06:50 PM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ-y6BWfUc

Go to about 1:10 to see where the lens flare issue is addressed!

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-14-2013, 06:41 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Creatives do what creatives do, it rarely makes sense but that's the art of film making. I personally liked the look and feel of the first film, lens flares and all but I would not like it if many films were shot that way! He can not recreate that look of 35mm scope with IMAX equipment, though he could use anamorphic lenses on some digital cameras if he wanted to.

Weren't many of those lens flares simply added in post production? It's just 3 clicks in After Effects and most people won't even notice the difference between real lens flares. Maybe there is even a hotkey for "add pointless anamorphic lens flare to scene" in J.J. Abrams favorite post production tool?

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Born To be Wild due to using digital footage was most likely one of the first post produced digitally and not cut on film. Hence the look.

That movie looked just AWFULLY soft, almost unwatchable on a huge dome screen. If they had a digital intermediate present, why didn't they do a better job at compensating for the deformations inflicted by the dome on the OMNIMAX prints?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 02-14-2013, 11:26 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Weren't many of those lens flares simply added in post production?

Nope. Abrams mentioned once that they were shining lights right at the camera a lot to really ramp up the lens flares as much as possible.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-16-2013, 10:08 PM:

What a dope.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-17-2013, 12:13 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
That movie looked just AWFULLY soft, almost unwatchable on a huge dome screen.

The wide shots to me looked a little soft, the close ups to me looked quite good. Perhaps the projectionist missed the mark? I have only seen it on the largest IMAX screen in the world. I don't think they bother to worry about the few last dome theatre's with special prints anymore.

Later films like "Skyfall" shot digitally can convert very well to 15/70mm film however.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-17-2013, 06:43 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
The wide shots to me looked a little soft, the close ups to me looked quite good. Perhaps the projectionist missed the mark?

That could be the case, but the other features I watched that day were sharp and clear. Also, the movie contained many closeups that just look silly on a dome screen.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
I have only seen it on the largest IMAX screen in the world. I don't think they bother to worry about the few last dome theatre's with special prints anymore.

I didn't do the math, but in terms of raw surface, the dome where I've seen it isn't all that much off. It's a pity IMAX is slowly ditching the dome.

It's not an easy format, but could be amazing, if the footage would've been a bit better adapted with some better perspective correction. In an all-film setting, that would be very hard to do, but with a digital intermediate present that should be entirely doable.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Later films like "Skyfall" shot digitally can convert very well to 15/70mm film however.

I've not seen Skyfall in 15/70, so I cannot judge about the looks of a digitally acquired DMRed movie, but I guess it helps that it was shot in 4K+.

I did see the Dark Knight Rises in 15/70 and the 35mm DMRed scenes didn't really impress me, they looked soft and dull compared to the awesome and jaw dropping IMAX footage. But maybe that's also because of the constant, in your face shift between both types of footage.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 03-07-2013, 04:28 AM:

I saw the Star Trek IMAX extended trailer/ preview a few days ago, the 3D lens flares looked pretty much as you would expect them to.... There were some scenes in the mostly scope trailer that looked to be 1.85, I imagine those scenes were shot with the IMAX camera.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 04-16-2013, 03:37 AM:

It appears the 15/70 prints are all 3D. I guess this will mark the first time IMAX footage has been scanned, converted to 3D and written back to film. Almost certainly the last time, too.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 04-16-2013, 10:32 PM:

Umm No Allan that's simply not true, IMAX pioneered the 3D conversion process and have converted IMAX documentaries like Egypt/ Mummies many years ago that still screen today.

I have seen the first 12 minutes of the latest Star Trek in 3D and close to 30 minutes in 2D. Looks impressive, especially the full frame IMAX sequences!

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 04-17-2013, 06:22 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
IMAX pioneered the 3D conversion process and have converted IMAX documentaries like Egypt/ Mummies many years ago that still screen today

Thanks for the correction; I'd assumed the IMAX 3D shorts were all filmed with a 3D rig.

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 05-01-2013, 05:31 PM:

I just wish they'd call 3D converts "faux D."

