Shutter Island 65mm

[Paul Bruening]

Maybe I am just an ignoramus, but with 2K projection, what would doubling up give you, apart from more light, and convergence issues? Wouldn't it still look like the same flat garbage it looks like now in a theatre?

 

If done carefully and enough control is available in the projectors it can create a sufficient illusion of doubling the resolution. That means you can push the image onto a bigger screen and compensate for the single projector's lower light levels and resolution. If the viewer's brain falls for it and the two cheaper projectors are up to the job, it's not a crazy way to do things. It can be done with three projectors as well (one offset 1/2 pixel vertically and one offset 1/2 pixel horizontally). I tested it with crummy SXGA projectors and got some interesting results even with ancient BenQ DLPs. They weren't up to the task but got pretty close. I could only test a still image as well.

[John Sprung]

Not at $80,000 a digital projector.

 

Are there digital projectors that cheap? Any good?

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[James Neihouse]

When I was a kid 65mm was a mainstream format at least for Epic films. Nowadays you are considered off the wall and overkill for even suggesting that a movie should be filmed using 65mm. I hope with the advent of 4K digital projection that 65mm film aquisition will one day again become the mainstream format. The problem is that most Cinematographers feel that they are elitists just because they prefer film over video but I think it takes a lot more effort to be a true elitist. If any format is overkill it is the IMAX format which I think caused a lot of Cinematographers to become so discouraged by the costs that they just gave up on trying to shoot with 65mm film.

 

IMAX 15 perf. 65mm is only over kill if you are projecting on a conventional sized movie screen, you know the small 40' - 50' wide ones. You are actually throwing away a large part of the image as well if you are not projecting in 1.34:1, for 2.35 you are better off shooting 5 perf 65mm, which is what I believe they did for Shutter Island. For your reference a true IMAX sized frame is approximately 12K (11,734 x 8,772)

 

James Neihouse

Director of Photography

IMAX HUBBLE 3D

[Kemalettin Sert]

someone can post some 65mm camera photos ?

[K Borowski]

IMAX 15 perf. 65mm is only over kill if you are projecting on a conventional sized movie screen, you know the small 40' - 50' wide ones. You are actually throwing away a large part of the image as well if you are not projecting in 1.34:1, for 2.35 you are better off shooting 5 perf 65mm, which is what I believe they did for Shutter Island. For your reference a true IMAX sized frame is approximately 12K (11,734 x 8,772)

 

James Neihouse

Director of Photography

IMAX HUBBLE 3D

 

James, what an honor to have you on here!

 

 

I agree, it's better to shoot a movie on 5-perf. maybe even the whole movie, and then blow up rather than shoot half on 35mm 4-perf. scope and the other half on 65mm 15-perf.

 

I never had the opportunity to see "Dark Knight" in 35mm, but others I know who did see it couldn't really see the improvement in quality from the IMAX shots, maybe marginally, but it was a great waste for the most part.

 

I'd rather see 3x as much 5-perf. shooting in the movie than using so much scope.

 

 

 

BTW, I'd like your opinion on this: What do you think about projecting IMAX films on OMNIMAX screens? I told a friend that the only difference was the curved screen and a wide-angle projection lens.

 

Is there any solution, in your opinion, to having an OMNIMAX screen and showing IMAX films, like a longer lens projected in the middle of the IMAX screen, or a separate screen that rolls up in front of the dome or something?

 

A lot of OMNIMAX locations never envisioned the possibility of 35mm blowups to IMAX becoming so popular and, as such, weren't prepared for this possibility when they built their theatres.

 

 

I think IMAX and 4K the next big thing in quality after people get over 3D and figure out that XD (and Regal, AMC, Carmike) theatre equivalents are the same shitty 2K image blown up on a bigger screen.

 

 

Ultimately, people need to be shown something better in the theatre than what they can pirate on their PCs at home. . . .

[Steve Zimmerman]

If you click on the link below, then "View list of theaters with 4K projectors", you can see current and coming 4K Sony projectors. The picture quality should be better than Imax Digital, I guess?

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digitalci...04k%20projector

Edited May 4, 2010 by Steve Zimmerman

[Chris Burke]

how much electricity does a standard 35mm projector use? I am comparing it to a digital 4k projector to see which is "greener". Both have to use a pretty hefty bulb to illuminate the screen. Which is cheaper to run in the long run. Which uses less power.

[Mei Lewis]

how much electricity does a standard 35mm projector use? I am comparing it to a digital 4k projector to see which is "greener". Both have to use a pretty hefty bulb to illuminate the screen. Which is cheaper to run in the long run. Which uses less power.

 

 

No idea, but you may want to factor in non-obvious costs, such as how much energy is used to transfer film prints VS transferring electronic files.

[Thomas James]

The ultimate big screen format is Showscan and it beats IMAX hands down.

[K Borowski]

No idea, but you may want to factor in non-obvious costs, such as how much energy is used to transfer film prints VS transferring electronic files.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that physically transporting film, manufacturing it, processing it, printing it, and projecting it uses more energy than distributing digital files.

 

However, when it comes to digital editing, backing up harddrives, and finishing electronically, I think that film can recoup these costs over the long-term in an archive environment where storing it is essentially the cost of a controlled-temperature environment.

[Paul Bruening]

I saw it yesterday in 35mm. It looked really good. I could see the individual threads in the lead's brown suit on medium and CU shots.

