70mm, 35mm screenings for INTERSTELLAR

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think there is a 4-perf 35mm to 15-perf 65mm optical printer for one thing, the other is that the digital DMR blow-up process involves grain reduction and sharpening so that the grain on an IMAX screen is not too distracting. Considering how some people have complained about how 35mm looks intercut with IMAX in an IMAX theater, they would probably be complaining even louder if it was an optical blow-up.

[cole t parzenn]

What is interesting about that to me is I may ultimately be viewing more resolution in the original 35mm portions than the IMAX original portions. 35mm should be pushing the envelope at or even past 6K. So, printing to it in only 4K is not taking full advantage of the potential.

 

What negative resolves 280 lines per mm?

[David Mullen ASC]

Just because you scan something at 6K doesn't mean it contains 6K worth of detail. In fact, if it actually resolved 6K, then in theory you'd have to scan it at 12K to avoid aliasing.

 

35mm resolves about 3K of detail, which is why it should be scanned at 6K. Shooting line resolution charts, people have reported maybe 3.5K at the highest for Super-35 color negative, many people get lower results. I've never heard of anyone reading more than 4K worth of detail in a chart from a scan of Super-35.

 

But given that IMAX is almost 3X wider than Super-35, it also explains why it probably should be resolving 9K or so, and should be scanned at 12K at least.

 

I could scan a piece of film at 100K but that has nothing to do with what it resolves.

[David Mullen ASC]

Over-sampling has its advantages -- the IMAX footage in the Dark Knight films looks cleaner and sharper than the 35mm footage even on a 1080P blu-ray when in theory it should not be able to resolve any difference in quality.

[Phil Rhodes]

I believe Northlight 2 will scan 65mm negative at 8k, but I'm not entirely sure. I suspect that would be enough.

[cole t parzenn]

8K for any gate width? The IMAX projector aperture is shorter than 5/70 is wide.

[David Cunningham]

I'll have to break out my 2K scans of an "HD" test target shot on Vision3 50D Super 8. I am almost positive I was able to make out the lines equivalent to HD. I would have to do the math all over again, but I believe it was 240 lpmm. Now, that doesn't mean that it's truly usable or worthwhile because at that scan rate the grain is huge and distracting. But, for over sampling purposes, I believe most would agree that (give or take a K) 2K is good for Super 8, 4K for Super16, 8K for Super35 and 16K for 5-perf 70mm. IMAX 15-perf then becomes a whole new ball game.

 

Even if you drop that down to 720P HD for Super 8, 2K for Super16, 4K for Super35 and 8K for 5-perf 70mm it still leaves 15-perf IMAX looking for 24K, not the 11K max that I am aware of and the 8K used for Interstellar.

 

But, all that said, even if the resolution is not there, per my expectation, the best point appears to be from David Mullen. Surely scanning Super35 at 6K and then very lightly sharpening and de-grain/noising will help it blend better with the IMAX negative. So, there may be a major advantage to scanning in that case rather than optical.

[David Cunningham]

That should have been 140 lpmm... not 240. Still a high number... but not what I meant.

[Phil Rhodes]

Northlight is a line-array scanner, so the vertical resolution (that is physically vertical with the film moving across horizontally) is fixed, whereas the horizontal resolution increases with increasing frame size. Thus, scan 15/65 and you'll get more pixels than 5/65 - and of course 15-perf has its horizontal imaging axis the other way around.

 

P

[Gregory Irwin]

This whole discussion is so geeky! Just enjoy the picture. It's going to be a fun and cerebral ride.

 

G

[Ravi Kiran]

Over-sampling has its advantages -- the IMAX footage in the Dark Knight films looks cleaner and sharper than the 35mm footage even on a 1080P blu-ray when in theory it should not be able to resolve any difference in quality.

 

On TDK Blu-Ray the 35mm scenes have edge enhancement and noise reduction. I guess they just transferred the 35mm scenes from a version with the IMAX DMR process applied, rather than taking them from a cleaner source. This is another reason for the quality difference between the 35mm and IMAX footage.

