A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Lawrence of Arabia -- in 4k/UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Michel_Hafner]

http://www.thewrap.com/imax-moving-away-3d-consumers-shown-strong-preference/

I love my 3D on the LG Oled and on my JVC (a bit less) but 3D in commercial cinemas is problematic. Usually too dark and almost always with visible ghosting. Far from what 3D done right can be.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

IMAX

IMAX is the preferred version if one is lucky to have one in the some hundred miles neighourhood. Looks like 4K for me so far...
Concerning IMAX/70mm/35mm... there is quite some talk about this article concerning resolution:
https://theasc.com/articles/a-clear-look-at-the-issue-of-resolution
It "shows" that "6k" 35mm has less resolution than the 3K Alexa, and "18K" IMAX not more than 6K Alexa65. While this has to be taken with a grain of salt for various reasons the demoes are worth watching:
http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/#

 

[Robert Harris]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m_term=.e45fb3407e1a&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1

 

[titch]

Attended an IMAX screening last night of Dunkirk, which is a masterful achievement

Not only very Lean-like, but gave a tip of the hat to DL, via a Boltie, toward the end of the film.

Must be seen large screen!

Find the Boltie!

There is a terrific interview with Christopher Nolan in this month's Sight & Sound magazine, which is published by the British Film Institute. An extract (page 27):

"The entire film is shot on 65mm film. Seventy per cent of the film is 15 perf IMAX 65mm and the other 30 per cent is 5 perf 65mm. We used that combination because, even though there's not much dialogue in the film, where there is dialogue, I didn't want to have to loop it. The 5 perf cameras are soundproof, so we shot what dialogue scenes there are using 5 perf, the format used for Lawerence of Arabia [1962] and that Tarantino used on The Hateful Eight [2015]. It's an incredible film format but the thing about the IMAX is that is has three times the resolution of the 5 perf and so we tried to use IMAX more extensively than we've been able to on any of the films we've done in the past.

Also, the entire film is finished photochemically and so where we're doing 70mm prints and were doing reductions of the IMAX photography, those are done optically on an optical printer. For out IMAX film prints, like the one that will be playing at the BFI in Waterloo in London, all of the 5 perf material had to be blown up to IMAX, that was done photochemically on an optical printer and so for the first time we've been able to do an entirely analogue photochemical finish on every shot".

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/august-2017-issue

 

[Robert Harris]

There is a terrific interview with Christopher Nolan in this month's Sight & Sound magazine, which is published by the British Film Institute. An extract (page 27):

"The entire film is shot on 65mm film. Seventy per cent of the film is 15 perf IMAX 65mm and the other 30 per cent is 5 perf 65mm. We used that combination because, even though there's not much dialogue in the film, where there is dialogue, I didn't want to have to loop it. The 5 perf cameras are soundproof, so we shot what dialogue scenes there are using 5 perf, the format used for Lawerence of Arabia [1962] and that Tarantino used on The Hateful Eight [2015]. It's an incredible film format but the thing about the IMAX is that is has three times the resolution of the 5 perf and so we tried to use IMAX more extensively than we've been able to on any of the films we've done in the past.

Also, the entire film is finished photochemically and so where we're doing 70mm prints and were doing reductions of the IMAX photography, those are done optically on an optical printer. For out IMAX film prints, like the one that will be playing at the BFI in Waterloo in London, all of the 5 perf material had to be blown up to IMAX, that was done photochemically on an optical printer and so for the first time we've been able to do an entirely analogue photochemical finish on every shot".

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/august-2017-issue

Nice piece, however I'd have to respectfully disagree with one point, at least philosophically.

65/5 and 65/15 have the same resolution, provided they use the same film stock, and are projected on the same IMAX screen. The 70/15 fills the screen, while the 70/5 is letterboxed.

Larger film, larger screen area. The slight caveat would concern the fact that the 65/5 is being turned on end, to be projected as a horizontal image, while in reality its a bit less than one-third of an IMAX frame.

Also, while the 65/5 is a dupe within the 65/15 cut neg, the 65/15 is reduction printed, and is also a dupe, within the 65/5 printing neg, which I believe is a full dupe.

Same resolution, albeit different visceral impact.

