The Dark Knight

[John Holland]

You can rent one if you wish from Panavision they are still used its noisy but not difficult to hand hold.

[Max Jacoby]

Basically guys, what this comes down to is money. The reason why 65mm cameras are so much heavier really has not so much to do with the size of the filmstock, but more to do with the camera technology of the era when 65mm was still commonly used. It isn't too farfetched to assume that if 65mm catches on again there may be a new camera introduced for it. But until someone anyone starts using it again, the old cameras are part of the game.

I'd hardly call the 765 an outdated camera. It was released in 1989, one year before the 535 and while it might not have all the bells an whistles of an Arricam, but still it is a very good camera. You need to realize that once you increase the size of the filmstock, the size of the camera and all its mechanical parts (movement, mirror, motors) need to be bigger and stronger too, there is just no way around it. Building a handholdable sync sound 65mm camera is pretty much a technological impossibility and I bet we will never see one. Only a dozen or so 765s were ever build so the demand never was terribly big.

[K Borowski]

Only a dozen or so 765s were ever build so the demand never was terribly big.

 

I think this is what it ultimately comes down to though. Even though the 765 is only 18 yrs. old (I honestly had no idea, I was thinking more like late '70s), I doubt it incorporated the latest and greatest at the time. If you only do a run of 12 cameras, the price is disproportionately higher, and there isn't the profit potential to justify new improvements, lightweight materials. The urge becomes instead to get the camera out without loosing one's shirt. I don't think it's technologically impossible to have a synch 65mm that is under say 50-lbs, but it is probably impossible from a business standpoint because there just isn't demand to justify all of that engineering and research.

[Guest Kyle Waszkelewicz]

Cool video.

 

I'm still not clear on how the IMAX sequences will be mixed in with 35mm and displayed at IMAX theaters. Is the screen size going to suddenly expand during those sequences?

 

I read that that was exactly what was planned- during the few scenes filmed in the format (only 4, I think) the top and bottom mattes would retract (probably not literally, I don't know how all that works with IMAX projection) revealing a huge image. I got the feeling they're going for the same effect as the original intent of cinemascope, where the height of the screen would be the same as with 1.33 or 1.85 but expanded on the sides creating a larger image and more immersive experience.

 

And regarding the scanning/resolution issue: does anyone know anything about IMAX contact printing? Is that even done, and if so would it result in a better picture than (even 8k) scanning?

 

Finally, here's a solution for using a 65mm sync camera for handheld/steadicam: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=109_1195663753

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, if 35mm is best scanned at 4K across for max picture information and grain structure, and an IMAX frame is about physically three-times the width of a 35mm frame, then in theory you'd want to scan at 12K, so 8K is a bit of a compromise though probably acceptable.

[John Holland]

I must be really thick but i still cant how this is going to work the film is shot anamorphic 2-41 and then for 4 ? scenes it turns into 1.46 just dont get it .

[Tenolian Bell]

Imax day for 'Knight'

 

The bat signal will appear next week, eight stories high -- on Imax screens.

 

The first six minutes of Warner Bros.' "The Dark Knight," a prologue that introduces Heath Ledger as the Joker, will appear as a preview in Imax theaters before the studio's "I Am Legend," which opens Dec. 14.

 

The prologue is one of the scenes photographed in the 70mm Imax format. The rest of the film was lensed in 35mm and will be remastered to the Imax format for release in Imax theaters. In those theaters, the 70mm-lensed sequences will fill the screen and the 35mm-lensed scenes will appear letterboxed. (In traditional theaters, the aspect ratio will remain the same, though some expect that audiences might see a shift in image quality.)

 

In the six-minute sequence, a team of robbers -- all wearing clown masks -- enters a bank for a planned heist, but things take an unexpected turn. The imagery demonstrates the depth and clarity offered by the format, but perhaps no image is more chilling than the first look at Ledger's Joker."Seeing this extraordinary face, eight stories high ... you can smell his breath," he said. "He's a very overwhelming personality, and there's incredible texture to his appearance. It's a creepy moment, as it should be."

