The Future of Cinema - IMAX or 3D?

[Fenrir]

In the past few years, there have been two major revolutions in movie cinema - IMAX with The Dark Knight and 3D with Avatar. Of course, with Christopher Nolan's and Wally Pfister's recent comments on James Cameron's new format, it has brought up the debate of what is truly 'essential' for the ultimate movie theater experience.

Ironically, on the one side we have old-timers the likes of James Cameron and Ridley Scott championing 3D. Whereas on the other, new blood like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino who prefer going 'old-school' and are staunch devotees of film.

Nolan and Pfister have stated repeatedly that 3D reduces picture quality and consequently affects the overall immersion factor. As far as I am concerned, they are dead on. The immense clarity and sharpness of the higher resolution IMAX format felt more 'real' to me in the IMAX scenes of The Dark Knight than anything in Avatar. Of course, my experience with the new 3D is limited, with Avatar being the only one. I viewed it once in a standard 3D theater (horrible experience) and quite a few times in IMAX 3D (good, but nowhere near as good or memorable as TDK). I do think it has something to do with my general aversion to wearing any kind of glasses. They ache my eyes and often give me a headache, which is quite a distraction.

It's clear that the 3D storm is in full effect right now with every major studio jumping on the bandwagon. But if Nolan somehow manages to shoot the entirety of the TDK sequel in IMAX like Brad Bird suggested to him, then it could end up being a worthy rival to Cameron's stereoscopic 3D format.

Anyways, what are your views on the subject?

 

[:eek:]

I really can't see a future (at least not a near future) where IMAX can be a winner. This format is still more or less non-existent in many countries.

 

[Boom]

What I wish: IMAX.
What will be: 3D.

 

[Doctor Jones]

IMAX.

I don't think every single film should be 3D. 3D doesn't mean autmoatic immersion into the world. Avatar did it right, but I don't think every film in 3D will follow that. 3D isn't a terrible thing. It's just misguided and it will take a long time until we learn how to really use it. I mean who wouldn't want to see a sci fi film in 3D? But it should be equally immersive in 2D.

 

[Boom]

As far as I'm concerned, if you need the film to be 3D in order to be immersed in it, then there's an issue with the film.

And yeah, Batman 3 should be fully shot in IMAX. How incredible would that be?

 

[dark_b]

In the past few years, there have been two major revolutions in movie cinema - IMAX with The Dark Knight and 3D with Avatar. Of course, with Christopher Nolan's and Wally Pfister's recent comments on James Cameron's new format, it has brought up the debate of what is truly 'essential' for the ultimate movie theater experience.

Ironically, on the one side we have old-timers the likes of James Cameron and Ridley Scott championing 3D. Whereas on the other, new blood like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino who prefer going 'old-school' and are staunch devotees of film.

Nolan and Pfister have stated repeatedly that 3D reduces picture quality and consequently affects the overall immersion factor. As far as I am concerned, they are dead on. The immense clarity and sharpness of the higher resolution IMAX format felt more 'real' to me in the IMAX scenes of The Dark Knight than anything in Avatar. Of course, my experience with the new 3D is limited, with Avatar being the only one. I viewed it once in a standard 3D theater (horrible experience) and quite a few times in IMAX 3D (good, but nowhere near as good or memorable as TDK). I do think it has something to do with my general aversion to wearing any kind of glasses. They ache my eyes and often give me a headache, which is quite a distraction.

It's clear that the 3D storm is in full effect right now with every major studio jumping on the bandwagon. But if Nolan somehow manages to shoot the entirety of the TDK sequel in IMAX like Brad Bird suggested to him, then it could end up being a worthy rival to Cameron's stereoscopic 3D format.

Anyways, what are your views on the subject?

what do you mean?

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I greatly prefer IMAX. I'm visually impaired anyway, so I don't really benefit from 3-D; it just messes with my depth perception. I've always found IMAX far more immersive, even before my vision became an issue, and the results of IMAX conversions tend to be much better than the results of 3-D conversions. I would love to see the system Roger Ebert's written about a number of times, MaxiVison 48 (pretty sure that's the name), which operates at twice the usual frame rate, 48 frames per second.

