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 :)

IMAX & Chris Nolan

Phillip Stefani

Phillip Stefani

Active member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Chicago
I admire Chris Nolan's work and his stubbornness to shoot only on film.

That said, when I saw the photo below, I instinctively said to myself, "There's a relic from the past."

The photo was taken yesterday...

50imax.jpg


* I know this his probably been asked/answered a million times already, but is the resolution of IMAX film more than 5K?
 
remember that Chris and Wally shoot IMAX for a number of reasons. They still love photo chemical. And the way focus falls off on 65mm is unlike anything else. It is not just about resolution for them.
 
Phillip Stefani said:
* I know this his probably been asked/answered a million times already, but is the resolution of IMAX film more than 5K?
Click to expand...

I can't remember where I've read it, but it's been stated that an Imax frame can theoretically reach between 12k and 18k of resolution. The Imax scenes in The Dark Knight were scanned at 8k for practical purposes, though.

Peter Lyons Collister said:
remember that Chris and Wally shoot IMAX for a number of reasons. They still love photo chemical. And the way focus falls off on 65mm is unlike anything else. It is not just about resolution for them.
Click to expand...

It's like when people look through the viewfinder of my Nikon F100, and then I have them look through the Hasselblad viewfinder...most of the times "wow" is what comes out of their mouths :smiley:
 
The 15-perf 65mm negative is about 70mm wide. If a 24mm wide piece of 35mm negative resolves about 3K on average and IMAX is nearly 3X wider, then in theory it must be able to resolve 9K on average. If you take a higher resolution figure for 35mm then the figure for IMAX becomes even higher.

However, limitations in optics and other factors probably mean that IMAX negative doesn't quite hit that 9K+ mark. And of course IMAX projection is going to be much less than what the negative can resolve, just as 35mm print projection is less than what the 35mm negative can resolve.

Now this 9K+ estimate for IMAX negative is a different issue than what resolution would look good on an IMAX screen, given that many 35mm 2K D.I.'s have been blown-up to IMAX, like the "Harry Potter" movies. 4K or 5K digital should look decent on an IMAX screen. But even there, you'd figure that if 35mm projection is near 2K quality, then a print that is 3X wider must be near 6K... so I think ideally a digital IMAX system would involve a 9K camera (if scanned back to 15-perf 65mm film) or a 6K camera for 6K digital projection since there would be no resolution loss from printing to factor in. Whether or not 9K or 6K cameras and projectors are practical is another matter. But I would hope that a digital IMAX system would offer something radically better than what normal theaters are getting, and if they all go to 4K eventually, then you need IMAX to go to 6K or beyond. IMAX has always been about overkill after all.
 
Red's 645 camera, when released, should take care of the digital capture end for Imax.
Medium format still camera lenses, and some view camera lenses are mostly used on Imax camera.

Now, maybe Red is secretly developing a digital Imax projector as a follow-on to their 4K projector.

I have worked with Imax, and a 1,250' roll of 65/70mm film almost begs to be carried by a fork lift.
A fat SSD brick will be a whole lot easier to transport.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The 15-perf 65mm negative is about 70mm wide. If a 24mm wide piece of 35mm negative resolves about 3K on average and IMAX is nearly 3X wider, then in theory it must be able to resolve 9K on average. If you take a higher resolution figure for 35mm then the figure for IMAX becomes even higher.

However, limitations in optics and other factors probably mean that IMAX negative doesn't quite hit that 9K+ mark. And of course IMAX projection is going to be much less than what the negative can resolve, just as 35mm print projection is less than what the 35mm negative can resolve.
Click to expand...

As you allude to, David, when it comes down to actual theater projection, 35mm film actually measures less than 1000 horizontal lines in studies conducted at standard multiplexes. More than 720p but less than 1080p. So actual IMAX presentations, IMO, have far less resolution than most people believe. I have spent a lot of time eye-balling IMAX screens, and it's really not the resolution that stands out. If you put a Master Prime on a Red Epic, you could theoretically get as much resolution as an IMAX camera with a mediocre lens. One of the reasons is because the Red Epic footage (or Sony F65 for that matter), would be 100% digital from end to end. From the camera lens to the IMAX screen, so there is no optical or chemical loss anywhere in the chain. That is a hugely underestimated factor, IMO.

Of course, there are other benefits of having that HUGE negative, including dynamic range and just the overall look and characteristic of IMAX. It's not possible to match with a smaller sensor, period. And this what I believe Nolan loves.
 
Besides what Christopher Nolan and the work he's done on "Bat Man" are filmmakers even making 15 perf IMAX spectacles anymore? Seems like the theaters are being retrofitted and and replaced while pre-existing theaters are removing their first row of seats and calling that IMAX. Such a shame. "Everest" was one of the greatest film going experiences and I'm afraid such an event will soon be a thing of the past. The digital revolution has certainly been a big step forward but eliminating 15 perf film and thus the true IMAX Experience is an even bigger step back. It will still be some time before digital can match that sort of resolving plateau.
 