 

"The lenses are very wide. It pushes you to a style of filmmaking that is a little more formal. You tend to move the camera in a much more specific way. You can move things through the frame because you have such a crystal-clear image and you are dealing with such a wide field of vision.

[K Borowski]

You left out the best part though! Next paragraph of the article reads:

 

"It's simply the best acquisition format there is," the helmer said. "I love film, and one of the reasons I was very keen to do what I am doing is this is a time when a lot of new technology is being thrown at us. ... Film is an incredible medium, and I think it would be a shame to give up on it and accept new technology without realizing the limitations."

 

Now that's a political statement if I ever heard one. . .

[Michael Lehnert]

Isn't it interesting to see how we perceive and think about a format in general (!) based on the specific camera gear technology and ? as seen in this thread ? by that one's form factor. I mean, not whast was achieved, but only by what is currently on the market?

 

The Arriflex 765 is anything but the ultimate incarnation of a 65mm camera, just as the Arriflex 535 wasn't Erich Kästner's final word for 35mm by far, and the troubled Arriflex 16 SR for 16mm, too. To think in 65mm camera-cinematically through the 765 would be a mistake. It is unneccessarily big and cantankerous and with regards to the shoulder-based Panavision 65 of the 1960s, really a step backwards (but that could also be said about the 16 SR in 1975...).

 

Arri was terribly uninspired for most of the past three decades, and only the Viennese rogue spirit of Fritz Gabriel Bauer saved them from really faring into trouble. I am sure that a 65mm camera with the form factor of the Arriflex 435 could be easily achieved, and that would bring us only back where Kubrick and Panavision have been 40 years ago, meaning that one could shoot with 65mm without being forced to create totally new workflows for the crew that might scare some producers off to invest in it and some DoPs to stay clear of the unknown for an important production of theirs where they need things to go smoothly.

 

Cinematically, I could think of using 65mm like 35mm, and cannot think of a problem (DOF isn't a convincing counter-argument, more so the lack of contemporary lenses, although one might ask to what extend the increased "real estate" of 70mm would make of that). The association of 65/70mm with IMAX and hence mostly non-narrative visual panning over gnus, lions and good old planet Earth isn't helping either to re-associate that format with "normal cinema". In that respect, "Dark Knight" and other attempts are a step in the right direction.

 

And this leads us to the problem. Unless there isn't a camera around that doesn't require 4 car wheels to be transported around, few will give 65mm a serious shot at feature production (material costs and lateral expenses aren't really a sizeable incremement over 35, at least in relation to other budgetary posts like personell, actors, admin overhead, fx etc.). But without interest in 65mm, Arri sure won't lauch a smaller 765 successor.

 

And that is unfortunate, as cameras like the Aaton A-Minima or Arriflex 235 changed the ball game on what you can do with a format and rejuvenate one's view on it. It's interesting how the extreme ends of the cine-film format, 65mm and Super 8, still suffer from not being taken practically serious because of a lack of multi-purpose usable gear. I'm sure a potential Arriflex 465 and that 'til-now elusive Aaton Superette that should be launched soonish would evoke great interest among the rather conservative crowd of established DoPs in the film industry. Just think of their published surprise statements when Super 16 got seriously promoted to them just recently with the Arriflex 416 and Aaton Xtèra.

[Michel Hafner]

The July American Cinematographer has an article about "Dark Knight". Apparently the 35mm negative was printed to IP for color correction and then scanned at 4K for the DI for the IMAX prints. How exactly the regular 35mm prints were done is not revealed. But my question is, why scan an IP at 4K and not scan the ON and do the color correction digitally? What is there to be gained this way to outweigh the loss of detail from ON to IP when creating an IMAX print? The 4K then had to be degrained and sharpened, of course. Also, the IMAX contact prints from the IMAX ON were described as 18K. So the final IMAX prints are from sharpened and degrained 35mm IP at 4K, IMAX ON, IMAX ON via 8K scan and 5.6K scan (?). Should look 'interesting'...