[James Neihouse]

James, what an honor to have you on here!

 

 

I agree, it's better to shoot a movie on 5-perf. maybe even the whole movie, and then blow up rather than shoot half on 35mm 4-perf. scope and the other half on 65mm 15-perf.

 

I never had the opportunity to see "Dark Knight" in 35mm, but others I know who did see it couldn't really see the improvement in quality from the IMAX shots, maybe marginally, but it was a great waste for the most part.

 

I'd rather see 3x as much 5-perf. shooting in the movie than using so much scope.

 

 

 

BTW, I'd like your opinion on this: What do you think about projecting IMAX films on OMNIMAX screens? I told a friend that the only difference was the curved screen and a wide-angle projection lens.

 

Is there any solution, in your opinion, to having an OMNIMAX screen and showing IMAX films, like a longer lens projected in the middle of the IMAX screen, or a separate screen that rolls up in front of the dome or something?

 

A lot of OMNIMAX locations never envisioned the possibility of 35mm blowups to IMAX becoming so popular and, as such, weren't prepared for this possibility when they built their theatres.

 

 

I think IMAX and 4K the next big thing in quality after people get over 3D and figure out that XD (and Regal, AMC, Carmike) theatre equivalents are the same shitty 2K image blown up on a bigger screen.

 

 

Ultimately, people need to be shown something better in the theatre than what they can pirate on their PCs at home. . . .

 

 

Projecting films that were shot for a flat screen on to a dome screen tends to produce some very interesting effects. I remember watching some rushes from the Michael Jordan film on a dome screen. Some of the shots were almost laughable, one in particular was a head to toe shot of MJ shoot a basket. He was center frame the goat was on the left side of frame. It looked as though the goal was less than a quarter his height and about 100' away. The dome likes to have things centered, and low in frame. When you start getting toward the edges the distortion starts really kicking in, and anything at the top of the frame is way above the audiences' heads, almost impossible to see. Tilt up reveals are almost impossible to pull off since your subject is coming in the top of the frame.

 

If you project with a longer lens on the center of the dome you are throwing away a large part of the screen and you may as well see it on a smaller flat screen.

 

Films shot for the dome look great on the doomed screens, but it's tough to get something shot for "flat" screen to look good on a dome unless you really know what you're doing. We used to double shoot on shots that we knew would be troublesome for the dome, we have also done some shrinks to bring things into the center a little more when there was no other alternative.

 

The 35mm blow ups are a totally different animal all together. None of them are shot with a big screen in mind, much less a giant dome screen. None of them use the full flat screen just because they would have to throw out the sides of the image due to aspect ratio issues.

 

Hope this answers your questions, sorry for not getting back on this quicker.

 

James Neihouse

[John Brawley]

All,

I read over at www.in70mm.com that Scorsese was using 65mm to shoot "Shutter Island."

 

 

Hi,

 

Reading the AC article, it seems they TRIED to use camera 65, for the concentration camp scenes but both the Panavision and the Arri broke down on the first night in some extreme weather. Instead they opted for 35mm with a funky LUT applied for a more hyper reversal-ish look.

 

jb

[K Borowski]

how much electricity does a standard 35mm projector use? I am comparing it to a digital 4k projector to see which is "greener". Both have to use a pretty hefty bulb to illuminate the screen. Which is cheaper to run in the long run. Which uses less power.

 

Who cares?

 

Getting in a car, driving X miles, seeing a movie in a theatre, driving back home is 1,000 times less efficient than pirating a movie in your parent's basement :rolleyes:

 

 

Sorry, but that is just a silly silly observation. If you want to analyze this further you can probably fit five or six times as many people in an IMAX theatre if you build it large enough than a regular one (forget stadium seating though; let's pack'em in for efficiency's sake). Let's release 1/10 the amount o fmovies, and interlock them at all times. There will be only one movie playing for 3 days, on every screen at every theatre.

[Brian Hulnick]

Shutter Island looked gorgeous on my 52" Sony and I can well believe it will looks great on my 120" screen when I get my projector and set up. Sound was unbelievably good too, I love storms played through my surround sound system.

[Markshaw]

I for one thought The Dark Knight looked spectacular in IMAX and the aspect ratio changes did not bother me at all.

[Brian Hulnick]

Watched Shutter Island for the 9th time at home last night. It gets better with each viewing. Sounded even better last night in glorious 9.1.

[Markshaw]

I think I have watched it about half a dozen times since I purchased the Blu-ray. Excellent movie, very moody.

[K Borowski]

Think I saw it four times in the theatre, maybe five.

[Markshaw]

Have you watched it at home yet? This movie really sucks you in.

[K Borowski]

Mark: I have not. My Bluray player is not working right now, so have a big backlog of movies in the meantime! But definitely something I'll want to own, in addition to the four or five 35mm trailers I snagged of it. B)

[Markshaw]

Do you know what the problem is with your Blu-ray player? Is it fixable? Whats the model/ name?

[Markshaw]

I look forward to seeing what Scorsese and DiCaprio's next project will be.

[Brian Hulnick]

Maybe the duo could take over the Viking movie from Mel (the madman) Gibson. I would like to have seen that.

[Markshaw]

I was looking forward to that Viking movie. Too bad Gibson screwed that up.