Looking at this a bit differently, a 70/15 print, can be projected on a screen three times the height of a 70/5 print, and will have the same resolution.

Great project. Brilliant filmmaking.

 

[titch]

Nice piece, however I'd have to respectfully disagree with one point, at least philosophically.

65/5 and 65/15 have the same resolution, provided they use the same film stock, and are projected on the same IMAX screen. The 70/15 fills the screen, while the 70/5 is letterboxed.

Larger film, larger screen area. The slight caveat would concern the fact that the 65/5 is being turned on end, to be projected as a horizontal image, while in reality its a bit less than one-third of an IMAX frame.

Also, while the 65/5 is a dupe within the 65/15 cut neg, the 65/15 is reduction printed, and is also a dupe, within the 65/5 printing neg, which I believe is a full dupe.

Same resolution, albeit different visceral impact.

Looking at this a bit differently, a 70/15 print, can be projected on a screen three times the height of a 70/5 print, and will have the same resolution.

Great project. Brilliant filmmaking.

Really interesting and clarifying.

There was also a brief interview with the cinematographer, Hoyte van Hoytema, who described why they used real planes and destroyers, rather than employing CGI:

"One of the reasons why we wanted to do so much in-camera stuff is that you don't have to scan your film, which means you don't have to go through a digital step in terms of creating your final image. IMAX is such a big negative, any way that negative gets scanned, you have quality loss. Even the best scanners cannot handle the huge amount of resolution that an IMAX negative contains. So doing stuff in-camera and avoiding the initial scan, you just keep policing the idea that your resolution is as high as possible".

As you said previously, the IMAX version is preferable to the DCP.

 

[Robert Harris]

Really interesting and clarifying.

There was also a brief interview with the cinematographer, Hoyte van Hoytema, who described why they used real planes and destroyers, rather than employing CGI:

"One of the reasons why we wanted to do so much in-camera stuff is that you don't have to scan your film, which means you don't have to go through a digital step in terms of creating your final image. IMAX is such a big negative, any way that negative gets scanned, you have quality loss. Even the best scanners cannot handle the huge amount of resolution that an IMAX negative contains. So doing stuff in-camera and avoiding the initial scan, you just keep policing the idea that your resolution is as high as possible".

As you said previously, the IMAX version is preferable to the DCP.

The position of any quality director or DP, unless your final product will be a DI.

Hitchcock took the same point back in 1953-4 for Rear Window. He wanted to avoid dupes for functions, and did all of his fades in camera.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

David Keighley of IMAX is saying that the 15/70 material has a resolution equal to 18K.

Meanwhile, anything they scan can only be done at 6K, according to Keighley.

So that's a huge loss right there - two thirds of the resolution gone in scanning the material and then printing back out to film.

The IMAX with Laser version, which has the full height of the image, is a 4K master. So even more is lost just stepping down from IMAX's film projection to their state of the art laser projection.

Amazing (and wonderful) that all of this new technology can't come close to what film can do.

 

[cinemiracle]

David Keighley of IMAX is saying that the 15/70 material has a resolution equal to 18K.

Meanwhile, anything they scan can only be done at 6K, according to Keighley.

So that's a huge loss right there - two thirds of the resolution gone in scanning the material and then printing back out to film.

The IMAX with Laser version, which has the full height of the image, is a 4K master. So even more is lost just stepping down from IMAX's film projection to their state of the art laser projection.

Amazing (and wonderful) that all of this new technology can't come close to what film can do.

...And now you know why I never go to the movies to-day.

 

[Worth]

David Keighley of IMAX is saying that the 15/70 material has a resolution equal to 18K.

Meanwhile, anything they scan can only be done at 6K, according to Keighley.

So that's a huge loss right there - two thirds of the resolution gone in scanning the material and then printing back out to film.

The IMAX with Laser version, which has the full height of the image, is a 4K master. So even more is lost just stepping down from IMAX's film projection to their state of the art laser projection.

Amazing (and wonderful) that all of this new technology can't come close to what film can do.

I think those numbers are a bit misleading. IMAX is equivalent to 18K if you accept that 35mm film is around 6K, which I think is Kodak's position. And while film has no fixed resolution, and it wouldn't hurt to scan 35mm at 6K, most other sources claim that 35mm has between 3-4K of real picture information, which would put IMAX somewhere between 9-12K.