[Tom Lowe]

Max, what were you shooting on 65mm, if you don't mind my asking?

[K Borowski]

The July American Cinematographer has an article about "Dark Knight". Apparently the 35mm negative was printed to IP for color correction and then scanned at 4K for the DI for the IMAX prints. How exactly the regular 35mm prints were done is not revealed. But my question is, why scan an IP at 4K and not scan the ON and do the color correction digitally? What is there to be gained this way to outweigh the loss of detail from ON to IP when creating an IMAX print? The 4K then had to be degrained and sharpened, of course. Also, the IMAX contact prints from the IMAX ON were described as 18K. So the final IMAX prints are from sharpened and degrained 35mm IP at 4K, IMAX ON, IMAX ON via 8K scan and 5.6K scan (?). Should look 'interesting'...

 

Do you mind telling me what the matter is with scanning a master positive that is contact printed? This is done all the time with films transferred to HD for television release and the results look just as good as television shows, all of which are now scanned from the OCN. It's not like an optical print, where a great amount of detail is lost. Maybe a couple percent of the *relevant* information that would make it from a negative into the scanner would not make it from IP to scanner.

 

The reason that they took the route they did is that they probably finished the 35mm version of the film optically, and as such, wanted to have the IMAX version look as close to a photochemically-timed print as possible. Plus, you have to remember that if they had scanned off the OCN for IMAX, and finished optically for 35mm release, they would have had to time the movie twice and they would have had a hell of a time getting both versions to match.

 

Why speculate on how good it'll look. Just go see it!

 

As far as I know, this is a unique opportunity to compare scans against optical printing for the same film, an opportunity to see if 4K scanning is "worth it".

[Nate Downes]

Max, what were you shooting on 65mm, if you don't mind my asking?

I am curious too. (and if you need anything in HS for it, let me know as I have a high-speed 70mm camera)

[K Borowski]

I am curious too. (and if you need anything in HS for it, let me know as I have a high-speed 70mm camera)

 

You realize Nate, that Max lives in England/Luxembourg, so unless you're shooting generic closeups or stock footage, it would be highly impractical to shoot B unit footage on another continent from the footage shot for the main part of the movie. . .

 

Also, unless you have a 5-perf. or 15 perf. movement (which can be easily shrunk down to 5 as it is 3x the size), you're not going to have the right aspect ratio anyway with something like a 10-, 12-, or 15-perf. movement.

[Nate Downes]

You realize Nate, that Max lives in England/Luxembourg, so unless you're shooting generic closeups or stock footage, it would be highly impractical to shoot B unit footage on another continent from the footage shot for the main part of the movie. . .

 

Also, unless you have a 5-perf. or 15 perf. movement (which can be easily shrunk down to 5 as it is 3x the size), you're not going to have the right aspect ratio anyway with something like a 10-, 12-, or 15-perf. movement.

Yes I do realize, but I like to be helpful in all regards. You never know when someone could use a generic apple exploding or such.

 

And the camera is switchable from a 5-perf to a 10-perf but I normally use it on the 5-perf so as to mix with more traditional 65mm footage.

[K Borowski]

Yes I do realize, but I like to be helpful in all regards. You never know when someone could use a generic apple exploding or such.

 

And the camera is switchable from a 5-perf to a 10-perf but I normally use it on the 5-perf so as to mix with more traditional 65mm footage.

 

I guess you're right then.

 

I thought you were pulling a "Matt Buick" and you had an old hulcher that you'd probably never used, or serviced.

 

5 perf. is really nice. How many FPS can yours go?

[Nate Downes]

I guess you're right then.

 

I thought you were pulling a "Matt Buick" and you had an old hulcher that you'd probably never used, or serviced.

 

5 perf. is really nice. How many FPS can yours go?

700 fps in 5-perf mode. It's in the shop for service right now actually, and hopefully the new motor will be ready by the end of the month.

