Interstellar and the future of film projection

[Stuart Brereton]

I saw the film in IMAX at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. I didn't notice any focus issues. In fact, I was surprised by the lack of focus buzzes given the format they were shooting.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're not going to get even focus projecting onto a curved screen, it's not bad but it's not even. Curved screens were originally designed for the three projector Cinerama system where each projector just had to fill 1/3 of the screen.

[John Holland]

I must agree on the focus issues there is one important scene with Michael Cain lying down on a bed explaining a important part of the [plot ?] where the only part of his face thats is in focus is his forehead , i kept waiting for it to pulled into focus ,it never happened . This was anamorphic not Imax.

[Tyler Purcell]

You're not going to get even focus projecting onto a curved screen, it's not bad but it's not even. Curved screens were originally designed for the three projector Cinerama system where each projector just had to fill 1/3 of the screen.

 

That was my initial thought until it went to IMAX material and it was perfectly in focus, even the close up's.

 

But yea, the edges of the screen weren't in perfect focus, that's to be expected at the dome. It's far worse with their digital projector, it looks like crap.

[David Mullen ASC]

I like the Dome in theory more than practice, mainly because of my love for Cinerama history. But I had a screening of one of my 35mm anamorphic features there, "Astronaut Farmer", and I was a bit disappointed by how the curved screen was washing out the contrast in day scenes and distorting horizontal lines. Up to that point, it had always been one of my dreams to have something I shot screen at the Cinerama Dome...

[Tyler Purcell]

Ohh and David, love your stuff on the Widescreen Museum site. That's the cinema format bible for us younger folk! :D

 

I have watched a few Cinerama movies on the dome, it was a unique experience. Today with digital projection it could be a worth while format to experiment again with.

[Bill DiPietra]

Ohh and David, love your stuff on the Widescreen Museum site. That's the cinema format bible for us younger folk! :D

 

Indeed it is! A great site for film history buffs!

[cole t parzenn]

Thirded.

[Manu Delpech]

Saw it in 2K digital, no focus issues whatsoever.

[David Mullen ASC]

Just saw it in IMAX 70mm at the Mann Chinese. It's been years since I saw a movie in the main theater of the Chinese and I was curious to see it converted to IMAX. Until just recently, the Howard Hughes Parkway Mall near me had one of the film film IMAX theaters and it was like having my own private IMAX screen just ten minutes away. But when Cinemark bought them, they converted it to digital IMAX, which is a bummer considering that architecturally it is a real IMAX theater with the steep seating rows, etc. Unfortunately the IMAX theater in the Mann Chinese is just a taller screen, and a silver screen at that. But other than that, of course the quality of the projection was great. I was sitting halfway back in the wide aisle that has the wheelchair seating, which was slightly further back that I like but this was reserved seating and it was hard to tell on the map which seat to pick, I hate being TOO close in a real IMAX theater, but in this case, I was a bit too far back to have it really fill my vision. But it was still a pretty large image for me.

 

I didn't see many real focus problems, quite frankly. There was one early on, the profile CU of the main character Cooper in his flashback dream piloting the ship, but after that, there was a full forty minutes before I saw another focus mistake. Certainly there were the typical buzzes during motion of actors or camera, prolonged at times by the shallow depth of field, which was more pronounced once they got into that spaceship. That CU of Michael Caine in the hospital bed has the focus slightly too upstage but considering it is an ECU with a slow dolly in, I understand how hard it is to focus a shot like that in film (with a digital camera, a focus puller would be watching the move on a large HD screen for a tough shot like that.)

 

I think either some people are seeing the movie in theaters with focus problems, or they are being ridiculously picky about focus beyond reason, I don't know. It may also just be the problem of the shallow depth of field creating a "swimmy" focus feeling as the camera floats about, with the focus occasionally chasing an actor a beat late.

 

I will also say that Hoytema is not afraid of underexposure, there are a couple of really dark shots. That one of Cooper waking up from the dream in particular, though as he sits up, there is more light. It's funny to me because when he crosses towards the windows with the blue morning dusk light outside, there is an almost identical shot in "Superman: The Movie" of young Clark Kent crossing to the window in his bedroom.

 

Overall, I thought the movie looked great. Near the end, there was a long sequence that intercuts IMAX and 35mm back and forth a bit much, it would have been nicer if it had all been shot in IMAX.

[Bill DiPietra]

I will also say that Hoytema is not afraid of underexposure, there are a couple of really dark shots.

 

I really liked his work on Let the Right One In. Looking forward to seeing this. Would you recommend seeing it in 70mm or 70mm IMAX?

Edited November 12, 2014 by Bill DiPietra

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm curious to see the regular 70mm print, I'm just not sure I want to see it at the Cinerama Dome, I've already mentioned the issues with that curved screen. Since the IMAX shots are contact-printed to IMAX 70mm, they are going to look the best in real IMAX.