Really, how are 3D converts any different from "colorizing" black and white movies?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-01-2013, 05:55 PM:

I think one difference is that, by and large, the conversions aren't being done to movies where the directors have already passed away and have no control over the product. Then again, it's arguable as to how much control they have over it despite being alive. [Wink]

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 05-01-2013, 08:29 PM:

Then there's the TItanic and Jurassic Park 3-D converts. [Big Grin]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-04-2013, 10:46 AM:

quote: William Kucharski
Really, how are 3D converts any different from "colorizing" black and white movies?

It's very different. Back then the technology was lame and a colorized movie NEVER looked real. Today they can put a tiger in the same boat with a boy a few feet away from him and do it in 3D and you don't think for a second that the two of them were not shot there together, it's THAT real. I have actually come to the conclusion that with CGI 3D, they can control it BETTER than live capture 3D. After all, how much of a scene in a film like THE HOBBIT can be live capture in the firest place, when 90% of it is computer generated. In many films, the only elements that are live are the actors -- all the other elements are CGI -- so how much of a jump it is to render what they are already redering in the computer, in 3D?

With CGI, they can have much tighter control over precice convergence from scene to scene so that eye-strain from severe disparity between one shot and another can be minimized.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-04-2013, 01:16 PM:

CGI has nothing to do with what he was asking, imo. He was asking about 3D movie conversions; as in movies captured for 2D then later converted to 3D. Whether or not an all-CGI 3D looks better compared to a live-captured 3D doesn't say anything about a conversion.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-04-2013, 04:09 PM:

I can't remember where I read it, but I read somewhere that almost all live-action 3-D movies have some scenes converted and some scenes shot in 3-D. Even Avatar, supposedly had a good portion of the movie shot in 2-D and converted later.

The bad rap conversions got in the beginning is no longer deserved, IMO. They have learned how to do it properly. Of course there will still be bad conversion jobs -- just like there are still bad sound mixes or bad cinematography.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-04-2013, 05:25 PM:

Holy crap 3D is still a thing?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-06-2013, 05:24 PM:

quote: William Kucharski
I just wish they'd call 3D converts "faux D."

Why? So what's faux here? Isn't the whole essence of a movie one big pile of make-believe..? It's not the process that counts, it's the end result.

The only reason not to call it 3D, is because it is no real 3D, it is stereoscopic, but that's another discussion.

quote: William Kucharski
Really, how are 3D converts any different from "colorizing" black and white movies?

Maybe it is not that much different, only nobody cares about that anymore. Like Frank pointed out, back in the day when this was popular, the tech to do it sucked, so the end result was rather non-convincing.

quote:
Then there's the TItanic and Jurassic Park 3-D converts. [Big Grin]

I'm certainly not the biggest fan of "3D", but in some cases, it does have its merits. Have you actually seen the conversions? They're surprisingly good to be honest.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 05-07-2013, 02:30 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Maybe it is not that much different, only nobody cares about that anymore. Like Frank pointed out, back in the day when this was popular, the tech to do it sucked, so the end result was rather non-convincing.

That quote was about colorization. I beg to differ. I still remember seeing on TV a colorized Film Noir. I almost [puke]

Completely spoiled the whole intent. Yes. People still care.

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 05-07-2013, 07:44 AM:

The reference to Titanic and Jurassic Park was because those conversions were overseen by their creators, whereby most every colorized print was done without any involvement of the filmmakers whatsoever.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-07-2013, 02:50 PM:

quote: Jim Henk
Yes. People still care.

I guess you misunderstood my point. Nobody cares to produce colorized releases of old black and white movies anymore, color isn't something new and shiny. Black and white is even considered an art form nowadays.

Regarding most of those colorizations, yeah, they suck. Just like the Star Wars: Episode I 3D conversion sucks.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-19-2013, 06:27 PM:

So where is this playing in 70mm? I asked King of Prussia and they don't have it. Grrr. [Mad]

Is there a list somewhere?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-20-2013, 01:04 AM:

So apparently the IMAX footage on the 15/70 prints are matted down to 1.66:1? Can anyone confirm? And if so, why?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-20-2013, 07:44 AM:

If that's true then it goes against what J. J. Abrams says in this.

Posted by Tom Tomlinson (Member # 703) on 05-20-2013, 10:07 PM:

One of the vfx supervisors says something like that.

