IMAX film

[Landon D. Parks]

IMAX technology has amazed me for many years. And I have always had questions about the IMAX film... So here goes:

 

1. How much does IMAX Film cost?

2. What is the average shooting ratio of a IMAX film?

3. What labs can actually handle this formate? :huh:

4. What is the cost of processing film of this type?

5. How do they edit the formate? Is there a Telecine and/or printer capable of handling this type of film?

6. Are the cameras really as heavy and loud as everyone claims???? Becuase they dont look all that big at all :unsure: .

7. What is the aspect ratio of the film? That has always been a wonder of mine :rolleyes:

8. How much do those 15/70 2d and 3d camera cost to rent?

9. and also, how is it they can take HD shoot stuff (Star wars 2) and project it onto a screen that is 8 storys high? I never seen it, but Did it actually look good?

 

I know that seems like a lot of questions, and Im sure some of you dont know much about IMAX film. But I was hoping someone in here could answer these so I could quit wondering about them :ph34r:

 

 

I know they cant have to much money tied up in there productions, becuase they really Dont make that much money off of them.

 

Now, not that I have an intention of ever shooting with this formate... I was just wanted to ask these questions, as they have been bothering me for a long time.

[David Mullen ASC]

IMAX uses standard 65mm film just like the 5-perf Super Panavision / Todd-AO format, but pulls 15-perfs horizontally per frame instead of 5-perfs vertically. So a lab that does 65mm can handle it (CFI, for example.)

 

The aspect ratio is close to 1.33 : 1, maybe more like 1.50 : 1? I don't have my ASC Manual here to check to dimensions of the gate.

 

Figure on using three times as much as shooting 5-perf 65mm per minute at 24 fps... Shooting ratios are normally low simply because it's so expensive to shoot. Cameras are loud so most dialogue is looped in post.

 

There have been a number of films that were digitally "blown-up" (uprezzed) to IMAX: Apollo 13, the last two Matrix films, Attack of the Clones (HDCAM), Ghosts of the Abyss (HDCAM 3D), Spiderman 2, etc. Lots of special post sharpness enhancers and noise and grain reducing software -- I think the Imagica Corp. has been doing the blow-ups.

 

The results have been better than you'd think -- better than simply projecting a 35mm print onto the IMAX screen at those "enhanced 35mm screenings". Shows you the quality of 15-perf 70mm as a projection format.

 

Certain artifacts are more obvious as well. "Attack of the Clones" was particularly messy because ILM had letterboxed the 16x9 HD image to 2.35 when they had originally posted the movie, and then had to pan & scan that for the IMAX version (I think the print was hard-matted to 1.66 : 1 as was "Apollo 13".) The Matrix films were hard-matted to their 2.35 35mm theatrical proportions I believe (didn't see those so I can't be sure -- may have used a 2.0 : 1 hard matte instead.) Don't know about "Spiderman 2".

 

"Attack of the Clones" held up OK because of the lack of grain (and it was actually less noisy than the 35mm prints because Imagica did a good job of cleaning up the image). But it was soft and had some aliasing artifacts in the fine detail. But I thought the IMAX version was better done than the 35mm release prints, other than the wrong aspect ratio.

 

But on all of these non-IMAX-shot movies released in IMAX prints, I make sure not to sit too close to the screen because I know the image is not going to hold up.

 

HDCAM to IMAX worked better on "Ghosts of the Abyss" because of the 3D format, which tends to screw up your eyes anyway, making it hard to tell how sharp the image should be anyway! It's the 3D effect that hits you more than the detail. Plus you are overlaying two HD images, which helps improve the amount of information.

 

However, it's nothing like real IMAX 3D, such as in "Wings of Courage". THAT was sharp!

[Sam Wells]

However, it's nothing like real IMAX 3D, such as in "Wings of Courage". THAT was sharp!

When I saw that I thought "this is where George Lucas will be going in the next century"

 

Boy was I wrong :blink:

 

Although, at 40 minutes was a good limit, some fatigue was setting in.

 

...it may not have helped that I took of the "helmet" a few times..... "hey this is really a Ken Jacobs film" :D

 

-Sam

 

well maybe someone will get it

[Mitch Gross]

...it may not have helped that I took of the "helmet" a few times..... "hey this is really a Ken Jacobs film" :D

 

-Sam

 

well maybe someone will get it

Got it Sam. ;)

[Landon D. Parks]

Figure on using three times as much as shooting 5-perf 65mm per minute at 24 fps..

