TDKR IMAX - Film only?

[Phoenix2088]

Not sure if the WSJ got this wrong as it seems highly unlikely, but their piece regarding TDKR and IMAX states that the IMAX version will only be played in traditional film format.

Not sure where they got the information that exhibitors will foot the bill for the conversion back to film (most IMAX theaters are now fully digital), because it will absolutely never happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...832511540.html

From the article:
"IMAX hasn't yet committed to films for August and September, because it wants to give "The Dark Knight Rises" more time to run. That film, will be screened at 100 of IMAX's largest locations in traditional film format, requiring exhibitors to reconvert from digital to film at their own expense.

For this unusual mandate, thank that old IMAX fan, Mr. Nolan the director. "I felt if we could have one of those in every major city, we could justify the difficulty of going to a lot of trouble to shoot this way," he says. "You will see a crisper image."

[Nevincer]

Very interesting. Makes sense... it's a shame how film is disappearing though

[obin_gam]

I think Nolan should invest in the research and developement of a new type of IMAX-camera. Similar to what Cameron did with the preproduction of Avatar I mean. If they could use a smaller less noisy and capable of longer film takes, I think the suits and the powers that be would be even more incline to support both the filmstock and the IMAX filming situation.

[Ant-LOX]

Seems like a problem for AMC, Regency and a host of other film chains.

But for me, Joe Lunchbox, It does not matter. They charge $7.50 for popcorn, no tears for them.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by obin_gam

I think Nolan should invest in the research and developement of a new type of IMAX-camera. Similar to what Cameron did with the preproduction of Avatar I mean. If they could use a smaller less noisy and capable of longer film takes, I think the suits and the powers that be would be even more incline to support both the filmstock and the IMAX filming situation.

you have to be a technology freak to do this. Cameron is obssesed with technology. Nolan is not . i agree with your post. i think this is the only way to do this. Tarantino and Nolan who are so loud about film should invest money and try to fix all the problems and then own every studio by sayingthat they have a solution.
i think a film Imax camera will always be so loud. its just the technology behind it. you can not make it mor quiet.

maybe in 10 years digital cameras will be the same like Imax and then they will able to use it.

[floreairfoot]

Originally Posted by Ant-LOX

Seems like a problem for AMC, Regency and a host of other film chains.

But for me, Joe Lunchbox, It does not matter. They charge $7.50 for popcorn, no tears for them.

I don't know if it's true, but I think a majority of profit comes from concessions.

[Ant-LOX]

I would say that Nolan is obsessed with tech as well, but he wants the tech to stay grounded in film.

The powerful digital cameras are already here.

[Ant-LOX]

Originally Posted by floreairfoot

I don't know if it's true, but I think a majority of profit comes from concessions.

I think it is true. I see a majority of my films before noon. The tickets are $5. Popcorn and soda is about $14.50.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by Ant-LOX

I would say that Nolan is obsessed with tech as well, but he wants the tech to stay grounded in film.
.

if he is obsessed with technology then why didnt he found in the last 4 years a solution for the camera noise? it bothers a lot actors. yes they can ADR. but they stilll need to give a good performance with their body on set. around the actors and behind the camera there is a lot of stuff and people walking. so actors are used to this. and they have strong big lights focused on their face. but its always quiet. they dont have loud noises.
the only thing that they worked on was a car rig for the action scenes.

look i have a lot respect for Wally and Nolan for using the camera on movies. they started a trend. but the camera is just not practical for filmaking general. its to big,to heavy and to loud. i will not mention money since this is not about money. filming with an imax camera is very expensive. but this is hollywood so they have 200 millions. no problem.

[batlovescatDC]

I can't see Warner Bros. or Imax being willing to limit the Imax version of a film this large and anicipated, even for someone as respected by both as Nolan. It's too much of a cash cow.

[Ant-LOX]

Originally Posted by dark_b

if he is obsessed with technology then why didnt he found in the last 4 years a solution for the camera noise? it bothers a lot actors. yes they can ADR. but they stilll need to give a good performance with their body on set. around the actors and behind the camera there is a lot of stuff and people walking. so actors are used to this. and they have strong big lights focused on their face. but its always quiet. they dont have loud noises.
the only thing that they worked on was a car rig for the action scenes.

look i have a lot respect for Wally and Nolan for using the camera on movies. they started a trend. but the camera is just not practical for filmaking general. its to big,to heavy and to loud. i will not mention money since this is not about money. filming with an imax camera is very expensive. but this is hollywood so they have 200 millions. no problem.

The loud noise seems to be the only thing they can't get around. They are practical to use, they are just a bit heavier. Nolan and his crew have gotten used to the weight of the cameras, so that's becoming a non-issue.

Plus, no one is going to make a rom-com with an IMAX camera, That would not be practical.

But for a movie with 100 explosions and dudes in costumes, it's fine.

[latterlon]

So, the 70mm IMAX film locations must convert from digital back to 70mm film? Wouldn't there be a loss in quality? Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't make sense to me.

[ClintBeastwood]

Originally Posted by dark_b

Cameron is obssesed with technology.

Cameron is an over glorified Michael Bay, who came up in an era without excessive internet scrutiny

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by batlovescatDC

I can't see Warner Bros. or Imax being willing to limit the Imax version of a film this large and anicipated, even for someone as respected by both as Nolan. It's too much of a cash cow.