Unfortunately the rules of cost and convenience apply to projection technologies as well as acquisition cameras.

IMAX Film theatres will probably be a relic of the past within a few years. Sad to say, but true.
 
It's not the dynamic range that Nolan likes, but the resolution. The DR is going to be about the same I expect as a good 35mm printed from Arri laser.

Tom Lowe said:
Of course, there are other benefits of having that HUGE negative, including dynamic range and just the overall look and characteristic of IMAX. It's not possible to match with a smaller sensor, period. And this what I believe Nolan loves.
Click to expand...
 
Sad:(
 
I believe this article here gives a good insight into why Pfister chooses to shoot film (when we say Nolan shoots film, from what I gather what this really means is Wally Pfister, as he and Nolan are pretty much inseparable, creatively speaking):

http://www.tapestockonline.com/tomaimand35i.html

Pfister's 6K scans of film showed him (obviously this is somewhat subjective, especially when dealing with what we consider acceptable grain/noise at any given resolution) that 35mm, let alone IMAX, at the time had superior resolution to any digital solution (that's not from that article above, something I remember from another video interview). Whether he's now tested any Epics, of course...
 
You only have to look at stills camera resolution for the proof of that. A shot taken on a Canon EOS 1Ds mkiii or a 5D MkIi is 21 MP, 5176 x 3744 pixels. Even that does not resolve as well as a 35mm slide taken using Fujia Velvia (ISO 50) or Provia (ISO 100 or 200), which is why medium format and digital camera backs that resolve up to 9k are still used for advertising photography.

Now that we're using 5k, we're starting to approach 35mm film, and enjoying the use of relatively noise free high ISO ratings, and that's where digital really has the edge (as well as the workflow, cost, etc)
 
Phillip Stefani said:
I admire Chris Nolan's work and his stubbornness to shoot only on film.

That said, when I saw the photo below, I instinctively said to myself, "There's a relic from the past."

The photo was taken yesterday...

50imax.jpg


* I know this his probably been asked/answered a million times already, but is the resolution of IMAX film more than 5K?
Click to expand...

Well, considering my 3D Beam splitter EPIC rig is smaller then that, and can be placed on a steady cam or shoulder mounted, I really do fill sorry for the luck of creative options in his camera movements...


But to each its own, even when in contact with IMAX for "RAPE of a BEAUTY" 3D, I also made very specific that EPIC cameras were to be used,
as there is no way I'll ever get back to shoot film...

Oh wait, I never shot film, well, not for movies any way... ;)

Sooo Unpratical... Sooo not heartily friendly... Sooo... Well you get my point... ;)
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Well, considering my 3D Beam splitter EPIC rig is smaller then that, and can be placed on a steady cam or shoulder mounted, I really do fill sorry for the luck of creative options in his camera movements.
Click to expand...
Funny, it doesn't seem to have hindered Nolan/Pfister's creativity at all... I think they've both earned the right to use whatever camera they want.


Some of the greatest works of color cinematography were made with a refrigerator-sized camera with single-digit ASA film stocks. Other immortal works were made with handcranked cameras and uncoated lenses. Kinda makes me think we focus too much on the tools of the trade and not enough on the craft these days. My .02...
 
Joe Taylor said:
Besides what Christopher Nolan and the work he's done on "Bat Man" are filmmakers even making 15 perf IMAX spectacles anymore? Seems like the theaters are being retrofitted and and replaced while pre-existing theaters are removing their first row of seats and calling that IMAX. Such a shame. "Everest" was one of the greatest film going experiences and I'm afraid such an event will soon be a thing of the past. The digital revolution has certainly been a big step forward but eliminating 15 perf film and thus the true IMAX Experience is an even bigger step back. It will still be some time before digital can match that sort of resolving plateau.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about 100% 15perf spectacles but I know that 30 or so minutes of the new Mission Impossible was filmed in 15perf IMAX, specifically the footage shot on and around the Burj Kalifa in Dubai. Also, I read that Michael Bay shot some IMAX for the last two Transformers films. I think the last IMAX doc release was Born To Be Wild 3D but I think that most of it was shot digitally on a prototype IMAX camera.
 
Satsuki Murashige said:
Funny, it doesn't seem to have hindered Nolan/Pfister's creativity at all... I think they've both earned the right to use whatever camera they want.


Some of the greatest works of color cinematography were made with a refrigerator-sized camera with single-digit ASA film stocks. Other immortal works were made with handcranked cameras and uncoated lenses. Kinda makes me think we focus too much on the tools of the trade and not enough on the craft these days. My .02...
Click to expand...

No doubt, however for my style of Cinematography, that would not work... ;)
 
Andrew Rieger said:
I think the last IMAX doc release was Born To Be Wild 3D but I think that most of it was shot digitally on a prototype IMAX camera.
Click to expand...

Shot about half in IMAX 3D film and half in digital 3D using a pair of Phantom 65 Gold cameras.
 
Don't forget that Sony has an 8K camera coming in a few months, but it is a Super-35 size image area. For a large format sensor, currently only the Phantom 65 Gold is available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top