 

Note, it is not 65mm, but full 70mm, same filmstock used in hasselblad long-roll cameras. Someone one told me that IMAX uses the same stock, but I have not yet confirmed. My plan for the camera was to use it for some fx work, but to date all I've done is perform tests with it.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Nate Downes

[K Borowski]

700 fps in 5-perf mode. It's in the shop for service right now actually, and hopefully the new motor will be ready by the end of the month.

 

Note, it is not 65mm, but full 70mm, same filmstock used in hasselblad long-roll cameras. Someone one told me that IMAX uses the same stock, but I have not yet confirmed. My plan for the camera was to use it for some fx work, but to date all I've done is perform tests with it.

 

Hey Nate. It's 70mm? Forgive me for being blunt, but that your camera shoots 70mm film essentially obsoletes it unless you're shooting the print stock.

 

Hell, I shoot 70mm stills, and it's almost impossible to get perforated stocks of any kind unless you have a 100,000 foot order (no exageration, that's the minimum; believe me, I've checked, I've BEGGED for 10,000 feet).

 

They MIGHT still make Portra III 160NC with perforations and that is absolutely it in still or cine film. Aerial film *might* work, but that's a weird process and again there are horrendously large minimums.

 

Plus, 70mm wouldn't be the same aspect ratio as 65mm, adn it wouldn't cut into a movie shot on ECN-2 65mm anyway.

 

Sorry for the bad news.

 

One final thing, the 70mm perforated C-41 stock they make Portra 160, is on ESTAR base, so if your camera ever jammed up, with estar base running through it, the film wouldn't break, all the gears in your camera probably would though. This being a high speed camera, a jam with ESTAR would probably destroy the camera beyond repair.

[Michel Hafner]

Do you mind telling me what the matter is with scanning a master positive that is contact printed?

It has less detail and sharpness compared to the camera negative. And no, not marginally less,

This is done all the time with films transferred to HD for television release and the results look just as good as television shows, all of which are now scanned from the OCN.

IMAX is not television. IMAX is the (spatially) most resolving film system we have, a frightening loupe. The difference between IP and ON on IMAX is quite visible. It's also visible in 1080p, by the way.

It's not like an optical print, where a great amount of detail is lost. Maybe a couple percent of the *relevant* information that would make it from a negative into the scanner would not make it from IP to scanner.

On IMAX everything on the 35mm negative is very relevant. And the percentage is not say 3 or 4% but a lot more.

The factor for the MTF is 0.7, e.g. 30% loss of modulation! (http://efilm.com/publish/2008/05/19/4K%20plus.pdf).

The reason that they took the route they did is that they probably finished the 35mm version of the film optically, and as such, wanted to have the IMAX version look as close to a photochemically-timed print as possible. Plus, you have to remember that if they had scanned off the OCN for IMAX, and finished optically for 35mm release, they would have had to time the movie twice and they would have had a hell of a time getting both versions to match.

I would also suspect that if they did the 35mm version optically, out of convenience they used the IP, although it should be quite feasible to use the ON for the 35mm parts of the IMAX version and get the same colors with better spatial resolution.

[Nate Downes]

Hey Nate. It's 70mm? Forgive me for being blunt, but that your camera shoots 70mm film essentially obsoletes it unless you're shooting the print stock.

 

Hell, I shoot 70mm stills, and it's almost impossible to get perforated stocks of any kind unless you have a 100,000 foot order (no exageration, that's the minimum; believe me, I've checked, I've BEGGED for 10,000 feet).

 

They MIGHT still make Portra III 160NC with perforations and that is absolutely it in still or cine film. Aerial film *might* work, but that's a weird process and again there are horrendously large minimums.

 

Plus, 70mm wouldn't be the same aspect ratio as 65mm, adn it wouldn't cut into a movie shot on ECN-2 65mm anyway.

 

Sorry for the bad news.

 

One final thing, the 70mm perforated C-41 stock they make Portra 160, is on ESTAR base, so if your camera ever jammed up, with estar base running through it, the film wouldn't break, all the gears in your camera probably would though. This being a high speed camera, a jam with ESTAR would probably destroy the camera beyond repair.

