Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"Contagion"... IMAX.

Thanks...so the best projection in LA to see Contagion on Imax is...
cheers

ps.: I dont live here and don't know anything here. Just want to have that Imax experience at some good place.
 
Raphael Varandas said:
Thanks...so the best projection in LA to see Contagion on Imax is...
cheers

ps.: I dont live here and don't know anything here. Just want to have that Imax experience at some good place.
Click to expand...

The best projection to see Contagion anywhere is a 15/65mm theater.
 
Just got back from seeing it at a Cinemark XD (like "liemax"), movie looked really good for the most part. Seeing the trailer for SS's next flick, Haywire, did Lear me wondering why SS chooses to make some of his movies look so ugly. He is a talented DP and so I know these images are no accident, which is why it is so perplexing. Even my non critical eye brother leaned over to ask why the trailer looked so bad!
 
Watched from a 35mm copy. Photography is very simple, basic, documentary like, very suitable to the story.
Most scenes are lit with practical lights. Photography is not remarkable, but as I said very appropriate.
 
wow...went to imax amc.
near my hotel...good projection.
Very good movie, like you said Alex, the cinematrography is very appropriate.

I'm paranoich, excuse me while I wash my hands.
cheers,
 
Keegan O'Brien said:
Well... not really. Everyone knows that the image you actually end up getting from the Red One MX isn't 4K... I believe Jim said it was around 3.2K after debayering. So, even with a true 4K finish, you don't have a true 4K image. You'd need the EPIC, F65, or Anamorphic 35mm for that. Then the question is whether or not any resolution is lost once printed on the film stock. I know with 35mm that the general consensus seems to be that a fair amount is lost, but I don't know if that's true with 15/65mm. I doubt it, but who knows.

I saw the film in D-IMAX, and aside from my gripes with the cinematography, the footage itself was gorgeous on those monster DLP projectors.
Click to expand...

I thought it was measured at a max of 3.6K with the latest algorithm and new sensor?

But regardless, I thought Contagion was shot on Epic, which is more than 4K even after debaying?
 
It may be the first FEATURE to be filmed out to IMAX, but in March of 2008 I worked on a job that filmed out to IMAX. It was a long-form project for the launch of a new drug, to be show an the launch events in various museums, planetariums, and IMAX theaters around the country.
Tim Sassoon, venerable poster here, handled the complex compositing and finish. The attached photo is me holding up the test print, on the set of the shoot.
I went to see the show in the IMAX theater at the Liberty Science Center in New Jersey on the date of the first event. It looked FABULOUS. The only giveaway was wide shots with extreme detail (like people's hair) showed a little loss of that detail (the hair looked a bit like plastic helmets for instance)
OLD SENSOR. OLD COLOR SCIENCE. And it looked AMAZING.
I can only imagine how great "Contagion" will look with the new sensor and all the great work that the Red Team has done in the past 3+ years to improve the post process.
Well done Red!
Cheers,
Harry
 

Attachments

  • harry IMAX.jpg
    harry IMAX.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 0
I was very pleased with this flic R3D holds up crazy good on Digi IMAX, when you're shooting what's the best way to crop for IMAX? I guess there's safety lines then you can crop via Cine-X?

Kinda curious about the process they used while filming and post work.
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
I thought it was measured at a max of 3.6K with the latest algorithm and new sensor?

But regardless, I thought Contagion was shot on Epic, which is more than 4K even after debaying?
Click to expand...

Red are way ahead of the pack on resolution. Projection needs to catch up.

You'd be lucky to see more than 720p on a digital imax projection, nearer 1080 for a Imax film print projected.

What you won't see is 4k, 3.7k, 3.2k, 3k, 2.5k and probably not even 2k worth of resolution actually projected, in terms of luminance or colour through any current projector, on any screen (except maybe a 4k monitor), regardless of camera used, or resolution of the print. Its just the nature of projectors (even ones claiming to be 4k)

You will however see more resolution than nearly any other viewing method, bar the large monitor (which doesn't have the same impact of course)

2k was never a compromise for projection, 4k/8k film scans etc, are done for other reasons
 
conrad gaunt said:
Red are way ahead of the pack on resolution. Projection needs to catch up.

You'd be lucky to see more than 720p on a digital imax projection, nearer 1080 for a Imax film print projected.
Click to expand...

