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?

Hi again Jo, I was also wondering how the IMAX blow up process works - to be able to enlarge something so much with such excellent results? The scene within the arena that was shot on 35 - was that done because it was a dialogue scene and it's easier to shoot dialogue when not using IMAX cameras? You also mentioned about maintaining a consistent aspect ratio, but how did the framing work, given that the project aspect ratio differs depending on if you are viewing this in digital IMAX, 15/70 IMAX or 35mm?

Hi Jo, Thanks for taking the time to respond on here. It's great to hear from you firsthand. I haven't seen Catching Fire yet, but have reserved to go next week at the IMAX on Broadway & 68th in NYC. I'm especially looking forward to seeing it because Limitless was a beautifully shot movie and I'm looking forward to seeing how you translated the word of Catching Fire into the visual medium of cinema. Could you elaborate a little more on what you mean by lighting with practical fixtures? What sorts of lights would you use and would they be in the shot, out of the shot? When I used to shoot student films, we'd always try to make our lighting seem as if it were coming from natural sources and not anything that we rigged up. For example, if we were shooting in a small bedroom with two windows in an NYC loft, I'd put an HMI in the back corner of the room, behind the camera and bounce it off the ceiling so it gave the whole room a nice soft fill. In regards to shooting the Alexa, why does digital have the ability to see better in dark environments, just as film does better with capturing highlights? If you've heard the commentary on Gangster Squad, there's a scene where a truck explodes in an alley. The director mentions in his commentary that since the movie was shot digitally with the Alexa, they had to paint detail back into the exploding, as the Alexa lost some of the brighter tones.

Just curious why the switch was made to the Alexa for Mockingjay, after Catching Fire was done with mixed 35mm and IMAX? And if you're shooting to the internal codex of the Alexa, does that mean that the full resolution of the sensor is being used, or is it recording 1920x1080 ProRes 422?

I'm wondering if anyone knows if the Director can output 4K Quicktime files. I know it can scan 4K DPX files, but Jack told me he isn't sure if it can output 4K Quicktime files. Ok, so suppose it can't output 4K Quicktime files and it outputs 2K Quicktime files. Will the film be scanned in at 4K and then be converted into 2K Quicktimes?

I'm wondering if there's anyone on here who has had print or reversal film transferred on the Scanity. In the post where he announced the Scanity, Paul wrote that the machine will service different types of clients. Here is what #4 on that list says: 4) Anyone who wants or requires higher dynamic range scans (ie.. especially those that have print stock they need scanned)

David, In my other post, you mentioned how in all your tests of machines that perform data HDR scans (Director, Xena, Arriscan etc) - you liked the Director the best. Any reason why? Was it better able to capture all the details from the varied exposure of your film? I'm beginning to think that it may not be a bad idea to take one of my 100' rolls of 16mm reversal and have it scanned on the Scanity, Director and we'll see what else. In addition to testing 16mm at 4K vs 2K, it may be interesting to see how much more dynamic range exists on the Director and other multi-flash machines.

The Scanity and ScanStation are telecine systems? I'm surprised to hear that. In my search for the right scanner to scan my film, I have generally gathered and been told that telecine systems are more ancient and data scans are the way to go. However, many say that the Scanity is the system to beat these days. Despite the Scanity being a telecine system, you can see from my other posting, which compared the Scanity to the Director, that the Scanity did a great job!

David, one other question - is there a big difference between ProRes 4444 and ProRes 422 HQ? I once ripped the big knife fight scene from the Blu-ray of V for Vendetta three times and did one encode as ProRes 422, a second as 422 HQ and the third as 4444. I didn't see any difference between 4444 and 422 HQ, but both were noticeably better than 422.

The SD transfer comes first and the Scanity comes second.

David, Thank you for your compliments! I remember that we shot using a Moviecam Compact, tho I don't remember the brand of lenses we used, nor the focal lengths. My DP just selected everything and I wrote the check :rolleyes: Back then, I wasn't into cinematography or still photography, thus my role in just writing checks. The camera reports say we shot on 5248, which was EXR 100T. I do wish my scans were the same scene, but the train to NYC is $22 round trip, so I was trying to minimize the trips back and forth, which may have worked against me as well. The Nice Shoes test scan came back really quickly tho - the following afternoon! But, I'd already given Metro Post different footage to scan. No biggie tho because as we can see, both scanners are great. I do have several rolls of 16mm black & white and color reversal film. It's been a while since I've looked at them, but I'm not sure so much if the exposure varies as much as reversal film has less latitude. Also, back in the day, I would transfer my 16mm reversal film to mini dv tape myself. We had a projector at school which had a CCD or some electronic device in it that plugged into the switch board in the control room. There was a dial on the projector to adjust the exposure, so I'd have to stop the tape when an exposure adjustment was needed. Below, I'll post a clip from the original SD transfer vs. the Scanity transfer. You'll be able to see that when I graded the Scanity transfer, I was trying to match what the original colorists did. The original transfer was done at Moving Images in NYC and was done in SD to mini dv in 2004. To try and make the clips match a bit more closely, I unconverted the SD clip to 1920x1080. I also converted the frame rate of the Scanity transfer from 23.98 fps to 29.97 fps.