It won't be limited. They'll have a film version that shows in legit IMAX theaters and a digital version that shows in LieMAX theaters.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by ClintBeastwood

Cameron is an over glorified Michael Bay, who came up in an era without excessive internet scrutiny

yes and the sky is red.

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by latterlon

So, the 70mm IMAX film locations must convert from digital back to 70mm film? Wouldn't there be a loss in quality? Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't make sense to me.

I honestly think the reporter got it backwards. I would expect them to send film prints for IMAX and then digital theaters will be forced to convert it to digital. Makes no sense to downconvert from IMAX film stock to digital and then reconvert it back to film.

[ClintBeastwood]

Originally Posted by dark_b

yes and the sky is red.

The sky is red at dusk, tho. He really is ... probably the most overrated director of all-time.

[lukey37]

Originally Posted by latterlon

So, the 70mm IMAX film locations must convert from digital back to 70mm film? Wouldn't there be a loss in quality? Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't make sense to me.

The article is talking about the projectors.

If the IMAX screen has switched to digital projection then they will have to revert back to film projection to screen the movie.

[Anjow1060]

Originally Posted by redfirebird2008

I honestly think the reporter got it backwards. I would expect them to send film prints for IMAX and then digital theaters will be forced to convert it to digital. Makes no sense to downconvert from IMAX film stock to digital and then reconvert it back to film.

1) This ^

2) If the original report is accurate, which i don't think it is, but if it is - Nolan is fighting a losing battle and pissing me off in the process. I love film. Waaaaaay more than video. And I agree that there should be more film houses and IMAX film houses around. But the installation of a theater like that takes a year or two with planning and construction and budgeting.

If they were going to make an ultimatum like this - they would have to give a major heads up notice to theater chains and also threaten of a package deal ie: "Starting with Dark Knight Rises, Hobbit, Superman, Sherlock Holmes 3..." and a list of major tentpole WB films - we will only release IMAX film prints for distribution.

Granted I don't think those other films were shot IMAX, but the point being is - TDKR cannot change the theater chains alone.

- Jow

[redfirebird2008]

Originally Posted by Anjow1060

1) This ^

2) If the original report is accurate, which i don't think it is, but if it is - Nolan is fighting a losing battle and pissing me off in the process. I love film. Waaaaaay more than video. And I agree that there should be more film houses and IMAX film houses around. But the installation of a theater like that takes a year or two with planning and construction and budgeting.

If they were going to make an ultimatum like this - they would have to give a major heads up notice to theater chains and also threaten of a package deal ie: "Starting with Dark Knight Rises, Hobbit, Superman, Sherlock Holmes 3..." and a list of major tentpole WB films - we will only release IMAX film prints for distribution.

Granted I don't think those other films were shot IMAX, but the point being is - TDKR cannot change the theater chains alone.

- Jow

He's definitely fighting a losing battle. There is an article at L.A. Weekly about it. Scary thing is the studios want to get rid of film altogether, even though it is far better for archival purposes than digital. How much do you trust a hard drive to hold a movie for 100-200 years? Celluloid can last up to 1,000 years and doesn't have any threat of hard drive failure. I bought a hard drive recently that lasted only 6 months. How much money are the studios looking at if they start storing 4k to 8k resolution digital files of every movie? The cost would be astronomical over the long term to keep buying new storage and moving it around since hard drives can't be trusted to last even a single decade, never mind hundreds of years.

But the fact is the studios aren't looking at the long term effects of moving to strictly digital. They're looking at the short term gain of not having to pay for the creation of film prints. It costs quite a bit of money to do it. I don't have a problem with them getting rid of film for theatrical distribution. But I think it's worth it over the long haul to at least create one print and stick it in the vault for archival purposes. Toy Story 1 and 2 were almost lost forever because of hard drive problems. Neither one of them were archived on film.

[Steyin]

Originally Posted by ClintBeastwood

He really is ... probably the most overrated director of all-time.

Not the most, but he definitely ranks up there for me.

[batlovescatDC]

^ Cameron has probably made only four films that deserve the praise they have earned, imo.

[Secret_Riddle]

The problem is traditional 15/70 Imax screens are quickly being retrofitted with digital projectors. The screens are still capable of having a full Imax frame projected onto them, except that that aspect ratio would have to be projected digitally. Digital projectors can match that aspect ratio (4k, for example, is pretty close), even if it isn't technically as detailed an image.

In other words, there are screens out there perfectly capable of handling a digitally converted Imax print of The Dark Knight Rises in a full frame uncropped aspect ratio, on a true Imax screen, but if this report is accurate, those theaters probably won't be playing the film. Seems very political to me, and politics shouldn't be impacting the ability of an audience to seek out the film in the best way possible in their area; as of right now, limiting this strictly to 15/70 projectors (which have been rapidly disappearing in the last 6 months) is a bit too exclusive.. I can understand not playing the film at liemax venues (digital projector in small auditorium with slightly curved screen), but if the screen is a true Imax size and can handle a digital projection of an uncropped Imax frame, I think WB should be making a compromise.

For those of you in the GTA, Coliseum Mississauga is one of these theaters. They switched to a digital projector right after Ghost Protocol left theaters. The rest of the true Imax screens owned by Famous Players have been retrofitted, as well. As of right now, Socitabank is all that's left.