Inception in Imax

[Brian Rose]

Hello all,

 

I have to wait to see "Inception" until Tuesday, and I'm going to see it in Imax. However, I'm really eager to know, from those who HAVE seen the Imax version, if they can comment on roughly how much of the film is in Super Panavision? Is it scattered throughout, or is it used thematically, or specific sequences?

 

Any info would be great!

 

BR

[georg lamshöft]

Germans still have to wait two more weeks, I'm über-jealous!

 

According to this source: http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/07/13/cinematographer-wally-pfister-gives-an-inside-look-at-inception/

about half of the film was made traditionally 35mm anamorphic for handheld-work and the other half either 5perf 65mm (6k DI) or Vistavision (aerial shots).

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I also hear through the grape vine that there were a few Phantom shots in there... not sure yet. I'll be seeing it as soon as possible.. but of course I have to move the same time the damned film comes out.. I just hope the IMAX here keeps her prints clean!

[K Borowski]

I saw it with old contacts on (will have to do better when I see it again), but the only one I can pick out, which is surprising they used the camera for this, is the ultra-slo-mo shot of the van falling. The ASC article and I think I saw on IMDB said it was only used for slow-mo too.

 

 

Maybe it was such slow motion that there wasn't a film camera available? It really didn't detract from the movie, but it was surprising and unusual for the first finished-on-film movie to my knowledge since "Dark Knight" to get a full theatrical release.

 

 

It almost would have been more trouble for them than just shooting on film when they are aiming to make a finished IP contact print, so I can only think the constraints would've been technical.

[Brian Rose]

Germans still have to wait two more weeks, I'm über-jealous!

 

According to this source: http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/07/13/cinematographer-wally-pfister-gives-an-inside-look-at-inception/

about half of the film was made traditionally 35mm anamorphic for handheld-work and the other half either 5perf 65mm (6k DI) or Vistavision (aerial shots).

 

Wow that's amazing if that is indeed the case! Especially considering only 20 or 25 minutes of "TDK" was in Imax. It makes you think they're building up. Would that be something else if the third Batman were to be an all Panavision 65 affair? Considering the size of the System 65 cameras, I bet it could be done, and for any of Wally's beloved handheld/news doc style shots they could shoot VistaVision. God, that would be a spectacular picture!

[georg lamshöft]

I read somewhere thtat they used the Phantom for 1-2 scenes left in the film, the other high-speed stuff was partly shot on a 1000fps 65mm photosonic!

 

Batman 3?

I fear he limits his writing/storytelling-abilities by sticking to comic-adaptions. Dark Knight was great - by comic-standards but it lacked the original story and storytelling of his original movies (Memento/Prestige). But as long it's 65mm...

[Brian Rose]

I read somewhere thtat they used the Phantom for 1-2 scenes left in the film, the other high-speed stuff was partly shot on a 1000fps 65mm photosonic!

 

Batman 3?

I fear he limits his writing/storytelling-abilities by sticking to comic-adaptions. Dark Knight was great - by comic-standards but it lacked the original story and storytelling of his original movies (Memento/Prestige). But as long it's 65mm...

 

So far Nolan's done pretty well, so I've got good hopes about Batman 3. And I recall reading somewhere that Batman 3 would be the last, at least, as far as Nolan is concerned.

 

But when it comes down to it, I'd pay to see a film about paint drying, if it were shot in 65mm! :)

[James Compton]

Great movie. The ASC article mentioned only 2 SHOTS that the Phantom was used on. I could spot it a mile off. The movie is filled with tons of beautiful 35mm scope and 65mm shots. Yet, the van falling off the bridge is one shot that had mad video noise. The second shot was the same scene but from the van interior. Right as the van begins falling backwards, I was looking at Jo Gordon-Levitt's arm. There is a purple greenish fringing on his right hand. An artifact that is native to the Phantom at high speeds.

 

I thought the story was great. The scene on the hotel window ledge between Dicaprio and

Cotillard was intense. I enjoyed the mountain fortress scene, as well.

[Chris Durham]

I saw it on IMAX here in NY yesterday. There are several shots that I noticed grain in the image that I imagine was from the 35 blow-up, but none of it is bad grain at all. Mr. Pfister knows how to expose an image pretty damn well. The movie was not only gorgeous, but had an amazingly well-layered story and was well-acted. Definitely worth seeing in IMAX. I didn't really do much analysis on it though; just kind of sat back and enjoyed it from the third row center where it took up at least 90% of my vision. I'll probably give it another go soon just to study it.

[K Borowski]

So where did you end up going, Chris? I want to see this in IMAX myself, maybe I will see it in NYC in early August. . .