[Stuart Brereton]

I didn't see many real focus problems, quite frankly. There was one early on, the profile CU of the main character Cooper in his flashback dream piloting the ship, but after that, there was a full forty minutes before I saw another focus mistake. Certainly there were the typical buzzes during motion of actors or camera, prolonged at times by the shallow depth of field, which was more pronounced once they got into that spaceship. That CU of Michael Caine in the hospital bed has the focus slightly too upstage but considering it is an ECU with a slow dolly in, I understand how hard it is to focus a shot like that in film (with a digital camera, a focus puller would be watching the move on a large HD screen for a tough shot like that.)

 

This was exactly my experience. Nothing out of the ordinary in terms of focus.

 

Greg Irwin has explained in another thread how the Michael Caine close-up was occasionally inside minimum focus as he turned his head.

 

Incredible work on the whole, considering they were shooting t2 most of the time.

[Tyler Purcell]

Maybe the optical printing done from 35mm to 70mm simply caused more problems then it was worth? The IMAX film prints had the 35mm stuff DI'd which is why it looks totally different. I think it must be more of an issue with the 70mm prints, because I'm not nit picky and the focus issues were so bad in the 35mm stuff, I thought there was something wrong.

[David Cunningham]

No focus issues in the 35mm print I saw.

[Michel Hafner]

Old Murph on the death bed was very out of focus in the 4K screening I saw.

[cole t parzenn]

People who saw this in IMAX, how bad was the strobing?

[Chris Millar]

no strobing here...

[Tyler Purcell]

Old Murph on the death bed was very out of focus in the 4K screening I saw.

 

Yep, pulls you right out of the scene as well! I kept on saying to myself "they'll fix it" but the focus never changed.

 

So at least we know it has nothing to do with the optical blow-up's if it's also on the digital print.

 

Makes me wonder, is my vision THAT good?

[Justin Hayward]

is my vision THAT good?

Maybe.

[Stuart Brereton]

 

Yep, pulls you right out of the scene as well! I kept on saying to myself "they'll fix it" but the focus never changed.

 

As Greg Irwin has already explained, parts of that shot were inside minimum focus. If Greg and the Camera Op were doing their jobs, which I'm sure they were, they would have made it clear to the DP and Director that this was happening. After that, it becomes an artistic decision.

 

That said, I hardly noticed it in the IMAX screening I saw.

[Bill DiPietra]

I fully appreciate the fact that everyone in this forum has a fine eye, but this thread is becoming obsessive.

 

Discuss the film...not a single shot...if for no other reason than to show some common courtesy to a forum member who worked on the film.

[Gregory Irwin]

As Greg Irwin has already explained, parts of that shot were inside minimum focus. If Greg and the Camera Op were doing their jobs, which I'm sure they were, they would have made it clear to the DP and Director that this was happening. After that, it becomes an artistic decision.

 

That said, I hardly noticed it in the IMAX screening I saw.

All I can say is that the camera operator was the DP and all of us were doing our jobs. Everyone knew at the time the situation and only one person - Chris - made the decision to move on.

[Tyler Purcell]

Second watching today at the Dome in 70mm and loved it even more the 2nd time around then the first. Saw it with a few friends and they were all blown away, none of them even noticed the focus issues. The introduction made by the Arclight staff now includes a statement about the sound mix and low levels of dialog, being what Chris wanted.

 

It's unfortunate today is the final day of 70mm screenings at the Dome. The stupid Hunger Games film will replace it starting thursday (tomorrow). I'm anxious to see the film in 70mm 15 perf IMAX at some point, if it wasn't 20 bux a showing, I would have already gone. If the Chinese still has it next week, I'll absolutely go again and see what that print looks like.

 

In other news just this week, Tarantino announced the Hateful Eight will be shot in 65mm 5 perf and most importantly, be a roadshow presentation with intermission and everything. Harvey Weinstein is on board and the filming is suppose to start in January. Tarantino has already set into motion the pieces necessary for wide 70mm distribution, including coordinating with lab's. With Interstellar bringing home $326M in world-wide box-office only three weeks after release and only a $165M budget, one would think this may be a new paradigm. It makes me wonder if JJ Abrahams will be doing the same thing with Star Wars.

[GregBest]

Watched Interstellar on a flat Imax screen (unsure if digital or film) and enjoyed it. Especially enjoyed the audio. Then, watched it in on 70mm real film, IMAX dome, seated near projector, worst looking movie I've seen in a long while. Maybe it was the dome seating where it seems you are too close to the screen, but the contrast was lost on the black hole travel scenes, and any darker scenes, color seemed dull, grain was too present, and focus was bad due to distance to the screen. Missed half the action looking around the dome, and spent time POINTING out something I knew my friends were not looking at. Also, didn't enjoy HEARING the clickity of the projector. Dialog was sometimes buried by music, but I am getting used to Nolan movie poor sound mixes. Sadly. Judder/flicker seemed about the same.

 

Personally, after two movies I saw at this IMAX Dome, I won't be going back. And "Film" no longer looks great to me. I hope to catch INTERSTELLAR in 4K next, as well as a typical digital theater just as a comparison.

 

Just my opinions.

Edited November 21, 2014 by GregBest