 

[Figs]

Imax all the way. I thought the 3D in Avatar was damn good but as someone mentioned in the Inception thread, I was more blown away seeing the shots in TDK that Nolan filmed with an Imax camera. If he can get away with shooting the third Batman film entirely in Imax, now that would be something great!

what do you mean?

I think he's talking about how it dims the colors and clarity a bit.

I don't hate 3D, at least if the movies that use it use Avatars level. My problem is just how many films are being pumped out in 3D, it's overkill. I feel sorry for the few people i've seen post that mentioned their ****** theatre didn't get non 3D versions for a lot of films.

 

[Nightmare]

I hope IMAX

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Hope: IMAX

Reality: 3D

 

[Fenrir]

As far as I'm concerned, if you need the film to be 3D in order to be immersed in it, then there's an issue with the film.

Yeah, that much is true. I never said I wasn't immersed in Avatar because of the 3D. I said I wasn't as much immersed in Avatar as I was in TDK IMAX. Now, of course, like Crook pointed out in another thread it may due to the fact that TDK had a better story, better characters and better performances. But as far as visuals are concerned, I never got that 'Holy s**t!' vibe watching Avatar in IMAX 3D as I did during the IMAX sequences of TDK, especially in the scenes where the camera looks down (Batman jumping off the Hong Kong skyscraper, Joker's goons ziplining to another building) where it actually felt (if only briefly) like I was going to fall. The massive screen and in-your-face visuals combined with Pfister's superb cinematography really gave me an adrenaline rush unlike any other.

 

[Fenrir]

Hope: IMAX

Reality: 3D

Which is quite strange, because looking back 2 years ago 3D too was a novelty just like IMAX. It just took one massively successful film for everyone to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Its because 3D is cheaper than IMAX and easier to shoot than the big, clunky IMAX cameras.

The biggest problem is that CGI is impossible to render at the insane High Definition of IMAX presently. Unfortunately, most summer movies have a alot of CGI.

If you ask me, IMAX should've been utilized 25 years ago. When summer movies had no CGI.

Also, someone needs to make smaller and quieter IMAX cameras.

 

[Fenrir]

If you ask me, IMAX should've been utilized 25 years ago. When summer movies had no CGI.

Oh man, that would've been surreal. Imagine Lawrence of Arabia or Blade Runner in all their full-blown IMAX glory.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Lawrence of Arabia is actually shot on 65mm. The same format is being used for half of Inception.

I can't wait for the Blu-Ray. I think it will one of the best catalogue releases. Also, Apocalypse Now.

 

[BigCityBoy]

Oh man, that would've been surreal. Imagine Lawrence of Arabia or Blade Runner in all their full-blown IMAX glory.

Aw man, I said in another thread not too long ago they need to re-release Blade Runner in IMAX. I would be the the first in line to see that one even though I own the DVD!

 

[The Chris]

It's probably 3D but I mention to every guest who asks at my theater that I think the future should be IMAX photography. After seeing Dark Knight and Transformers and Hubble 3D, I think more people should put a focus on that. The image resolution on that IMAX screen is the most impressive imagery I've ever seen. Ever. I felt like I was in the room with the people inhabiting the screen, and 3D at the moment is way too hit and miss for me. For every Avatar there's some horribly post converted 3D like for Clash of the Titans. Like I said it's probably 3D, but I'm really hoping it's IMAX photography.

 

[Soapy]

Neither. You're not thinking far enough into the future.

 

[matrix_ghost]

In the past few years, there have been two major revolutions in movie cinema - IMAX with The Dark Knight and 3D with Avatar. Of course, with Christopher Nolan's and Wally Pfister's recent comments on James Cameron's new format, it has brought up the debate of what is truly 'essential' for the ultimate movie theater experience.

Ironically, on the one side we have old-timers the likes of James Cameron and Ridley Scott championing 3D. Whereas on the other, new blood like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino who prefer going 'old-school' and are staunch devotees of film.

