Dark Knight Rises - True 70mm IMAX Projection

[PatrickFaith]

Something must of been up with your print, or you were just sitting too close to the screen. Nolan and Wally don't use DI's on their films (this is a fairly well known fact), and for distribution all of their 35mm footage (all of which is anamorphic, no exceptions) they scan at 4K. I don't know exactly what they scan the IMAX footage at for distribution, but rumor is it's upwards of 12K. Nolan and Wally wouldn't touch a 2K file with a meter stick. The mere phrase "2K" repels them.

I think your right, so the problem is as the film is moved to the 2k dcp. I was reading up on this, trying to figure out why it looked up close like crap. First off I'm perty sure that almost all the decent acting scenes where done with s35, thus the grain looks "normal" in the mid's for that. Because they are avoiding a 2k DI, the VFX doesn't have evenly overlayed grain (so randomly there is no grain in sections of the screen). Finally as the imax film is going through 2k dcp (i.e. jpeg2000), the very small grain of imax film (about 50 minutes the film) is under sampled when it goes through the jpeg2k wavelet (i.e. if it was 4k dcp, maybe that could capture the grain ... but even then due to the bit rate not allowed to be higher in 4k vs 2k ... i doubt the imax grain would come through decently without huge wavelet errors).

Over all though, mixing imax with s35 and vfx without a major rethink using 4k DI, makes the grain a Frankenstein mess as the movie is seen via a 2k dcp.

[Keegan O'Brien]

I think your right, so the problem is as the film is moved to the 2k dcp. I was reading up on this, trying to figure out why it looked up close like crap. First off I'm perty sure that almost all the decent acting scenes where done with s35, thus the grain looks "normal" in the mid's for that. Because they are avoiding a 2k DI, the VFX doesn't have evenly overlayed grain (so randomly there is no grain in sections of the screen). Finally as the imax film is going through 2k dcp (i.e. jpeg2000), the very small grain of imax film (about 50 minutes the film) is under sampled when it goes through the jpeg2k wavelet (i.e. if it was 4k dcp, maybe that could capture the grain ... but even then due to the bit rate not allowed to be higher in 4k vs 2k ... i doubt the imax grain would come through decently without huge wavelet errors).

Over all though, mixing imax with s35 and vfx without a major rethink using 4k DI, makes the grain a Frankenstein mess as the movie is seen via a 2k dcp.

Ah, you saw it digitally? I was under the impression you had seen it on 15/70mm. Anyway, yeah, there's a huge difference in grain structure between 35mm and 65mm IMAX. IMAX is obviously much... clearer. As for VFX, I'm not perfectly clear on their process, but it's not a conventional one. I wish I could find that article that explains their VFX process, but it's a very traditional approach. Perhaps someone else could explain better than myself.

[Jason Rudd]

For shots shot on 65mm film neg that require VFX, the negative was scanned at 8K, VFX applied, then filmed out at 8K using 65mm film recorders.

Definitely, everyone should see this at a IMAX FILM theatre, not a digital one! Over one hour of the film was shot on 65mm, and results are pretty stunning when seen at the proper theatre.

I personally saw it at the Rave 18, Howard Hughes center, formerly "the Bridge". Looked great - very obvious compared to the other 35mm anamorphic footage which looked very soft in comparison.

This is probably the LAST movie shot with so much IMAX film footage - film is quickly on its way out everywhere.

Ah, you saw it digitally? I was under the impression you had seen it on 15/70mm. Anyway, yeah, there's a huge difference in grain structure between 35mm and 65mm IMAX. IMAX is obviously much... clearer. As for VFX, I'm not perfectly clear on their process, but it's not a conventional one. I wish I could find that article that explains their VFX process, but it's a very traditional approach. Perhaps someone else could explain better than myself.

[L. Langer]

When I saw it in IMAX, the visual quality was all over the place. I don't know why. A lot of the IMAX action footage was also out of focus or focus was on and off for much of the film and some of it towards the end was as sharp as a knife.

[PatrickFaith]

Keegan ... I saw it a one of the listed above IMAX theaters, but I really doubt the distributer would send 2.5 hours of actual imax film ... and I have noticed at the IMAX I go to, it often just shows normal 2k dcp with nicer physical seating(it was perty crazy that thursday night ... so i didn't ask). movie was ok ... but not worth my time to go back to the theater and ask/rewatch it.

Jason ... I agree, the whole concept of filming and distributing on imax seems hopeless for the future. IMAX showing at 4k dcp makes a lot more sense to me. From a film nostalgia viewpoint, things like "Moonrise Kingdom" make a lot more sense to me.

L.Langer ... I sometimes noticed the same thing as the grain style changed.

[Shawn Nelson]

I saw it twice yesterday, once on true 70mm IMAX and then once in a "4k" cinema (Cinetopia Progress Ridge) that was using a 2k DCP. WTF? Is 2k DCP the only thing going out digitally? It felt soft and sometimes muddy.

[Keegan O'Brien]

Keegan ... I saw it a one of the listed above IMAX theaters, but I really doubt the distributer would send 2.5 hours of actual imax film ... and I have noticed at the IMAX I go to, it often just shows normal 2k dcp with nicer physical seating(it was perty crazy that thursday night ... so i didn't ask). movie was ok ... but not worth my time to go back to the theater and ask/rewatch it..

I'm not really sure what you just said...

[PatrickFaith]

I'm not really sure what you just said...

There is no guarantee that when you go to a IMAX theater, that the actual media is used to project is IMAX film ( which is bulky and heavy). So IMAX FILM isn't normally sent to the theater anymore. Digital IMAX has a overlay 2k format and a newer format. From my eye, it looks like the imax 2k looks almost the same as a 2k dcp, also since it's a overlay 2k format, it has the same spatial sampling issues as 2k dcp(i.e. if the film grain is close to the resolution of 2k, then you get classic sampling errors that look more like digital sensor error then film grain).

[Keegan O'Brien]

There is no guarantee that when you go to a IMAX theater, that the actual media is used to project is IMAX film ( which is bulky and heavy). So IMAX FILM isn't normally sent to the theater anymore. Digital IMAX has a overlay 2k format and a newer format. From my eye, it looks like the imax 2k looks almost the same as a 2k dcp, also since it's a overlay 2k format, it has the same spatial sampling issues as 2k dcp(i.e. if the film grain is close to the resolution of 2k, then you get classic sampling errors that look more like digital sensor error then film grain).

You can find out here. http://www.imax.com/corporate/media-...tres-near-you/

[PatrickFaith]

You can find out here. http://www.imax.com/corporate/media-...tres-near-you/

I use http://www.lfexaminer.com ... my theater i go to is listed as "dual" mode (can either be film or digital). LFexaminer notates theaters that are dual mode with:

* Indicates that the theater has both IMAX film and IMAX digital projectors. These theaters are capable of showing The Dark Knight Rises (and other films) either on film or digitally, but will probably show DKR on film.

Duel mode is sometimes designated 1570+dig or 1570/div ... I have no idea what the difference between those two are. I think about 25% of the imax are film capable, and of that 25% not all are using film. Of film, there's the 15 perf 70, but also 4 other format's i know of. Most of the IMAX movies I see though I think are uprezed then moved to that composite 2k ... and that's another quality level. I find the whole "IMAX" branding hugely confusing. I think "4k" will be a lot easier brand concept in the future.