komodo 6k to 15/70 IMAX?

[Daniel Porto]

Hi,

Im looking to get some komodo 6k printed to IMAX 15/70mm... is this possible and if so who does it? Looking to get it projected at IMAX melbourne. I've contacted IMAX and waiting for a reply. No rush but if someone has any information im all ears

 

[Dominik Muench]

As far as I know Australia doesn't have any labs anymore that handle motion picture film, let alone one with an Arri Laser. Both Atlab and Deluxe closed down years ago.

you can try https://nanolab.com.au/ and see if they can help.

Out of curiosity, why do you want the film negative step in between ? why not create a DCP and screen your footage digitally ?

Mark Toia did just that recently with his feature Monsters of Man that he shot on RED and screened last week at the Brisbane IMAX.

 

[Daniel Porto]

I’m just in love with imax film. Defiantly won’t be able to print in Australia so looking into the us and Canada. Seems like photo Kem can do it. I’m going to project digitally at 4K and project with 15/70mm straight after to compare. Whatever renders the better result will be how I will showcase my work going forward

 

[Nick Vera]

Different Digital projectors are going to yield different results even if they are all 4K. Even printing the digital footage onto IMAX film might yield different results amongst different print copies depending on multiple variables like the batch of film you use, how it's processed in the lab, the way each vendor transitions their own "profile look" (color space and gamma) from digital to celluloid. Arrilaser only goes up to 4K, so if anything you won't gain more detail even if you print on IMAX, in fact you might lose detail. You will gain the grain structure of print film and your "look" (amongst other things) will shift due to the characteristics of print film. Side note, I'm pretty positive ArriLaser only goes up to 35mm film. I think IMAXlaser projectors are your best bet in theatrical IMAX cinema(when it comes to getting as much resolution as possible), but there are a few of those projectors (though their numbers were growing before Covid) and usually you have to go through IMAX post to make sure everything transitions correctly to their projection system.

If you want the aesthetic of IMAX film, shoot IMAX film. But if you want the next closest thing, shoot with many of the amazing FullFrame imaging systems available now. Shooting at T1.3 on full frame 36mm x 24mm should give you the same shallow DOF of IMAX at T2.8. But of course, the lenses have to work very well at that aperture. Also Full frame and IMAX have different aspect ratios, so you may want to crop the sides slightly on full frame.

Which cinema camera is up to you, but I wouldn't judge the camera based on the "look the camera gives". That can be changed later in post. Also mimicking the "film look" is very tedious and for some it's taken over a decade to get the look almost indistinguishable to film, but you may want to consult a coloring house for assistance on mimicking print film.

I can keep going on, but I hope that helps you out in research

 

[Daniel Porto]

Thanks mate. I’m currently talking to imax. We will see how this goes I’m going to project in both film and 4K digital one after the other. The best looking image in my opinion will be how I will release my stuff in future. Will post here how it all goes! I think the film print will win but only time will tell. At the very least I’ll have a 15/70mm print for my family archives only going to be about 5mins of footage

 

[Björn Benckert]

Thanks mate. I’m currently talking to imax. We will see how this goes I’m going to project in both film and 4K digital one after the other. The best looking image in my opinion will be how I will release my stuff in future. Will post here how it all goes! I think the film print will win but only time will tell. At the very least I’ll have a 15/70mm print for my family archives only going to be about 5mins of footage

My few cents. I owned 2 digital filmprinters back in the days. And sure do the tests, but the money spent going the print way instead of a DCP will improve your imagery more if you poor it into good post and grading. Printing for IMAX does not come cheap. Then on top of that I'm not sure I would print no matter the costs, it's a huge hassle and colors tend to sway quite heavily.

We did several tests, printing two rolls, same stock same everything right after each other, then handing in one roll to the lab and then the other a few days later, one was green and one was red, and and when it shifts towards green it also looses sharpens. Simply the lab process is not a straight one. And it's really diffcult to get all copies to look the same especially if you don't do them in one big batch.... and when you do you render the risk of having them all look like shit. We worked directly with Kodak and Cinesite and also with the local lab in Stockholm. They all sway like mad in terms of quality.

But yes, do the test and let us know how it went.

Regarding DOF and trying to mimic IMAX look etc. I would not shoot wide open sure a Wide open high speed lens of a given FOV looks just like a large format setup wide open with the same FOV. But when having such a large canvas is more about how much you can stop down. Simply super short DOF is not so appealing on a huge screen big sharp vistas is.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

FWIW, I'd invest in a more robust post process long before I'd pour cash into creating film prints from DI. I'd investigate the nuances of gamma characteristics, micro-contrast rendition, etc per the actual screen image in an IMAX installation. Make a reel of 10 versions of key scenes and do an "eye test" in the same environment the audience will be in. Adjust as needed.