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/star-trek-into-darkness-vfx-makes-it-so/

Deliverables
How Pixomondo’s Ben Grossmann describes the challenges of delivering shots in both 2:35 and IMAX:
“In scenes that were shot in anamorphic 35mm they were letterboxed 2:35 and delivered right justified with 220 pixels of black.
Even in those scenes which are all CG we will deliver the shots in IMAX in stereo natively rendered but matted down to 1:66 instead of 1:33 aspect ratio.
In certain scenes that were shot in IMAX, then we’ll deliver IMAX and with breakouts for stereo conversion, but in any shots that are in IMAX in all-CG they will be delivered in full stereo.
There were sequences that intercut from one to the next from 2:35 to IMAX stereo native to converted 2:35 to IMAX footage inside of a full CG environment.
In 2:35 we would re-compose the IMAX frames so that they would favor the 2:35.

I wonder if they did a photochemical imax workflow (like dark knight) or scanned everything to digital to the heavy fx and "rendered/decided upon" 1.66.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-21-2013, 04:32 PM:

Cool! Thanks for the link!

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-21-2013, 06:15 PM:

Where the hell is it showing in film???

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-21-2013, 07:37 PM:

I was told that for the most part, if a theater has digital capabilities, they didn't get a print. One exception I know of is the BFI in London, which I think is one of only two theaters in either the city or the country (I forget which) that got a print.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-21-2013, 09:27 PM:

If that's true then I guess J. J. Abrams is no Chris Nolan.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 05-22-2013, 06:21 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I was told that for the most part, if a theater has digital capabilities, they didn't get a print. One exception I know of is the BFI in London, which I think is one of only two theaters in either the city or the country (I forget which) that got a print.

The UK got three 15/70 prints - Glasgow, Bradford and the BFI London. The first two locations don't have digital.

Does anyone know if the AMC Lincoln Square has IMAX digital ? I was hoping to catch a film print on a visit next week.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-22-2013, 12:26 PM:

quote: Allan Young
Does anyone know if the AMC Lincoln Square has IMAX digital ? I was hoping to catch a film print on a visit next week.

I doubt it, that screen is still way to large for simple 2K projection.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 05-23-2013, 04:51 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I doubt it, that screen is still way to large for simple 2K projection.

Unfortunately screen size is no longer an impediment. The world's largest screen at the Sydney Darling Harbour IMAX installed the 2K digital system a few months ago. They simply windowbox digital content.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-23-2013, 06:30 AM:

Well we at Sydney Imax are filling the screen with Star Trek as we speak [Smile]

well 1.66... and we still run film everyday, just not all day everyday.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-23-2013, 06:48 PM:

IMAX got back to me on their Facebook page and told me that Lincoln Square is film. I called the theater and they confirmed it. I'm heading there Sunday.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 05-24-2013, 03:18 AM:

Thanks, Mark. I'll be there on Monday !

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-26-2013, 11:02 AM:

Cameron, was there a note in the can or something explaining why it's in 1.66?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-27-2013, 12:15 AM:

Just got back from Lincoln Square. It sure didn't look 1.66 to me. It looked like it went all the way to the ceiling and floor. Maybe I'm wrong but it was freakin' huge. I'm really glad I went out of my way to see it.

Posted by Tom Tomlinson (Member # 703) on 05-27-2013, 07:12 AM:

I agree. I saw it at the fan advance screening there and certain shots seemed to fill up the screen top to bottom. A little too much camera movement for imax IMO.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-27-2013, 10:51 AM:

I didn't notice it either. The difference is very minimal. I made a little diagram to show what 1.66 looks like on a 1.44 screen:

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-27-2013, 11:01 AM:

If it's true then I guess the morale to the story is that when it's that big even the people that are looking for it and know what they're looking for can't tell so who cares?! [Big Grin]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-29-2013, 12:24 AM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Cameron, was there a note in the can or something explaining why it's in 1.66?

No but it's not a big deal. It's really just a clean thin line at the top of screen as the black line at the bottom is sitting down beneath the front row of seats, in the pit!

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 06-03-2013, 07:02 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Just got back from Lincoln Square. It sure didn't look 1.66 to me. It looked like it went all the way to the ceiling and floor.

There was definitely a few feet of unused and unmasked screen at the top of the frame during the IMAX scenes at Lincoln Square. As Cameron points out though, the matting was unnoticeable at the bottom of the screen.

I'm still unconvinced there was any need to use IMAX cameras for this movie though, especially given the decision to reduce the aspect ratio for the 15/70 prints. Surely if you're planning to scan every frame for the conversion to 3D it would have made little difference if they'd used standard 65mm or VistaVision cameras instead ?

