Raiders of the Lost Ark: The IMAX Experience (1 Viewer)

The entire week of September 7th in advance of the Blu-Ray release, according to The New York Times

From the article:

But Mr. Spielberg — who is also in the process of converting his movie “Jurassic Park” to 3-D

Click to expand...

I thought Spielberg had seen the light and sworn off altering his films? Or does 3-D conversion somehow not count as an alteration?

SD_Brian said:

From the article:
I thought Spielberg had seen the light and sworn off altering his films? Or does 3-D conversion somehow not count as an alteration?

Click to expand...

Right or wrong, I think it's fair to assume that he doesn't see it as an alteration.

the plot thickens boys and girls.. how about a saturday afternoon marathon with all 4 films?
Jacob
http://www.amctheatres.com/movies/indiana-jones-marathon

TheBat said:

the plot thickens boys and girls.. how about a saturday afternoon marathon with all 4 films?
Jacob
http://www.amctheatres.com/movies/indiana-jones-marathon

Click to expand...

Hmmm now this throws a wrench into things. I would love to see Raiders in IMAX, but it appears as if the only place near me showing it is a fake IMAX theater (even though there are 3 real IMAX theaters within my general vicinity) so I have mixed feelings about it. So, do I go for the Marathon? It would be fun, but, no Raiders in IMAX and I am also assuming that they are going to be digital projections and not actual film prints.

I only have a digital IMAX in my area, too, but I'm still definitely going to go if I can fit it into my schedule. Even with the smaller (relatively speaking) screen and digital projection, it's probably going to be my only chance to see Raiders on the big screen for a long, long time.

I'm torn.
I've been holding off re-watching these until the set comes out. But I enjoy seeing them on the big screen. But then that defeats the purpose of waiting to see them on Blu-Ray.
Hmmm. Gonna have to rub my chin for a while on this one.
Plus, if I go, my sons will demand to go to, which means three sets of tickets at the (probably) inflated price - could set me back more than I'm paying for the Blu-Rays.
Maybe even see how heavy the sand is.
David

AMC will hold an Indy Marathon on Sept. 15th - tickets are $25 for all four films! I already bought mine - these will sell out very fast. I'll probably opt out of the fourth film, though

WillG said:

Hmmm now this throws a wrench into things. I would love to see Raiders in IMAX, but it appears as if the only place near me showing it is a fake IMAX theater (even though there are 3 real IMAX theaters within my general vicinity) so I have mixed feelings about it. So, do I go for the Marathon? It would be fun, but, no Raiders in IMAX and I am also assuming that they are going to be digital projections and not actual film prints.

Click to expand...

I got the same problem. its the fake imax that is near me. I plan to do both. have to wait and see if a local theatre does the marathon.
Jacob

Regal has now published a list of their IMAX screens showing Raiders:

http://www.regmovies.com/Regal_Raiders.aspx

Looks like it is playing on mostly LIMAX screens, at least here in SoCal.

What a shame.....

Toddwrtr said:

Looks like it is playing on mostly LIMAX screens, at least here in SoCal.
What a shame.....

Click to expand...

I had the same situation in my area but the one real IMAX theater is now listing it so keep hope alive.

IMAX pretty much confirmed on their Facebook page that this is a Digital-only release.

TravisR said:

I had the same situation in my area but the one real IMAX theater is now listing it so keep hope alive.

Click to expand...

Toddwrtr said:

IMAX pretty much confirmed on their Facebook page that this is a Digital-only release.

Click to expand...

That's what I read on another site too.
Even at IMAX locations that still have video like the KoP IMAX screen which currently has both.

May be a silly question, but how do you take a 30 year old Raiders film, which I believe was originally Cinemascope and certainly not digital at the time, which was then converted to an anamorphic 35mm print to be shown in most theatres, into an IMAX format.
Even if it started as a 70mm film, shrunken to fit a 35mm frame, a true IMAX frame holds a lot more information? Wouldn't there be a very noticeable change in picture quality?
Granted, I'm sort of blending a question about standard film with digital, but won't there still be a lot of picture quality lost?

First of all Raiders was shot in Panavision, not CinemaScope (I know, they are basically the same thing) and secondly Panavision (or CinemaScope) IS anamorphic so there is no conversion of anything to make a film print.
I'm sure that to make an IMAX film out of a 35mm production, they are doing a blowup and eking out as much resolution that the original negative will provide, which would probably look much better than a 35mm print.