Kodak was telling me that they do make a B&W stock as well, but that was awhile ago when I checked. Doesn't matter. The main idea originally was for a nice decorative camera. However, since then been looking at other options. More as an academic exercise than anything. The components could be adjusted to stock 65mm it appears. Trying to come up with an excuse to do the work and actually do that.

 

And Kodak would make literally any film in any size if you ordered 100k feet I swear.

 

For me, it's a nice exercise, and once cleaned up will look quite lovely. And for the right project, might make it useful again. But till then, still looks nice.

[K Borowski]

On IMAX everything on the 35mm negative is very relevant. And the percentage is not say 3 or 4% but a lot more.

The factor for the MTF is 0.7, e.g. 30% loss of modulation! (http://efilm.com/publish/2008/05/19/4K%20plus.pdf).

 

Are you writing a term paper? You don't need to cite sources here. . .

 

That a contact print looses 30% is horsesh it. Not even an optical print looses that much. I know because I've done tests with optical prints. The formula is a starting point. Often it's off 10-15% from what happens in the real world.

 

A contact print has no lens, so the only loss of detail you'll see is from light scatter.

 

Keep in mind that about 40% of what you see on a negative is irrelevant information because it's too dark too light to be transferred to a high-contrast print stock. So talk all you want about modulation, what I care about is detail in highlights and shadows, not image information burried out of range of the print stock that was never meant to be seen anyway.

 

Would you rather see low-con prints at the theatre? I guarantee you they'll have more of the resolution of the negative. They'll also look BAD, really bad.

 

Howabout prints in still photography, are they no good because they can only get, at best, 60% of the dynamic range of a transparency, and therefore, have, by your definition, 40% less information than transparency material? :rolleyes:

[K Borowski]

Kodak was telling me that they do make a B&W stock as well, but that was awhile ago when I checked. Doesn't matter. The main idea originally was for a nice decorative camera. However, since then been looking at other options. More as an academic exercise than anything. The components could be adjusted to stock 65mm it appears. Trying to come up with an excuse to do the work and actually do that.

 

And Kodak would make literally any film in any size if you ordered 100k feet I swear.

 

For me, it's a nice exercise, and once cleaned up will look quite lovely. And for the right project, might make it useful again. But till then, still looks nice.

 

They made Plus-X in England and Tri-X in the Americas, but alas no more. B&H lists it as discontinued on their website.

 

THey are still making their (fake B&W) chromogenic C-41 film in 70mm (not perforated though!).

 

They'll make 100k feet of anything huh? Try getting Kodachrome from them then, or an E6 film. Sorry, but that is NOT the case. I got them to put together a film order once, back in '03 after they got rid of K25 and the logical replacement (to everyone but them) was K40A. Even though this one guy has probably been buying bulk amounts of film from them for three decades, he couldn't get them to make it. It took some help from the late John Pytlak to track down someone that finally agreed to help us within the company.

 

You're wasting any money you put into servicing that camera, I'm sorry to say. I'm almost SOL with my 70mm back on my still camera, and that is not shooting at 500 fps. Don't get it serviced, don't modify it, because you won't be able to get film to put through it. Even if you can get a 100K foot order, do you have any idea how much that would be? The stuff is more than a dollar a foot. Do the math. . .

[Nate Downes]

They made Plus-X in England and Tri-X in the Americas, but alas no more. B&H lists it as discontinued on their website.

 

THey are still making their (fake B&W) chromogenic C-41 film in 70mm (not perforated though!).

 

They'll make 100k feet of anything huh? Try getting Kodachrome from them then, or an E6 film. Sorry, but that is NOT the case. I got them to put together a film order once, back in '03 after they got rid of K25 and the logical replacement (to everyone but them) was K40A. Even though this one guy has probably been buying bulk amounts of film from them for three decades, he couldn't get them to make it. It took some help from the late John Pytlak to track down someone that finally agreed to help us within the company.