[Mathew Rudenberg]

I saw TDK at the universal citywalk in LA, and let me tell you, when it cut to IMAX it was totally incredible - massive detail, no grain - it made the anamorphic 35 look like poo-poo by comparison.

 

I went back to the same theater, paid for the exorbitant IMAX ticket and sat back and waited to be blown away. And then I waited some more, and then some more. and then the movie ended.

 

The whole thing looked like a soft digital blow-up, I can't believe they were selling it as IMAX, especially if a large amount of it was shot as such. I couldn't even tell what if any shots were shot 65mm, aside from some helicopter establishing shots that probably would have been awe inspiring if they didn't feel soft from the blow up.

 

Is there any where you can actually see inception on 65mm film?

[Brian Rose]

The whole thing looked like a soft digital blow-up, I can't believe they were selling it as IMAX, especially if a large amount of it was shot as such. I couldn't even tell what if any shots were shot 65mm, aside from some helicopter establishing shots that probably would have been awe inspiring if they didn't feel soft from the blow up.

 

Is there any where you can actually see inception on 65mm film?

 

Hmmmm that's strange, because there shouldn't have been an impact on the 65mm sourced stuff, as it was not blown up. Even those it was printed to imax 15 perf 65mm, the size of the image on the film would remain the same...the only difference is the top and bottom areas normally taken up by Imax's 1.44 frame are matted to the AS of the 5 perf 65mm.

 

There are many other potential variables. It's been two years since TDK was out, so a lot could have happened to the theatre where you saw both...different projectionist with different (i.e., less skills)...the projector could have been improperly set up...who knows?

 

BR

[Andrew Sidwell]

I saw it on Saturday at the London IMAX, and to be honest I couldn't tell which scenes were shot in 65mm either.

 

The American Cinematographer article says:-

 

The 65mm negative was scanned at 6K at DKP 70mm Inc. under the watchful eye of company president David Keighley. Those 6K files were then turned over to Technicolor in Hollywood, where a team extracted from the 6K data to generate 4K 35mm filmouts that could be combined with the native 35mm footage. Pfister did all of the color timing photochemically at Technicolor, working with longtime collaborator David Orr. In addition to 35mm and digital-cinema presentations, Inception will be released on 70mm Imax in select markets, and DKP 70mm Inc. scanned the 35mm color-timed interpositives to create those prints.

 

Hmmmm.

[Ravi Kiran]

I saw it on Saturday at the London IMAX, and to be honest I couldn't tell which scenes were shot in 65mm either.

 

I was under the mistaken impression that part of this was shot in IMAX, like TDK, so I saw it in IMAX. When it became clear that I was wrong, I assumed it was shot in 35mm anamorphic and the Phantom, though I did notice shots where the bokeh didn't look like anamorphic. It was only later that I read that part of it was shot on 65mm. I did not notice any jump in clarity for the 65mm shots and VistaVision. I may see it again in IMAX, just to see if I can spot the 65mm footage.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Ravi Kiran

[Antti Näyhä]

there shouldn't have been an impact on the 65mm sourced stuff, as it was not blown up. Even those it was printed to imax 15 perf 65mm, the size of the image on the film would remain the same...the only difference is the top and bottom areas normally taken up by Imax's 1.44 frame are matted to the AS of the 5 perf 65mm.

Um, not quite. You have to remember that 15/70mm IMAX runs horizontally, so the image is much larger than even 5/70mm. The 15/70mm frame is about 40% wider compared to 5/70mm.

[georg lamshöft]

Um, not quite. You have to remember that 15/70mm IMAX runs horizontally, so the image is much larger than even 5/70mm. The 15/70mm frame is about 40% wider compared to 5/70mm.

 

But a 6k DI of the 65mm source material blown-up to IMAX should still hold plenty of information and barely any noticable grain - I'll see it next week, let's hope our print in Berlin looks better.

[Rob Vogt]

I went to a new-ish IMAX theater near me and saw it last night. It was a digital projection- I was upset. The movie was alright though. I saw that superslomo shot and I thought it was phantom or weisscam there was a noticeable dip in quality for that shot at least.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'm spoiled, I saw it on Film, in IMAX and saw that it was goooodddd!

I did notice the dip in quality spoken of, which wouldn't have been too much of a problem, but they cut back to it a lot (getting some laughs in the theater even). I would also say that people responded well to the films aesthetics, mentioning, I heard in passing "i wish my HDTV was IMAX." (teenager boy), and "I like the texture." (20 something woman.. was tempted to tell her all about the texture.. but I was with my g.f....) All of that is hearsay, of course, just found it interesting people talking about the visual quality of the film, having seen it on a 15/70 theater.

[Mathew Rudenberg]

I'm spoiled, I saw it on Film, in IMAX and saw that it was goooodddd!