Where exactly are you getting this information? IMAX oversees the printing process of the 15/65mm prints, and no information is lost in file transfers, which is all digital IMAX is. IMAX spends tons of money on boosting image quality with it's 2 week DMR process... that'd all be a waste if what you say is true. And the digital projection quality is dual top of the line DLP projectors that produces some of the brightest and most colorful digital images in the world... at 2K. The files they receive are legitimate 2K files as well...
 
Last edited:
Keegan O'Brien said:
Where exactly are you getting this information? IMAX oversees the printing process of the 15/65mm prints, and no information is lost in file transfers, which is all digital IMAX is. IMAX spends tons of money on boosting image quality with it's 2 week DMR process... that'd all be a waste if what you say is true. And the digital projection quality is dual top of the line DLP projectors that produces some of the brightest and most colorful digital images in the world... at 2K. The files they receive are legitimate 2K files as well...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update keegan
 
Having seen Contagion in IMAX... after 7 months shooting occasionally with Epic-M 5K, 3 years shooting with Red...

Contagion in IMAX was the worst moviegoing experience I've had this year. Finished a job early on Monday, decided to see the IMAX presentation at Lincoln Center in New York. It was cropped. Horribly cropped. 4:3, or worse. You know the way faces look in a TV presentation--bulging, oversized in the frame, along with awkward harsh cuts through objects at the frame edge?

Imagine that on a 150' screen.

Contagion was filmed in 1:1.85... and that was definitely not what I paid $19 to see it in. On the other hand, the cinematography was fitting, and Red printed to film print stock looks fantastic--Winters Bone convinced me of this, it's a truly beautiful way to experience a story. But this cropping business has to go.
 
Ryan De Fanco said:
Having seen Contagion in IMAX... after 7 months shooting occasionally with Epic-M 5K, 3 years shooting with Red...

Contagion in IMAX was the worst moviegoing experience I've had this year. Finished a job early on Monday, decided to see the IMAX presentation at Lincoln Center in New York. It was cropped. Horribly cropped. 4:3, or worse. You know the way faces look in a TV presentation--bulging, oversized in the frame, along with awkward harsh cuts through objects at the frame edge?

Imagine that on a 150' screen.

Contagion was filmed in 1:1.85... and that was definitely not what I paid $19 to see it in. On the other hand, the cinematography was fitting, and Red printed to film print stock looks fantastic--Winters Bone convinced me of this, it's a truly beautiful way to experience a story. But this cropping business has to go.
Click to expand...

That's unusual. I've never seen a cropped IMAX presentation before.
 
I've watch almost every film I can that has been filmed and pushed to IMAX DMR since The Dark Knight, and sadly no film regardless has looked as good as the 35mm or the 70mm I saw there. It was just untouchable. The only thing to come close was Tron Legacy. The Dark Knight is still to this day the best IMAX moving going experience. The resolution was so well kept between the 35mm and the 70mm it was extremely impressive. I doubt anyone will disagree.
 
Just got back from Contagion Imax in Irvine ... wow, stunning! It really made me realize how little you can judge the "look" or visual quality of film from a 1080p online preview. Sooooooo much better seeing it in full Imax.

I not only enjoyed the film and acting, but found the cinematography/photography to be fantastic. Especially how effectively he frequently/skillfully used shallow DOF (I'm guessing he used Master Primes, wide open, through much of the film).

Anyway, kudos to Steven and the team. Very well done and yet another huge victory for the MX sensor.
 
I saw it projected digitally, although not in IMAX. I agree, it looks better on the big screen than online. I think the look of the film, as you watch it, becomes less jarring for two reasons.

Firstly, regardless of how it looks, if a movie is doing its job properly, you get pulled into the story and the way it looks from a technical standpoint becomes less of a factor (i.e. The Blair Witch Project). I felt this way about Contagion.

And second, the more I thought about it, I feel the look of this movie is quite integral to the storytelling (i.e. The Blair Witch Project). Contagion is literally about exposure.

Over exposing the image was probably a very deliberate visual metaphor. Certain parts of the image are "protected" while other parts are subject to contamination (from light). It's a visual reminder of the situation the characters are faced with...some people will be infected and some won't, but you don't know who or when. It's unsettling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top