John Paul Palescandolo

I'm just curious if any of The Last Jedi was shot on 15/70 IMAX film. I swear IMDB used to list IMAX cameras under the tech specs, but that info is mostly gone, save for a mention of 65mm (horizontal) under the film's negative format. There are also some sites that discuss how The Last Jedi used IMAX for key sequences, unless they're referring to digital IMAX cameras. From Collider: "Johnson follows up on J.J. Abrams' use of IMAX cameras in Star Wars: The Force Awakens by capturing key sequences of Star Wars: The Last Jedi using IMAX's extremely high-resolution cameras, delivering IMAX audiences greater scope and increased image quality in IMAX's exclusive aspect ratio for a uniquely immersive experience." Anyways, just asking because I saw the 70mm print yesterday at the Maritime Aquarium in Norwalk, CT. The print generally looked great and while it took up the entirety of the screen's 60' width, it never used the full height of 80' and always kept a rectangular aspect ratio, probably 2.35 or 2.39:1.

Went to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia over the weekend to see the 70mm print of Rogue One... and it really looked awful. The print was dark and flat. It lacked contrast, the colors lacked saturation, and the blacks were milky, to name a few things. Since the movie came out in December, is the print just worn at this point? Is there an issue with their projection system? I know Rogue One was shot anamorphically on the Alexa 65, so did this just not hold up well when transferred to film? I saw the digital IMAX version back in December, which, when compared to the 70mm print, looked great. The IMAX at the Franklin Institute is also a dome theater, which perhaps also wasn't the best screen to watch this on, although for some of the scenes with a lot of movement, especially flying, you did feel as if you were moving. However, it also seemed like maybe the movie was being projected a little larger than it should have for its method of capture. Based on the poor viewing experience, I doubt I'd go back here to see another theatrical release. The Franklin Institute also played the 70mm print of The Force Awakens, which the IMAX at 68th Street in NYC didn't play. Since the 70mm prints of Star Wars movies seem to be going to The Franklin Institute, hopefully whatever happened with Rogue One was just a fluke.

Kenny, I was not aware they recently underwent a huge remodel. The reason I think they may still have a 15/70 setup is because the current feature playing in their IMAX theater, the National Parks Adventure, is listed as having 2D film showings and 3D digital showings. I've seen both - the supposed film one was much better. The 3D one seemed darker (maybe it was the glasses) and the 3D was only effective in the ice climbing scene. The 3D digital showing did not take up the entire height of the IMAX screen and while I'm pretty sure the 2D film one did, I'd now need to double check. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/3d-and-2d-films/national-parks-adventure

Tyler, I'll look into this a bit more, but the Russo Brothers have said that the Alexa IMAX camera rolled off the production line about a week before they started using it. They did say that it is an Alexa 65 system of some kind, but I'm not sure if its any different than the base Alexa 65.

So is the Alexa 65 and the Alexa IMAX the same camera or different cameras? Do they have differing sensor sizes? Was the Alexa IMAX designed to shoot a digital version of 15-perf 70mm IMAX, or it is its own proprietary format?

The 68th Street AMC may be the only theater around for miles to show theatrical movies, but there is another IMAX theater at the Museum of Natural History on 81st Street. The Liberty Science Center in NJ has a dome IMAX and there's also an IMAX projector at the Atlantic City Convention Center. Regarding Philadelphia, the Franklin Institute has an IMAX theater, which was one of the ones supposedly showing the 70mm print of Batman v Superman. However, I later read that the Franklin Institute's IMAX theater is a dome theater and Fandango did not list that venue as showing BvS using 70mm film or 70mm IMAX, like it did for 68th Street.

Really, they were removed before The Force Awakens and reinstalled after? I had heard that Nolan made them reinstall the 70mm projected for Interstellar, but who knows how true that is

Thanks for your response, David. Last December, I saw The Force Awakens at the 68th Street AMC and despite having one sequence shot using IMAX cameras, the image did not expand to the full height or width of the IMAX screen. I assume that was because it was a digital projection? When I saw Batman v Superman there, it was a 70mm print, so the non-IMAX scenes used the screen's full width, and the IMAX scenes expanded to also use its full height, as did Catching Fire and Interstellar.

I'm wondering if anyone has seen Captain America: Civil War in a true IMAX venue, such as the AMC 68th Street theater in New York City. Since the airport fight scene was shot using the Alexa IMAX camera, I'm wondering if that one sequence will expand to fill the entire IMAX screen. I initially saw Civil War in a digital IMAX venue in New Jersey and the message from the Russo Brothers, explaining about how the sequence was shot, how the screen will expand, etc did play beforehand and for that matter, the image did slightly enlarge during the airport sequence, but there wasn't much room on the top or bottom for it to expand to, so the change was small. So, just wondering if it takes advantage of the full scale of a true IMAX screen if projected in a theater built for IMAX and not converted for digital IMAX?

Hi Julian, It's very possible that the age of your film, as well as having kept it stored at room temperature, could have led to the increased grain in your film. What was the ASA of the film you were using? In general, color films will show signs of aging - loss of speed, increased grain, fogging, color shifts - sooner than black & white film will. This is because color film has different color layers within its emulsion and those layers break down faster than black & white film. The layers of color film also don't break down at the same rate - I think the magenta layer is usually the first one to start dying. Also, the higher the ASA of your film, the faster it will start to break down. Cold storing your film and protecting it from radiation are the best ways to help preserve your film. Remember, each roll of film is different, so it's impossible to say when a roll of film is bad. I shoot stills too and have rolls of Kodak High Contrast Copy Film, the forerunner of Kodak Technical Pan. I bought them off Ebay and while the rolls did expire in 1973, they still produce wonderful negatives. Granted, in the 41 years since they have expired, they have lost two stops of speed, so I rate that film at 6 instead of 25. I also have rolls of Kodak HIE - generally, they still work, but I did develop a roll over the summer that was fogged prior to being exposed.