IMAX will have plenty of technical setup references for the obvious specs. Where I would focus my input is using a critical eye - and hopefully some taste - in bringing out the best in each unique scene as it will look to the end viewer.

Cheers - #19

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Shooting at T1.3 on full frame 36mm x 24mm should give you the same shallow DOF of IMAX at T2.8.

AFAIK, IMAX is always shot stopped down wherever possible.

Regarding DOF and trying to mimic IMAX look etc. I would not shoot wide open sure a Wide open high speed lens of a given FOV looks just like a large format setup wide open with the same FOV. But when having such a large canvas is more about how much you can stop down. Simply super short DOF is not so appealing on a huge screen big sharp vistas is.

I think that's what I've always observed in IMAX productions: deep focus is the default. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[Nick Vera]

AFAIK, IMAX is always shot stopped down wherever possible.

I meant in regards to if he's looking for a similar shallow depth of field. Not that he should shoot that. Clearly you should not always shoot wide open. But yeah, if you want to close down to a T4 on IMAX or T5.6, the equivalent DOF on full frame is T1.9 and T2.7

There are instances where Hoyte shoots wide open on IMAX. I spoke to Dan Sasaki over a year ago about this, and he had told me he was requested to make lenses that open up to T1.8 on IMAX. I believe it was for night exteriors.

If you want the most resolution and sharpness, closing down will always help at least to an 8, I think at 16,22 some lenses start showing optical issues.

 

[Daniel Porto]

Got some quotes and it’s going to cost 20,000usd for 5mins of footage. I thought it would be expensive but not that much. 4K dcp is fine with me

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Got some quotes and it’s going to cost 20,000usd for 5mins of footage. I thought it would be expensive but not that much. 4K dcp is fine with me

Even at those prices, I'd wager they will not guarantee precise color matching.

Digital post workflows with precise control over key image characteristics offer the opportunity to really dial in the final product. This can be particularly effective when creating masters for a unique format like IMAX. If it were me, I'd create multiple versions using different gammas, saturation, black points, etc and audition them in a calibrated IMAX installation. Based on the notes from that, I'd build a few output LUTs and audition those, etc.

Cheers - #19

 

[Matthew Riggieri]

I am currently grading and finishing a film right now that is going to Sundance and the filmmakers elected to do a intermediate film print. From initial contact to final print, the process took 18 months, but they contacted me before principal photography. We did a total of 5 print tests with the lab to lock down our workflow.

Production shot 3.2K Prores4444 Alexa

We graded in a 4K timeline. While grading we worked under a LUT that was built during our tests to approximate what we would get back from the lab. We also worked under a 16mm grain print, again to approximate our final product. We delivered to our LAB a 4K ProRes4444XQ with superblack and superwhite information, in 709, but without our Filmout LUT and grain.

They printed to 16mm negative, because we wanted the tightest 16mm grain. 35mm was actually not grainy enough for the filmmakers. I believe the lab used a ARRILASER recorder.

They overscanned the negative at 5K for a 4.5K scan of the image area. We took that in Cineon Log and then worked under the Lab's Cineon to 709 LUT (because they tweaked their out to our process) to do any final tweaks on the final scan before Striking a DCP.

Final presentation will be DCP.

What we gained from the film print was an additional quality of blooming to highlights, gate weave, a slight overall blur and the organic nature of grain with dirt. The color changes were so limited, because we graded in 709 and sent a 709 image to the lab, as this was the most repeatable in all our tests. Plus there were tons of color space managed VFX to deal with. Would have been a horror show if we tried to print in a wider gamut.

My filmout approximation was extremely close to what we got back in the print. It would not have been possible without a lab that was very understanding of the process and willing to work with us to do the necessary tests.

We are all very happy with the final image.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Thanx Matthew for the description of how going to, and back from, film can impart a desired look. With enough time and budget, the OP might be able to achieve their goal by creating a pipeline that includes printing to film in the middle of - or at the end of - producing the final output. That said, unless you have a big pile o' cash and no deadline...

Cheers - #19

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I am currently grading and finishing a film right now that is going to Sundance and the filmmakers elected to do a intermediate film print. From initial contact to final print, the process to 18 months, but they contacted me before principal photography. We did a total of 5 print tests with the lab to lock down our workflow.

Thank you for sharing all that. I don't suppose you are able to say how much your film-out cost? I assume that this is not something for micro-budget productions.

 

[Matthew Riggieri]

We worked with Colorlab in DC. I am not sure how much it cost, but it was a significant portion of the finishing cost. We were offered S16mm with a 1.33 squeeze and 2-pef s35mm at the same price. 2-perf s35 honestly looked amazing, but wasn't the atheistic for the film.

 

[James Jacob]

you can try https://nanolab.com.au/ and see if they can help.