Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted June 23, 2008 Site Sponsor Share Posted June 23, 2008 Saw that the Scope portions of "The Dark Knight" were scanned at 8K does anyone know which scanner? Northlight? The Arriscan is 6K max according to the brocure. Also the 15-perf Imax will be full app in Imax theatres and the Scope will be 2.39? so the aspect ratios will change if you watch it in the Imax theatre, I think this sounds cool but unusual how will general audience react? Was the film conformed at 8K for general theatres? I know the 15-perf was scanned to re position the shots for 2.39 and the Scope was 8K, I assume the 15perf was 8K and the DI 8K or 4K? -Rob- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted June 23, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 23, 2008 Saw that the Scope portions of "The Dark Knight" were scanned at 8K does anyone know which scanner? Northlight? The Arriscan is 6K max according to the brocure. Also the 15-perf Imax will be full app in Imax theatres and the Scope will be 2.39? so the aspect ratios will change if you watch it in the Imax theatre, I think this sounds cool but unusual how will general audience react? Was the film conformed at 8K for general theatres? I know the 15-perf was scanned to re position the shots for 2.39 and the Scope was 8K, I assume the 15perf was 8K and the DI 8K or 4K? -Rob- Hi Rob, I went to Wally Pfister's "Dark Knight" seminar at Cine Gear on Saturday so I can answer some of your questions. Don't know which scanner they used. You're correct that IMAX portions will be full app at IMAX theaters, while scope portions will be 2.39. Pfister said that although the idea of changing aspect ratios sounds like it might be distracting, he felt after watching the print that some of the cuts from 2.39 to IMAX were almost invisible. I guess it's something you get used to. He also did not mention how the regular scope prints were made, but I suspect it was done photochemically (except for the fx and IMAX portions which were scanned, cropped, and repositioned in post). This is because he mentioned that he had an IP made photochemically before the film was scanned at 8K for IMAX. He also said said that portions of the film were scanned at "5.6K". I don't know if this is standard or not, it sounds like a weird number. I surmised that this was done for the fx shots but I don't really know for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ronney Ross Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 According to July American cinematographer magazine : " After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted June 24, 2008 Author Site Sponsor Share Posted June 24, 2008 According to July American cinematographer magazine : " After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith." Can't wait to see it in IMAX nothing can beat contact printed 70mm 15 perf.... -Rob- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 According to July American cinematographer magazine : " After shooting was complete, and after the editing process was well under way DKP 70mm scanned select Imax takes at 8K resolution on a unique Northlight scanner. Then, Pacific Title and other facilities made 2.40:1 extractions from the 1.33:1 Imax negative to conform to the framing and movement decisions made in the Avid by Nolan and editor Lee Smith." So it was the IMAX that was scanned at 8K, not the 35mm? Satsuki Murashige seems to be reporting something different than AC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted July 12, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 12, 2008 So it was the IMAX that was scanned at 8K, not the 35mm? Satsuki Murashige seems to be reporting something different than AC? I haven't read the AC article yet, but it's possible that I misunderstood what Pfister was saying. Daryn Okada and Richard Crudo were there at the same seminar I was, so maybe David M. or someone else who knows them could check the facts with them. Or better yet, ask Pfister directly. I thought he was clearly saying the 35mm scope portions were scanned at 8K. But maybe I was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Fritzshall Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 (edited) My impression from talking to the VFX sups was that the 35mm Scope sections would be scanned at 4k and that the IMAX sections would be done at 8k, but that was almost a year ago that I talked to anyone so I don't even know what I remember anymore. I'll wait for the Cinefex article in a few months. I don't even remember what they were going to do with the VistaVision plates- 4k or 8k across... Edited July 12, 2008 by Scott Fritzshall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted July 12, 2008 Author Site Sponsor Share Posted July 12, 2008 So it was the IMAX that was scanned at 8K, not the 35mm? The Imax was scanned at 8K for the 35mm release so it could be re framed for the 35mm DI. The 15 perf 65mm was contact printed for the imax release, the 35mm scope was scanned at 8K to be film recorded for inter cutting with the Imax answer print. This according to someone at Filmlight... -Rob- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Rob, I did understand that part. What I was referencing was a post Satsuki made about 2 weeks ago. He was under the impression that the 35mm had been scanned at 8K, which seemed kind of odd at the time. Not impossible, but definitely noteworthy. It's possible that Satsuki's information directly from Pfister was more recent than AC's article, or perhaps there was a misunderstanding of some kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted July 13, 2008 Share Posted July 13, 2008 Rob, I did understand that part. What I was referencing was a post Satsuki made about 2 weeks ago. He was under the impression that the 35mm had been scanned at 8K, which seemed kind of odd at the time. Not impossible, but definitely noteworthy. It's possible that Satsuki's information directly from Pfister was more recent than AC's article, or perhaps there was a misunderstanding of some kind. The 35mm anamorphic shots were scanned at 4k, and the Imax were scanned at 5.6k and 8k. That is, if American Cinematographer is to be believed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.