I saw An Unexpected Journey in IMAX HFR 3D and the HFR footage is really weird at first, but I did get used to it. However, yes, the HFR footage makes you aware that you're watching a movie filmed on sets. I saw The Desolation of Smaug in regular IMAX 3D and found the motion to be much more natural. There is definitely GoPro footage in the river sequence. I should've seen the end coming, but I totally didn't. Shortly before the movie cut to black at the end, the lights in the theatre came on. Me: Did they just turn on the lights? Girlfriend: Yes Me: Why? <movie cuts to black> Girlfriend: Because the movie is over <credits roll> Me: Ugh!!!

Wasn't Ben Hur shot on 65mm anamorphic? That takes the natural 2.20:1 aspect ratio of 65mm and makes it 2.76:1. That's a very wide frame and while by no means impossible to fill, it certainly takes more work than a 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 frame. I think the frame size of an individual IMAX frame is around 52mm x 70mm, making it a tad bit smaller than a 6x7 frame in medium format photography, so using Carl Zeiss lenses to shoot IMAX makes sense. As for doubling the lens focal length for anamorphic photography, is that something you have to do for 35mm anamorphic as well? Why is that necessary? After seeing Catching Fire in 70mm IMAX and hearing about how shallow the depth of field is while using IMAX cameras, I don't remember the IMAX footage being dominated by really shallow focus.

Hi Jo, Thanks for your input on the IMAX process that the movie went through. Could you elaborate on why digital IMAX is better at dealing with the issues you mentioned? And when you said how Digital IMAX is always better than the film print for all non-IMAX originated material, is it better for material originated on film, material originated digitally, or does it not matter? I'd imagine that the smaller magnification process for digital IMAX helps as well. I know digital IMAX uses two 2K Christie projectors which project the two images over each other. I was wondering if you could also elaborate on which scenes during the IMAX section were filmed using spherical 35mm and if that choice was made for reasons of dialogue? I assume the that during the arena section, the non-arena scenes with President Snow and scenes in the control room were spherical, or were those also IMAX? Could you discuss how you go about framing a movie which is shown in many different aspect ratios? 35mm anamorphic is shot at 2.35:1 and IMAX is at 1.43:1, yet you have to create prints to be shown in regular theaters, digital IMAX theaters and 70mm IMAX theaters. Is there a lot of reframing in post for all those different exhibition aspect ratios? Regarding The Dark Knight Rises, even on the Blu-ray, aside from the aspect ratio difference, the difference in quality between the anamorphic 35mm and IMAX material is really obvious. Something that was interesting during the 15/70 version of Catching Fire was that during the previews (there were only three), two of the three trailers were for Divergent and the upcoming Hobbit sequel. Divergent, which was shot on the Alexa, was shown using the entire IMAX screen, which The Hobbit did not make use of the full IMAX screen. Funny tho, since The Hobbit was shot at 5K.

I saw the 15-perf/70mm version of Catching Fire yesterday at the AMC on 68th & Broadway in New York City. This theatre is one of the few in Manhattan that projects movies in 15/70 IMAX. Aside from the Museum of Natural History, I'm not sure there's another in Manhattan, but there are others in New York State. Anyways, regarding the non-IMAX material, the IMAX DMR process for the anamorphic and spherical 35mm segments was generally good, but was also inconsistent in its results. I'm not sure if it was a result of the film not holding up to the DMR process, projection issues, technical issues on set, the film stock used, etc. There were segments that looked beautiful - the opening shots of Katniss were so sharp and defined. In general, I noticed wide shots to not withstand the DMR process as well as close ups did. Regarding shots that did not hold up well, there were just parts of the film that looked soft and fuzzy. Some parts also seemed to be suffering from either enlarged 35mm grain or perhaps a result of too much noise reduction being applied in the DMR process. Specific scenes I can remember which suffered were: some of the wider shots of the mansion during President Snow's party some of the shots of Katniss first firing her bow at the dome (tho this was during the IMAX part, so was that shot spherically?) an extended conversation on the beach near the end, prior to everyone going to the lightning tree (again, during the IMAX section, so perhaps shot spherically for the dialogue?) some of the closeup and wide shots of Katniss after she's fired the lightning charged arrow into the dome, but before she's picked up by the helicopter (again, during the IMAX section) There were other shots during the 35mm anamorphic which suffered as well, but that was by no way the majority of the movie. Did anyone else see the 15/70 version and have thoughts on it? I've seen several movies in digital IMAX, some of which have been entirely blown up from 35mm or digital elements (The Amazing Spider-Man, Skyfall, The Hobbit, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, Thor: The Dark World, The Hunger Games), while others have been a mixture of 35mm and IMAX (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, The Dark Knight Rises). Anyways, for obvious reasons, such as a smaller enlargement factor, I never noticed any issues while viewing any of those films in digital IMAX. However, when Catching Fire opened up to the arena and full IMAX kicked in... wow!!! Really visually amazing stuff.

Speaking of rare, what ever happened to those f/0.7 lenses that Kubrick used on Barry Lyndon?