Stan said:

May be a silly question, but how do you take a 30 year old Raiders film, which I believe was originally Cinemascope and certainly not digital at the time, which was then converted to an anamorphic 35mm print to be shown in most theatres, into an IMAX format.
Even if it started as a 70mm film, shrunken to fit a 35mm frame, a true IMAX frame holds a lot more information? Wouldn't there be a very noticeable change in picture quality?
Granted, I'm sort of blending a question about standard film with digital, but won't there still be a lot of picture quality lost?

Click to expand...

^ Just like any other film not shot in IMAX but presented in IMAX in theaters. "The Hunger Games" was shot on 35mm, and that was still presented in IMAX. "Batman Begins" was shot anamorphic 35mm, and seeing it in IMAX at the Boston Aquarium was one of the greatest moviegoing experiences of my life.

I am probably wrong about this, but I was under the impression that IMAX has a different Aspect Ratio. I thought it was closer to Academy ratio, than to any of the current Widescreen aspects.
Would Raiders be cropped to be shown on an IMAX screen, or would they show it in its OAR and not use the entire screen, or does the original film allow them to 'open matte' the feature and change the OAR into an IMAX ratio.
David

Mark-P said:

First of all Raiders was shot in Panavision, not CinemaScope (I know, they are basically the same thing) and secondly Panavision (or CinemaScope) IS anamorphic so there is no conversion of anything to make a film print.
I'm sure that to make an IMAX film out of a 35mm production, they are doing a blowup and eking out as much resolution that the original negative will provide, which would probably look much better than a 35mm print.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Mark. I was a projectionist back in the 80s, and other than some basic training on how to fix a broken fillm, splice reels of film together so they could run on a single platter and some basic projector knowledge and maintenance, I was pretty much self taught. Had some 70mm magnetic soundtrack experience, but not really part of this topic.
Panavision, CinamaScope or if there were other widescreen formats, were simply referred to as "Scope" and everything else was "Flat". We would adjust the picture through different aperture plates and how wide curtains were opened on the screens. I honestly never knew until now that Panavision, etc. were already anamorphic, was always told they were widescreen films "squished" to run on a 35mm projector and when shown through the proper lens returned to the correct format.
Interesting to know, but by now obviously a bit dated.

David Weicker said:

I am probably wrong about this, but I was under the impression that IMAX has a different Aspect Ratio. I thought it was closer to Academy ratio, than to any of the current Widescreen aspects.
Would Raiders be cropped to be shown on an IMAX screen, or would they show it in its OAR and not use the entire screen, or does the original film allow them to 'open matte' the feature and change the OAR into an IMAX ratio.

Click to expand...

The 70mm IMAX format has an aspect ratio of 1.44:1, and the digital IMAX format uses an aspect ratio of roughly 16x9. When IMAX first started converting feature films to the IMAX format, they would pan and scan the films to the 1.44:1 ratio. Now, they letterbox the films like they do on home video. Usually the 2.39:1 frame will be closer to the bottom of the screen than the top.

Stan said:

Panavision, CinamaScope or if there were other widescreen formats, were simply referred to as "Scope" and everything else was "Flat". We would adjust the picture through different aperture plates and how wide curtains were opened on the screens. I honestly never knew until now that Panavision, etc. were already anamorphic, was always told they were widescreen films "squished" to run on a 35mm projector and when shown through the proper lens returned to the correct format.
Interesting to know, but by now obviously a bit dated.

Click to expand...

That's completely understandable, because many 2.39:1 films that were shot flat have had anamorphic release prints. The main giveaways for a picture shot anamorphic are the blur and the distortion. When you're shooting with a shallow depth of field with anamorphic lenses, the dots of light in the background have a tall skinny appearance:

...while with spherical lenses, the dots of light will form perfect circles:
by Capt. Tim)
The other giveaway in the distortion. Films shot with anamorphic lenses have a certain characteristic distortion on horizontal lines. They curve toward the middle as they approach the left and right edges of the frame:

You'll notice in this shot from the Royal Tenenbaums that table almost appears to sag in the middle, even though the table being photographed was completely flat. That's the anamorphic distortion at work.

Thanks Adam. Always recognized the slight distortion, although customers never complained, apparently I was a bit more of a perfectionist.
Always did my best to make sure the sound worked properly, things were in focus, lenses, film and screen were always kept clean, but those odd distortions always stood out and I never knew why.
Is that why 70mm films always looked better? Of course being twice as wide as 35mm you're almost guanteed a better picture, but were they missing that anamorphic distortion?