 

I've read that the 35mm scenes on the Blu-Ray of The Dark Knight Rises look better, though I haven't seen the disc myself. I'm sure the IMAX scenes still look better due to oversampling.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Ravi Kiran

[Rafael Rivera]

Saw the Interstellar print today at the San Jose Tech Museum IMAX. It was phenomenal both for its cinematography as human story, and the aspect ratio switching was a total surprise that actually worked very well, just a small hint at the vastness of space.

[Ravi Kiran]

Is there an advantage to seeing this in non-IMAX 70mm, compared to a 35mm print? I'd imagine that the IMAX scenes hold up better. But would the 35mm scenes benefit?

Edited November 7, 2014 by Ravi Kiran

[Robert Houllahan]

I saw the 15-70mm IMAX print last Thursday and it looks superb IMO some people have complained about a few things like focus under low light but it didn't bother me. I feel it is a good reminder that the digital monster isn't all it's cracked up to be. I have seen a number of 4K "films" on this very well setup IMAX screen (Providence Place Mall about four blocks walking distance form my loft ;-0)) and the 70MM print just has so much life in comparison to the comparatively lifeless 4K system.

 

As for scanning any of the 70MM-15 would have been scanned at FotoKem on their Imagica Bigfoot scanner which is the same 8K Tri-Linear Kodak CCD as the Northlight-2 but with a 12K sweep resulting in a 12K x 8K frame size.

[James Compton]

35mm rocked the house. 70mm stunned them into silence. IMAX melted their faces!!!

 

Top shelf filmmaking. Christopher Nolan has yet to disappoint me.

 

35mm:

 

I saw the 35mm print on Wednesday. I was one of the first people in the theater, so it was easy to get optimal seating. I began to think nobody really knew about the film print screenings, but slowly the theater filled to capacity. One difference that I noted from this ‘event’, compared to a typical movie opening – the theater was FULL OF CRYING PEOPLE. There was a large group of obnoxious, potato head frat boys sitting in the row infront of me. They too were sobbing! There is something about watching a film print that makes the story more accessible. Judging by the emotional response, it confirms the

German studies of audience reaction and engagement regarding film over digital projection. The audience at the 35mm show applauded the film afterwards. I thought that was classy.

 

SIGHT-

 

The earthbound imagery was flavored with grain, and it worked very well to convey the

grimy last days of humankind on the planet Earth. One thing that really stood out was the high contrast ratios used in the exterior/farm scenes on Earth. The lack of fill light or timing choices gave the image an almost EKTACHROME 100D reversal film look. I liked that a lot, it was a brave choice. You see it the most when Cooper and his kids

capture the surveillance drone and are controlling it with a laptop computer. The other scene is when the farm combine were affects by an anomaly. He is standing next to the combine after repairing it, there is no fill added-or at least it appears that way.

 

The arrival in space and the journey that follows are clear and pristine. The larger formats shine in the alien atmospheres.

 

SOUND –

 

The only time I had an issue with the sound was the mix of the center channel. The there was one scene were the music was loader than the dialog. There is a technique used in the pop music realm to prevent issues like that. You mix for the lowest common denominator

(ie; boombox) and any device above that will sound balanced.

 

70mm and IMAX :

 

 

SIGHT-

 

The 70mm presentation had a very enjoyable vibe. The 35mm anamorphic scenes had

A naturally pronounced grain because of the optical blowup. In the first 5 mintues into the film Cooper is having a nightmare/flashback and is awakened by his daughter. He wakes up and the room is dark. The shadows are stretched and hazy/milk. It was not noticeable in the 35mm presentations, but very much so in 70mm and IMAX. I really

Wondered why Hoyte did not overexpose trhe negative knowing that there would be a direct optical blowup to 70mm. The IMAX presentation of the 65mm and 15perf 65mm

Photographed scenes were FACE-MELTING !!! The subtle textures and rich colors, were absolute eye candy.