Nolan and Pfister have stated repeatedly that 3D reduces picture quality and consequently affects the overall immersion factor. As far as I am concerned, they are dead on. The immense clarity and sharpness of the higher resolution IMAX format felt more 'real' to me in the IMAX scenes of The Dark Knight than anything in Avatar. Of course, my experience with the new 3D is limited, with Avatar being the only one. I viewed it once in a standard 3D theater (horrible experience) and quite a few times in IMAX 3D (good, but nowhere near as good or memorable as TDK). I do think it has something to do with my general aversion to wearing any kind of glasses. They ache my eyes and often give me a headache, which is quite a distraction.

It's clear that the 3D storm is in full effect right now with every major studio jumping on the bandwagon. But if Nolan somehow manages to shoot the entirety of the TDK sequel in IMAX like Brad Bird suggested to him, then it could end up being a worthy rival to Cameron's stereoscopic 3D format.

Anyways, what are your views on the subject?

Right now IMAX resolution is just so huge ( 18k) that no CG image can match that. However that doesn't mean that it's always going to stay that way. Technology is constantly improving and sooner or later CG images can match the same resolution of the IMAX format.
While the depth of something like TDK is quite extraordinary , the truth is that you need to shoot those scenes in either 65 mm or the IMAX resolution which is at 70 mm. Unfortunately it's very costly and studios and filmmakers don't have the money to shoot an entire movie in that format. Not to mention that IMAX cameras really aren't user friendly as digital cameras.Studios are converting the movie to the IMAX format which surprise surprise is also what most studios are doing with 3-d movies.

In that case i think the 3-d IMAX print of Avatar is far superior compared to pretty much every IMAX movie that isn't shot in the IMAX format. That includes stuff like Potter , PoP and BB. Of course that's also because the images are rendered at the highest possible resolution.

Like i said earlier. Cameron's stereoscopic cameras are digitial cameras and at least for a couple of years , no digital camera will be able to match the resolution of IMAX. Still i think that 3-d will be the big winner here . Like you said filmmakers like Spielberg , Ridley Scott , Peter Jackson ...in other words people who know their ***** want to shoot their movies in 3-d. These guys have been around longer then Nolan and they could've had an oppurtunity to shoot one or more of their past movies in the IMAX format. Instead these guys have embraced 3-d . Not IMAX.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Imax all the way. I thought the 3D in Avatar was damn good but as someone mentioned in the Inception thread, I was more blown away seeing the shots in TDK that Nolan filmed with an Imax camera. If he can get away with shooting the third Batman film entirely in Imax, now that would be something great!




I think he's talking about how it dims the colors and clarity a bit.

I don't hate 3D, at least if the movies that use it use Avatars level. My problem is just how many films are being pumped out in 3D, it's overkill. I feel sorry for the few people i've seen post that mentioned their ****** theatre didn't get non 3D versions for a lot of films.

I remember when Avatar's footage was shown at CC . Moriarty had a quite detailed report and one of the things he mentioned that when the removed his 3-d glasses , the images were more brighter. Cameron ramped up the brightness in order to compensate for the dimming by 3-d glasses. Guys like Cameron have been working on 3-d for years ( and still continie to..) so i do think that someone like him definately knows the pros and cons of 3-d and will try to get tyhe best possible image quality to the viewer. So when people complain that Avatar was too dark , i think it may very well be a case of the guy working the filmprojector just screwing things up.


Post Avatar , pretty much every live-action 3-d movie was converted. To my knowledge at least the only recent upcoming movies that were shot in 3-d are Resident Evil 4 and Tron Legacy. I want to see how something as small as RE4 will compare to high quality converted stuff like the Harru Potter scenes.
My Bloody Valentine was also shot with the stereoscopic cameras developed by James Cameron and Vince Pace yet Avata'r's live action scenes were way superior that My Bloody Valentine. I actually had a headache due to eyestrain when i watched My Bloody Valentine.

 

[ross2287]

I hope for IMAX. Like the OP said, my theatre experiece with TDK in IMAX was far superior to my experience with Avatar in IMAX 3D.

 

[GhostPoet]

IMAX.

Hollywood has shown they are incapable of handling 3D correctly.

 

[dark_b]

Bay will film TF3 with 3D cameras.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-transformers-fans-to-receive-a-shock.html

 

[matrix_ghost]

Bay will film TF3 with 3D cameras.

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-transformers-fans-to-receive-a-shock.html

He probably doesn't want to blow ILM's computers again