The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion & Speculation Thread - Part 18

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]369189[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]367301[/split]

 

[kvz5]

This was posted over at NolanFans:

http://lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm

I don't know how accurate it is though. Some of the info contradicts the info at other websites posted before.

 

[Anita18]

LOL only Nolan could get that sort of stipulation...

 

[Boom]

According to that list, the nearest IMAX theater to me is four hours away. **** that .

Hey, IMAX. Why don't you come on down to Cincinnati ?

 

[Yurka]

I have a 70mm IMAX theater 15 minutes from me, saweeeeet!

 

[Boom]

Scratch that. There's not a single one in my entire state that plays Hollywood films. The only genuine IMAX theaters in Ohio are located in museum centers, where they only show documentaries. Same thing with Kentucky and Indiana.

This sucks.

 

[CJ]

Tell me about it.

The nearest IMAX theater is several hours away. In 2008, oh how I longed to see The Dark Knight in IMAX, but sadly, it was not to be..

 

[Boom]

This infuriates me to no end.

The only way this could possibly get any worse is if my theater doesn't have the necessary projectors to show The Hobbit at 48 fps next year.

No IMAX theaters or digital theaters capable of running 48 fps? It's a very strong possibility that I would rage myself to death.

 

[Octoberist]

48 fps. does it look awkward like a camcorder?

 

[Boom]

From what I understand, it'd essentially look like a digital soap opera. Movements would be more fluid and life-like. So yes, like a camcorder - but with remarkable visual sharpness, clarity, and detail.

The higher framerate is also supposed to reduce the "blur effect" in 3D films.

 

[Goku Goes Crazy]

From what I understand, it'd essentially look like a digital soap opera. Movements would be more fluid and life-like. So yes, like a camcorder - but with remarkable visual sharpness, clarity, and detail.

The higher framerate is also supposed to reduce the "blur effect" in 3D films.

Ugh. I hate the soap opera effect. It's a nice gimmick, but I actually prefer the blur. The soap opera effect is too clean and it cheapens the look of the film. Why would Jackson do this?

 

[Octoberist]

Until I see The hobbit in action I'm not too convinced..

 

[Boom]

Here's what PJ had to say, Goku:

Time for an update. Actually, we’ve been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I’d address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.

We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920′s). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe.”

Now that the world’s cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew–many of whom are film purists–are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It’s similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.

Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it’s predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me–if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!

Time to jump in the car and drive to Bag End for the day. Video coming soon!

It's quite remarkable how different his viewpoint is from Nolan's.

 

[Anita18]

Here's what PJ had to say, Goku:

It's quite remarkable how different his viewpoint is from Nolan's.

Well IIRC Nolan and Wally have had nothing to say about frame rates, just image quality and why they think film still has the best image quality.

 

[Secret Fawful]

I'm glad someone is standing up for film. I don't care who it inconveniences.

 

[dark_b]

Wally and Nolan are not the only two standing up.a lot directors talked how they like film.

but when Roger f.... Deakins is trying out a digital camera..........then it gets interesting.

 

[hegele]

The significance of 48 fps is so bloated... They are just grasping at straws to keep people exited about 3D, a format that will continue to strain the eyes and diffuse the colors and brightness no matter what small alterations.

 

[MasterOgami]

Scratch that. There's not a single one in my entire state that plays Hollywood films. The only genuine IMAX theaters in Ohio are located in museum centers, where they only show documentaries. Same thing with Kentucky and Indiana.

This sucks.

That's actually not the case in Indiana luckily. I saw BB at the State Museum, and TDK at both the Museum and the Showplace 17 IMAX. (The Showplace IMAX is digital, but its also a 42x70 screen in a purpose-built auditorium as opposed to a "LIEMAX" screen in a retrofitted multiplex auditorium. So its not a genuine 70mm IMAX, but its at least large enough one doesn't feel ripped off.)

 

[Nevincer]

I too am disappointed in Jackson for going the 48 FPS/3D route. Let's hope it doesn't ruin the Hobbit films in any way.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Peter Jackson and Chris Nolan are both film greats with different styles. I have a great deal of respect for both and unless I see horrible results, I expect they know what they are doing. With all the blood and sweat Jackson put into LOTR and now the Hobbit, he isn't going to go with something that is going to greatly worsen the film. I'm sure this wasn't an off-the-cuff decision but was carefully analyzed.

 

[Jokers_Wild]

Scratch that. There's not a single one in my entire state that plays Hollywood films. The only genuine IMAX theaters in Ohio are located in museum centers, where they only show documentaries. Same thing with Kentucky and Indiana.

This sucks.

My friend said the IMAX in Indianapolis is the real deal and they show Hollywood films. I cannot verify though, cause I haven't been there. However, double-check with the museum centers, because where I live near Washington DC, we have three IMAX theaters attached to the museums, and they play the educational films by day, new Hollywood releases by night. I saw TDK in 2008 several times at them and it blew my socks off!

 

[Seen]

I posted this in the "prologue thread", but I feel this post would be equally fitting in this thread as well.

I think it is a good idea that the prologue is only going to play in 70mm IMAX theaters. Nolan has always been a proponent of presenting his films in the most immersive and respectful way, and it makes sense that if he's going to show a sample from the film that it would be representative of the actual film itself.

Nolan is almost a film connoisseur and preservationist, similar to Martin Scorsese, and prefers the old-fashioned way more than anything. While filmmakers like James Cameron, Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson are opting for the digital and 3D aesthetic, Nolan is still an adamant supporter of film.

Remember when rumors speculated that Warner Bros. was trying to get Nolan to shoot The Dark Knight Rises in 3D, but Nolan persisted and eventually won? He firmly believes that shooting in film, and primarily shooting in IMAX, is the best possible format. So it makes total sense that when he presents his films that he would want them to be presented in the most authentic way humanly possible.

It also makes sense given that Brad Bird is adopting a similar ideology with Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol and actually shot particular sequences in the IMAX format. I mean, I can't think of a better or more appropriate film to host the prologue than Ghost Protocol. To hear Brad Bird talk about the IMAX format over digital/3D you can almost see a marriage of ideologies between Nolan and Bird, making this an almost perfect combination.

 

[kvz5]

Good/bad news depending on how you look at it but AMC is retracting their statement for now:

http://www.amctheatres.com/Script_to_Screen/EXCLUSIVE__Update_on__The_Dark_Knight_Rises__Prologue/

The information in this post has been retracted until further notice.

Please refer to Warner Bros. for any information about The Dark Knight Rises.

 

[Nightwing 52]

Looks like I'm going to IMAX.

And I declare Seen as having the best avvy on the bat boards. Brilliant idea man.