 

You're wasting any money you put into servicing that camera, I'm sorry to say. I'm almost SOL with my 70mm back on my still camera, and that is not shooting at 500 fps. Don't get it serviced, don't modify it, because you won't be able to get film to put through it. Even if you can get a 100K foot order, do you have any idea how much that would be? The stuff is more than a dollar a foot. Do the math. . .

I ment that they'd cut it to-size if you ordered 100k feet, not that they'd ressurect old discontinued stocks. But, does not matter. Even if I never shoot a frame with it, my main purpose, as decoration, is still valid.

 

A waste depends on how you look at it. Cleaning it up to make it look and run nicely is not a waste as a demonstration or display model in my viewpoint. And stranger things have happened.

 

I am curious however if what I heard of IMAX being shot on 70mm negative stock was true, or if it is just print stock.

[Ruairi Robinson]

So I went to a preview Imax screening of The Dark Knight last night. Chris and Jonah Nolan were in the row behind me.

 

I gotta say, the film is fu**ing superb. Really, the best comic book movie ever made. I was blown away. I couldn't sleep last night after watching it because moments from the movie kept replaying in my head.

 

It looks amazing too. Digital has a long way to go. It's funny how muddy and blurred the parts shot anamorphic 35mm look compared to the imax stuff. I really appreciate for a change seeing a movie without some cheap filtered "look" over every frame, here the colours are very natural, subtle and graceful. There are night-time shots soaring over Hong Kong where you see so much detail in the frame, and such subtle gradations in colour, it's awe inspiring. I generally loathe the look of DI's, but whatever process they went through here, they've preserved all the subtleties in colour and fine detail.

 

I really hope this movie sets some kind of precedent/benchmark for storytelling and image quality for other films of this ilk to try and live up to, because I'm sick of the erosion of standards for image quality in films these days. And I'm sick of comic book movies that don't treat their characters as human beings. The visual effects are of an extremely high standard (bar a couple of moments where bluescreen/compositing was slightly visible, and there's a bank of screens which looked a bit Matrix/architect lair, but whatever. These are tiny details, and even those are probably better than the best shots in a lesser movie... There's a helicopter crash in the movie which looks utterly, seamlessly real. If there is CG here, I couldn't tell, and I'm usually pretty good at spotting this stuff.

 

Oh and Heath Ledger is ever bit as good as people are claiming. He is note perfect as the joker. His "backstory" is probably my favourite detail in the film... oh and there's a shot of him outside a hospital which is... just go see it :)

 

I could nitpick about details - the tone seemed a little unsteady for the first 20 minutes or so, and some of the action is still a little awkward/muddy and unclear for my taste, and I'm sure the continuity police will be out in force on this one, since that's about all they'll have to criticise. But none of this crap matters. Because I've already got my paid tickets to see it again when it opens up. And I'm sure I'll be watching it a bunch more times after that.

 

Err... not to hype it up or anything...

 

Cheers,

R.

[K Borowski]

I ment that they'd cut it to-size if you ordered 100k feet, not that they'd ressurect old discontinued stocks. But, does not matter. Even if I never shoot a frame with it, my main purpose, as decoration, is still valid.

 

A waste depends on how you look at it. Cleaning it up to make it look and run nicely is not a waste as a demonstration or display model in my viewpoint. And stranger things have happened.

 

I am curious however if what I heard of IMAX being shot on 70mm negative stock was true, or if it is just print stock.

 

Nate,I'mnot knocking your love of old cameras. I bought an old Kodak folder on eBay, with a flashgun, flashbulbs and a $15 roll of 616 film, to use once, and I don't think it was a bad deal, but if you're getting a camera serviced that is never going to be able to actually shoot film, then that is a waste.

 

No, Imax shoots 65mm neg stock, just like the rest of large format movie fiml users. THe Russians used to use 70mm negatives, but the SovColor went the way of the Soviet Union back in '91. Their negatives were attrocious too, and slow.

 

Your best bet would be if you could find someone to move each set of sprocket rollers in 2.5mm.

 

 

Regards,

 

~KB