Thats cool... But how much is 65mm film per foot? :rolleyes: I take it you mean that shootinh IMAX would cost 3 x as much as shooting 65mm in 24fps? (As fare as film stock)

 

And also, IMAX captures film @ like 48 fps don't it? Something to do with making the image cleaner with less strobe? So, for standard motion, you would need to shot 48fps.. Am I correct?

 

Also, I have always heard that IMAX cameras weighed about 250lbs? But on the PDF for the MKII it says Body /w lense and 1,000' mag is only 68lbs? And I have alread heard you had to mount it on some kind of support stand where the camera hung under the Support unit? But it clearly shows the camera on a simple tripod in the PDF. :blink:

 

Im confused....

[David Mullen ASC]

A 1000' of 65mm is basically twice as much to buy as 1000' of 35mm -- roughly $1000 instead of $500. Make sense -- it's almost physically twice as wide and thus twice as much material.

 

IMAX runs at 24 fps, not 48 fps.

 

In 4-perf 35mm at 24 fps, 90' = 1 minute.

 

In 5-perf 65mm at 24 fps, 112' = 1 minute. So 15-perf 65mm would be 336' per minute. So a 1000' roll would last almost 3 minutes, whereas in 35mm, it lasts 11 minutes.

 

Obviously the shooting ratios with IMAX tend to be lower if possible...

 

In regards to 5-perf 65mm, imagine a frame that is only one perf taller than the standard 4-perf 35mm frame, but physically twice as wide -- therefore the native aspect ratio is widescreen in shape (2.20 : 1) rather than squarish like 4-perf 35mm (1.33 : 1). Now imagine taking that 5-perf 65mm frame and turning it 90 degrees and then adding two more frames, creating a very large but squarish frame.

 

There are also lesser-known (and hardly used) 8-perf and 10-perf 65mm vertical formats, also squarish compared to the less tall 5-perf 65mm format.

 

There has been proposals for a Super IMAX format that runs at 48 fps, but if it's been used at all, it would be only on a few immersive ride films, not in standard IMAX/OmniMax theaters.

 

For example, 15-perf 65mm (OmniMax) was used for the Back to the Future ride at Universal Studios but I don't know if it uses 24 fps or 48 fps. Trumbull, who designed that ride, experimented back in the 1980's with his 60 fps 5-perf 65mm format Showscan -- he applied some of those concepts to his ride films. For example, I think one of the Luxor pyramid ride films in Las Vegas uses 48 fps 8-perf 35mm (VistaVision).

[Landon D. Parks]

Yes it all makes since now. IMAX film is really just 65mm film pulled horizontally instead of vertical through the camera... and instead of 5-perf it pulls 15-perf for each new frame.

 

That makes since...

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi fellows

i had the chance to shoot several films in 15/70.

new cameras (MSM) martin muller design aren't so heavy, larry Mc conkey takes it on his steady cam :o

the 1000 ft mag is about 3 mn long.

a camera was braught on the top of the evrest and so on.

some special cameras goes to 48 fps.

recently we flew MSM on ultra light for a remake of "migration" for imax magic carpet show....

[Landon D. Parks]

Any idea where I can get info on this MSM Camera?

 

This IMAX stuff is pretty interesting B) ...

 

I just found a cool manual... the IMAX filmmakers guide!

www.imax.com/corporate/pdfs/filmmaker.pdf

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

chek :

boug frame magazine

ISTC conferences

LFCA conferences

the only rental house is IMAX corp Missisauga, Toronto Canada

all the cams are prototype and verry tricky to use.

I know IWERKS designed one 15/70 but i never used it.

there is also an industry in 8/70

Labs are CFI Los Angeles and Gulliver (in france)

Stocks are both Kodak and Fuji

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

sorry

Big frame mag

[David Mullen ASC]

Some links with pictures:

 

http://www.seafilms.com.au/imaxtopend.php

http://hineslab.com/BiClops3dRig.html

http://www.imax.com/

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/t_c_christ..._and_clarke.htm

http://www.iwerks.com/notshocked/filmprod/1570.html

[Landon D. Parks]

Thank you David... I really like the look of the new IWERKS camera compared to the MKII :rolleyes:

 

That one Camera, the "Biclops" is some camera :o .... sorta BIG

[David Mullen ASC]

I think that's because it's a two-camera 3D rig -- those are always huge.