I could understand the decision if they'd gone the photocem route for the IMAX scenes as with the Dark Knight movies, and produced 2D 15/70 prints. Using the IMAX cameras here seems like an expensive waste of celluloid.

(Loved the film, by the way !)

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-03-2013, 09:01 PM:

quote: Allan Young
Unfortunately screen size is no longer an impediment. The world's largest screen at the Sydney Darling Harbour IMAX installed the 2K digital system a few months ago. They simply windowbox digital content.

I gotta say, I like how they still run 15/70 when they can, and they even tell you which format it will be presented in before you arrive at the cinema.

Why add an IMAX digital system? This step was necessary as a result of the cinema industry’s rapid transition from analogue film to digital technology, which has also affected the IMAX industry. In recent years, some movies were available to the Theatre as IMAX 1570 film and some films were only available as IMAX digital presentations, hence unavailable to our audiences. By embracing the digital technology, our stream of movies will be more consistent and there’ll be a bigger choice throughout the entire year. While we will operate the two IMAX systems, we will continue a strong commitment to screen movies in IMAX 1570 film if they are available. It’s important to note, however, that the decision to release specific films in the IMAX format, whether in film or digital, is not one that we make at the Theatre level. Rather, this happens way back up the chain in Hollywood

For now - How will we know which movies will be presented in IMAX digital or 1570 film? Check our website for information about the system that each title will use. The digital presentations will be flagged with “EXPERIENCE IT IN DIGITAL IMAX 3D”.

Posted by Ivan Plamondon (Member # 7637) on 07-19-2013, 06:40 PM:

Just watched the 2D version of Star Trek, Into Darkness at IMAX Niagara Falls, Ontario. Although they may have used a digital IMAX camera for some of the scenes, it was nice to have the complete 60 by 80 foot screen put to use. When they jump back to the 2.35 ratio scenes, it does however become a bit perplexing at times. The full screen shots ,more than likely, make heavy use of computer graphics, so the end result is no where's near in quality what a 1.44 ratio of actual IMAX film camera would deliver. The general public wouldn't notice the difference I believe.

My preview of the film at 1:40 am of the morning, was however,an exilarating experience!!!! Where else can a guy have access to such an awesome MAN CAVE!!!!

Projectionally yours, Ivan Plamondon

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-20-2013, 10:53 PM:

Ivan

I am assuming you are the projectionist at the Niagara Falls IMAX?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-21-2013, 12:08 AM:

Ivan,
I did have a opportunity to see a 15-70 IMAX film at the Niagara Falls IMAX theatre many years ago when a good friend and a I was on our way to attend a professional photographers convention at Rochester and judge at their photo exhibit. The IMAX film we saw was probably a feature thst was specially produced for that theatre because it was about Niagara Falls. As I recall , the theatre was owned and operated by a company called Destination Cinema who also operated the Hawaii IMAX before it was sold to Pacific theatres. Hawaii's IMAX theatre shut down many years ago and I was very happy to learn the Niagara Falls IMAX is still in business.

-Claude

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-21-2013, 09:11 AM:

Niagara Fall IMAX is still owned by Destination Cinema, and they still show the IMAX Niagara movie.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 07-21-2013, 12:21 PM:

Terry,
Is the Niagara Falls IMAX still film only or are they capable of showing both film and digital now?

By the way, Destination Cinema also had a film produced for their Hawaii IMAX theatre. The film was HIDDEN HAWAII and Pacific Theatres continued to show it on occasion when they took over the theatre from Destination Cinema.

-Claude

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-21-2013, 06:41 PM:

Claude, film only as far as I know. They have just starting playing second run 15/70 Hollywood fair. Gonna see Star Trek this week.

Posted by Ivan Plamondon (Member # 7637) on 07-23-2013, 03:21 PM:

As Terry-Lynn said, we are a film-only theatre and although the 26 year old Niagara Movie is still the main feature, running every hour as early as 8 am on select days, 7 days a week, we have started featuring full length movies as of June 21, 2013. IRON MAN 3 was the first movie out of the box and Star Trek , Into Darkness first began on July 19th, playing at 9 pm , Monday thru Friday, and at 8 pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

Terry, I hope you are planning on viewing the Star Trek film at our location! lol