I did notice the dip in quality spoken of, which wouldn't have been too much of a problem, but they cut back to it a lot (getting some laughs in the theater even). I would also say that people responded well to the films aesthetics, mentioning, I heard in passing "i wish my HDTV was IMAX." (teenager boy), and "I like the texture." (20 something woman.. was tempted to tell her all about the texture.. but I was with my g.f....) All of that is hearsay, of course, just found it interesting people talking about the visual quality of the film, having seen it on a 15/70 theater.

 

You lucky bastich,

 

I fear that the IMAX screens here in LA have all converted from 65mm projectors to dual 4k digital projectors for 3d. I have no essential problem with digital, but 4k digital looks very soft on an IMAX screen, especially in comparison to 65mm projection.

 

It's also somewhat ironic that Pfister and Nolan go to all that trouble to photochemically finish their films and then the only way to see them is in digital projection.

 

Does anyone know of a theatre in LA projecting Inception in 65mm? - I would happily pay to see it again if I knew it would be that.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Matt,

you can check on here:

http://www.imax.com/

with your zip code and then look under "theater type" and it'll tell you their projection specs.

 

looks like the AMC Lowes it a 15/70 in LA.

[Mathew Rudenberg]

Matt,

you can check on here:

http://www.imax.com/

with your zip code and then look under "theater type" and it'll tell you their projection specs.

 

looks like the AMC Lowes it a 15/70 in LA.

 

Thanks Adrian, but sadly that's exactly the theatre I went to see it!

 

There's a little caveat towards the bottom of the theatre info that says to the effect that hollywood films are digitally remastered into IMAX, which I'm pretty sure sure is what I saw (it looked like a softish digital blow up)

 

I would be willing to accept that the difference simply isn't that noticeable to me if it wasn't for the fact that when I saw TDK at the exact same theatre the quality shift between 65 and ana 35 was very very obvious.

 

In this screening the shots which I imagine were shot 65 such as the helicopter establishing shots looked just as soft as everything else.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Yeah matt, that was just my quick look and who knows how up to date that is. I will say at the theater I went to there were 2 screens showing it, one IMAX and 1 35mm Print, so you have to make sure what time each shows at-- different screenings being @ differing screens. Can't speak for the LA scene, though I'm sure there's at least 1 15/70 house out there still.

[Brian Rose]

Matt,

you can check on here:

http://www.imax.com/

with your zip code and then look under "theater type" and it'll tell you their projection specs.

 

looks like the AMC Lowes it a 15/70 in LA.

 

I checked and it confirmed my fears...the AMC in my town (KC) has gone digital god d*mmit. Small wonder that that glorious 65mm was rendered indistinguishable from ano 35! And what a shame. I saw The Dark Knight at that theater in 2008, and the difference was enormous. Why oh why would you switch to digital when you've already got the 15/70 in place?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Advertising purposes... remember digital is ALWAYS better than whatever that thing is that isn't digital.. at least in consumers minds.. and I'm wondering if the theaters save substantially on the costs of the prints... meaning is a DCP as expensive as a print (probably not? but I don't know) and is that how they're justifying the expense of new equipment. On top of that.. me thinks that almost anyone can work a D projector system once it's installed -v- someone threading film through the projector and taking care of it, so perhaps they pay less for labor.. but these are all total assumptions that just came to mind due to your comment Brian.

[Brian Rose]

Advertising purposes... remember digital is ALWAYS better than whatever that thing is that isn't digital.. at least in consumers minds.. and I'm wondering if the theaters save substantially on the costs of the prints... meaning is a DCP as expensive as a print (probably not? but I don't know) and is that how they're justifying the expense of new equipment. On top of that.. me thinks that almost anyone can work a D projector system once it's installed -v- someone threading film through the projector and taking care of it, so perhaps they pay less for labor.. but these are all total assumptions that just came to mind due to your comment Brian.

 

Adrian, I think your assumptions are right on the money, and such a shame. While I'm no anti-digital, technological Luddite, it is such a shame to see such a glorious format as 15/70 slowly replaced by inferior digital.

 

Through some digging, I have found that the theater where I saw "Inception" has indeed gone digital; in 2008 it was still 15/70, and I can clearly remember how glorious Dark Knight was. Inception looked uniform and rather blah, considering the extent to which 65mm was used. It's practically a crime; I saw "Hamlet" in 70mm a few years back, and it was stunning...the whole thing with intermission was 4.5 hours, and I could've watched it for eight!

 

With the loss of 15/70 at my particular theatre, I'm now in a desert (I live in Kansas). There isn't a theater (apart from science documentary oriented Imax venues) for hundreds of miles that shows 15/70.

 

I kind of hate Imax now. Shame on them for watering down their legacy!