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

there are actualy diferent ways to film 3D in 15/70

the old way was 2 MKII on a rig filming right and left eye (wings of courage)

 

recent way a single camera (size of a minibar) withe to mouvments desync. of 1/48 th of second

 

a single camera (big MSM) with 1 roll, 1 corridor and 2 15/70 windows !!! then for the editing you cut one frame for right eye and do a roll and the same for left eye. this is the space camera that went on the ISS

 

Last solution is the cheaper filmt in HD 3D the blow up for the IMAX SR projector

[Landon D. Parks]

Does anyone know what cameras James used on Ghost of the abyss? That was 3D HD right?

[Brad Grimmett]

I believe he used F950's, but someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[David Mullen ASC]

I believe it was twin Sony HDC-950's (not F950's) using the T-block set-up where the lens and optical block is separated from the camera body. He shot at 24P but had to record to 60i HDCAM because there was no portable battery-powered 24P HDCAM deck at the time, so Evertz (I think) made a device to covert the 24PsF signal to 60i for recording. In post, he restored the footage to 24P.

 

http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/2002/1...return_deep.htm

http://www.digitalpostproduction.com/2003/...fujinon0130.htm

[Landon D. Parks]

I had heard somewhere that he disigned his own around the HDC's... You done somthing to the lense that made it put less stress on the eyes when watching also. Not sure what its called...

 

I know Robert used the same 3d cameras on Spy Kids 3D.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, there are all sorts of lens/eye "convergence" issues with 3D. What Cameron did was find a distance between the two lenses that he felt was more optimal than what was used traditionally -- he may have even made the distance between the two lenses adjustable for different distances focused to reduce eye strain for people in the theater watching with 3D glasses. Maybe not; I may have it all wrong. They did create a rig that allowed both lenses to zoom and focus in-sync with each other than look correct in 3D later. I don't know the exact details -- it's not so much that he "built" special lenses. The lenses were by Fujinon I believe. He and his brother did build the underwater housing.

 

The whole rig went back to Panavision for storage and Rodriquez rented it for his 3D HDCAM projects.

 

3D is this whole other realm that some people are really into; you should read some of the books on the subject to understand the engineering issues. I think the basic principle is that the two lenses are spaced apart similarly to the distance between our two eyes in order to reproduce human binocular vision. However, I must admit this is not an area that has ever interested me much.

[mattharding]

You have got to love the internet. Where else can a 16 year-old and a member of the ASC have a long free-flowing conversation? Pretty cool.

[Landon D. Parks]

Yes I must admit.... thank god for the internet... and of course the members of this forum.

[Marc_Abernathy]

this has been a compelling discussion. ive always wanted to know more about imax.

[Landon D. Parks]

Yes... it has. and I will admit, it has sure answered a lot of my questions about the IMAX formate.

 

Now I'm so excited about it, I wanna go out and make an IMAX film :blink:

 

Anyone got any money? :rolleyes:

 

The distrobution process is what boggles me. I mean, if only 25% of IMAX films are distrobuted by IMAX themselves, then the rest would mean the production company (Or other distrobuter) would have to pay for the Release Print's, ect.

 

Seems like a fun thing to shoot in, but very confusing and expensive (Although, not as expensive as what I figure my Feature would cost to make).

 

If I figure right, IMAX film will cost $386.00/min in stock alone!!!! wow... Soemone on another artical said film was about $1.15/foot and theres 336' in a minute, that comes to $386.00! So an hour would cost you $23,160.00! :blink: :unsure: :ph34r:

[David Mullen ASC]

It's such a specialty market, I'd talk to some companies that make films for it for advice. Remember that most IMAX theaters are still in science museums so a large number of IMAX films (including "Ghosts of the Abyss") have some sort of educational value as well as entertainment value. And even the more commercial films like the Michael Jordan or Rolling Stones IMAX films have a documentary angle.

 

Narrative fiction is much less common other than big-budget features blown-up to IMAX, except for the latest "Black Stallion" IMAX film that Disney made, and "Wings of Courage", a 3D IMAX short film. And that "Panda Adventure" period movie with Maria Bello, but even that had a nature documentary approach buried in the narrative. I actually liked that one.