And that's only looking at what's on the negative. What you see projected is nowhere near that, once you factoring in generation loss, gate weave etc.

https://library.creativecow.net/art...der=John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels&page=1

The 4K system that most people know is IMAX -- and it doesn't quite make 4K, which is a surprise to people. "How can that possibly be?," you say. "It's an enormous big frame." Well, because of what I was talking about earlier: the physics of optics. When you take the entire system into account - from the lens of the camera, to the the movement of the light through the projector, all slightly reducing resolution -- you wind up with less than the full resolution you started with.

A number of years ago some IMAX engineers - and I don't think IMAX ever let these guys out of their lab again -- did this wonderfully elegant experiment at the Large Film Format Seminar at Universal Studios Imax theatre. They showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen.

Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4K the screen was gray. Do you know what the means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information. Technically, the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) was zero at 4K!

 

[Robert Harris]

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/08/emmy-2017-camera-nominated-cinematographers-1201868305/

 

[titch]

I saw Dunkirk in 70mm at the Odeon L Square in London and it looked and sounded fantastic. Also before they showed a 70mm trailer
for Murder on the Orient Express which was also 2.20 but was a digital out and you could tell.

Also the old Compton Organ was played before which sounded great.

I had a terrific evening in Oslo with a group of friends from school days. The 70 mm trailer for Murder on The Orient Express - prior to the 70 mm screening of Dunkirk - was projected from film. My grizzled gang (not previously known to be avid Agatha Christie fans) all said that they really look forward to a future 70 mm screening of that this winter. Hopefully, the success of Dunkirk's 70 mm screenings will continue the revival of this wonderful format. Almost every one of the 25 screenings in Oslo this last month was sold out.

http://www.kodak.com/gb/en/motion/a...m_processing_facilities_in_the_uk/default.htm

 

[skylark68]

I had a terrific evening in Oslo with a group of friends from school days. The 70 mm trailer for Murder on The Orient Express - prior to the 70 mm screening of Dunkirk - was projected from film. My grizzled gang (not previously known to be avid Agatha Christie fans) all said that they really look forward to a future 70 mm screening of that this winter. Hopefully, the success of Dunkirk's 70 mm screenings will continue the revival of this wonderful format. Almost every one of the 25 screenings in Oslo this last month was sold out.

http://www.kodak.com/gb/en/motion/a...m_processing_facilities_in_the_uk/default.htm

Do we know yet if there will be 70mm screenings of Murder? I'd love to see it in that format. I saw Dunkirk in 70mm (nonimax) and it was fantastic.

 

[cinemiracle]

Do we know yet if there will be 70mm screenings of Murder? I'd love to see it in that format. I saw Dunkirk in 70mm (nonimax) and it was fantastic.

It will be in the U.K.

 

[Stephen PI]

From the UK trade union magazine 'Film & Television Technician' September 1970:

 

[Michel_Hafner]

BFI shows a new 70mm print.
https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/Online/lawrenceofarabiain70mm
Where are new prints coming from these days? A filmout of the 4K restoration or a print from an internegative made from the "old" restoration IP?

 

[DP 70]

I saw this last week at the BFI and its a film out of the 2012 4K . I did notice some halos and Digital noise on the new 70mm print.
But it still looked great and the Datasat sound was fantastic better than the DCP audio.
And it has the same end credits etc.. as the 4K DCP.
I did see a 4K DCP of this in the same screen a few years ago.

Still a fantastic film and it got a good clap at the end which was great.

From the worlds best Director and I also lived in Croydon.

 

[OliverK]

Personally I am sceptical about the merits of a filmout to 70mm, why not stay in the digital realm once you're there?

I very much hope that these prints will be properly represented as filmouts so that we can make an informed choice about whether to attend such a screening or not.

 

[OliverK]

It will be in the U.K.

And in several other countries on 4 continents:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2017/dunkirk/index.htm

Not sure if there are still screenings in most of them but I saw Dunkirk on Friday in the Schauburg in Germany and the 70mm 5perf print had really good detail plus the sound was quite spectacular.

 

[Robert Harris]

https://www.omegawatches.com/news/news-detail/1256/