 

SOUND –

 

The sound design on this movie was superb. Perhaps the 70mm and IMAX sound systems were set up better at those theaters, but the music overpowering the dialog In that one scene was no longer an issue.

[David Cunningham]

Having only seen the 35mm print thus far, I have to say I was very happy with it. (Unfortunately, one of the projectors in my theater appeared to have a small shutter issue so there was occasional highlight flicker... I eventually learned to ignore it).

 

I have to agree about the early dimly lighted scenes... it did almost look E100D like. It was beautiful.

 

My theater too was full of college students and the like... rowdy and obnoxious. By the end of the film, it was a solid 2 minutes into the credits before anyone even moved.... silently out the door. They knew they had just watched a brilliant work of art.

 

I'm having a hard time getting past some of the very large scientific assumptions and leaps of faith in the film. But I do get it. A bit too sappy to me. But I get it.

[cole t parzenn]

35mm - scratched and out of focus.

 

Didn't really think about the cinematography, which I like.

[Kemalettin Sert]

This whole discussion is so geeky! Just enjoy the picture. It's going to be a fun and cerebral ride.

 

G

any details you would like share about this movie Greg?

[David Cunningham]

35mm - scratched and out of focus.

 

Didn't really think about the cinematography, which I like.

That's horrible. I would complain.

[cole t parzenn]

This whole discussion is so geeky! Just enjoy the picture. It's going to be a fun and cerebral ride.

 

G

 

 

Can you share what stops Interstellar was shot at?

That's horrible. I would complain.

 

I was sitting in the front row, so I couldn't get up, in the middle. I complained, after, and was spoken to quite rudely. (ArcLight, in San Diego.)

[David Cunningham]

 

 

Can you share what stops Interstellar was shot at?

 

I was sitting in the front row, so I couldn't get up, in the middle. I complained, after, and was spoken to quite rudely. (ArcLight, in San Diego.)

Sad...

[Bill DiPietra]

This whole discussion is so geeky! Just enjoy the picture. It's going to be a fun and cerebral ride.

 

G

 

Hahahaha!!! Well said, Greg!

[Bill DiPietra]

 

I was sitting in the front row, so I couldn't get up, in the middle. I complained, after, and was spoken to quite rudely. (ArcLight, in San Diego.)

 

 

That reminds me of when I saw Scorsese's Casino in Manhattan. Everyone was seated and ready to go and then they decide to tell us that the print has a scratch in it that goes on for 20 minutes straight.

 

In retrospect, I cant believe I actually sat through it.

[cole t parzenn]

Sad...

 

San Diego cinemas, in a nutshell.

 

 

That reminds me of when I saw Scorsese's Casino in Manhattan. Everyone was seated and ready to go and then they decide to tell us that the print has a scratch in it that goes on for 20 minutes straight.

 

In retrospect, I cant believe I actually sat through it.

 

Ouch. But "Casino" is a damn good film; I don't think I'd watch it out of focus but I might settle for a scratched reel.

[Gregory Irwin]

Can you share what stops Interstellar was shot at?

It's been very interesting reading all of these posts. I believe David's insight was correct. We built all of the anamorphic lenses custom for the movie as well as the two "hero" IMAX lenses - 50mm and 80mm. All of the lenses were T2 and 2 to 2.5 foot minimum focus. My anamorphic 65mm focused down to 16 inches.

 

We shot almost the entire picture at a T2 and at minimum focus while hand held or on a remote head. Every shot was focused by a Preston FIZ. As for the Michael Caine death close up, that was the 65mm anamorphic at a T2. We slowly pushed into minimum focus and when Michael tilted his head, we were unfortunately inside of that minimum limit. The depth was incredibly shallow. For many of the IMAX close ups, I was remotely focusing the 80mm at minimum focus (T2) with a plus 3 diopter. That made life very tricky. I'm actually very proud of the movie as well as all of our work on the camera side of things. It was and is an amazing accomplishment.

 

G