|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BilboBagshot187
Rivendell
Nov 15 2012, 7:57pm
Post #1 of 73
(1225 views)
Shortcut
|
I have a query about The hobbit on an Imax screen. Films such as the dark knight had sections of the film actually filmed using Imax cameras but although the hobbit is being shown on Imax cinemas it hasnt been shot on Imax cameras (like many other films shown on Imax) so how does it work? is the film stretched to fit and have less resolution or is it shown at a smaller size? If anybody with some expertise on the subject could enlighten me It would be much appreciated
'Everywhere I lie theres a dirty great root sticking into my back!'
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Nov 15 2012, 8:01pm
Post #2 of 73
(852 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm thinking at 48fps there is so much data
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that they could project it on the surface of the moon before loss of resolution would become an issue. (Main difference there is the surface of the moon is convex and IMAX is concave.)
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Nov 15 2012, 8:03pm)
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Nov 15 2012, 8:28pm
Post #3 of 73
(798 views)
Shortcut
|
has nothing to do with the resolution. however...at 5k (or 4k for that matter)...The Hobbit films great on an IMAX screen.
Though the Red does have a 35mm sensor, I don't think resolution will be an issue on the IMAX screen
|
|
|
BilboBagshot187
Rivendell
Nov 15 2012, 8:32pm
Post #4 of 73
(771 views)
Shortcut
|
So what is the difference between seeing a film that has been filmed with Imax cameras on an Imax screen and a film that hasnt been filmed using Imax cameras on an Imax screen? (apologies for the number of times I used the word Imax in this post!)
'Everywhere I lie theres a dirty great root sticking into my back!'
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Nov 15 2012, 8:42pm
Post #5 of 73
(761 views)
Shortcut
|
an IMAX camera would look better on an IMAX screen. But The Hobbit is going to look amazing. I doubt the average viewer would recoginize a difference.
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 15 2012, 8:45pm
Post #6 of 73
(801 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A lot has to do with aspect ratio, I imagine
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
IMAX is a "tall" format, while other theaters will show the film in a widescreen format. So I imagine it's a matter of cropping the film differently for each version.
For what it's worth, I watched Avatar both in IMAX 3D and in a standard cinema in RealD. Due to the massive demand, I had to sit near the back of the theater in the IMAX screening even though I arrived 30 minutes before the movie's start and showed up weeks after the film had arrived in theaters. This experience was inferior to sitting closer in the conventional 3D showing. I supose some movies might work better in the tall format of IMAX, though I wouldn't think The Hobbit would be one of them. To each their own, though.
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
(This post was edited by Altaira on Nov 16 2012, 4:07pm)
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Nov 15 2012, 8:53pm
Post #7 of 73
(744 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Do you think it would be okay if we used 48fps as a catchall term
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
for the film technology employed on the Hobbit, rather than assuming people don't know the difference between frame rate and resolution?
Personally I think it's all a bunch of hooey, especially the idea of shudder and blur. Actors and camera operators used to be trained to move slower inside the frame to account for the way movement registers on film or light sensors.
Furthermore it seemed to me in the "Jim Jannard (CEO of RED) weighs in on 48fps" (Link) thread that the guy was basically saying "if fans don't like the look of The Hobbit, blame PJ for not shooting at 24fps like I thought he would."
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Nov 15 2012, 9:02pm)
|
|
|
Erufaildon
Bree
Nov 15 2012, 8:58pm
Post #8 of 73
(754 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That sounds like a bad experience..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
how did the other movie-goers feel about you "doing your business" inside the cinema?
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Nov 15 2012, 8:59pm
Post #9 of 73
(750 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The size of the frame is a factor as well.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
IIRC true Imax is shot at 75mm which requires less magnification than a 35mm frame. I'm not sure the Red approximates a frame about twice the size of 35mm but it does double the frame rate resulting in more footage/raw data.
Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but 48fps appears to increase the density of the image by throwing twice as many frames on the screen as standard formats.
(This post was edited by SirDennisC on Nov 15 2012, 9:04pm)
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Nov 15 2012, 9:00pm
Post #10 of 73
(737 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Who's the brainiac that put the "r" key so close to the "t" key? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Nov 15 2012, 9:10pm
Post #11 of 73
(732 views)
Shortcut
|
Does this mean the IMAX version of the film will cut off parts of the picture on the left and right? I prefer a widescreen format, and am now worried that I booked the wrong show...
|
|
|
Erufaildon
Bree
Nov 15 2012, 9:16pm
Post #12 of 73
(713 views)
Shortcut
|
.. A standard IMAX screen in 1,35:1 and widescreen is either 1,85:1 or 2,35:1 , so the image movie will be cut at the sides?
|
|
|
Lusitano
Tol Eressea
Nov 15 2012, 9:29pm
Post #13 of 73
(698 views)
Shortcut
|
since 48 fps is different from 5K.
5K is 5 times the resolution of 1080 HD, which is what we are used to on HD televison and is just a bit short of 2K, which is what what we have in theatres...
From what i understand, the Reds capacity to shoot at 5K, together with 4k projection, enables Digital cinema to deliver as much visual quality and resolution and epicness to a fetaure film , as 70 mm analog...
But i could be wrong, i am still gathering information..
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Nov 15 2012, 9:36pm
Post #14 of 73
(744 views)
Shortcut
|
It was probably better for most of the people in attendance that you did so in the back of the theater.
Due to the massive demand, I had to **** near the back of the theater in the IMAX screening even though I arrived 30 minutes before the movie's start and showed up weeks after the film had arrived in theaters.
(This post was edited by Altaira on Nov 16 2012, 4:04pm)
|
|
|
Carne
Tol Eressea
Nov 15 2012, 9:38pm
Post #15 of 73
(728 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 15 2012, 9:47pm
Post #16 of 73
(694 views)
Shortcut
|
|
48 fps has nothing to do with resolution
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When projecting a film at 48 fps, you're showing the same number of pixels, but twice as often. So within a second, you cycle through 48 images instead of 24. But that's the only difference. The resolution of those images doesn't change.
This film was also filmed with a 5K camera, and that will increase the resolution. Assuming it's projected at 4K, this will be about four times higher resolution than 2K, which is the current standard. But this is entirely separate from 4K. A lot of theaters might show the film at 24 fps but with a 4K projector.
I have heard that filming (rather than projecting) at 48 fps may make the individual frames clearer. I'm not an expert on the process, though, so I can't say if this is the case.
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Nov 15 2012, 9:52pm
Post #17 of 73
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
What is the base frame size the Red uses, 70mm (not 75, thank you) or 35mm or something else? If they choose to use a 70mm gate, is it still possible for them to shoot 48 fps? I'm assuming 70mm doesn't affect the amount of information captured (ie 5k). Shouldn't 70mm require less magnification, making 2k look like 4K?
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 15 2012, 9:54pm
Post #18 of 73
(670 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's possible they'd add parts on the top and bottom instead
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not sure what the standard practice is, but I can imagine if the cameras that PJ is using have extra footage at the top and bottom that he's stripping away to make a widescreen print, he might just include this footage in the IMAX verison. Films that are filmed in IMAX likely do this.
I've only seen one film in both formats (Avatar), and I belive this is what happened there, but I'm not going to swear by it. Hopefully someone who knows IMAX a bit better will know.
I can tell you that you'll get a different aspect ratio with IMAX. That's part of the appeal of the format, as far as I can tell. Instead of getting a strip of a screen, instead the screen is supposed to take up an entire wall, better immersing you in the film. In my experience, I'd rather just sit closer to a widescreen film, but some films may work better in IMAX.
The biggest advantage of IMAX, of course, is that you appearantly don't need to leave the theater for bathroom breaks!
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
|
|
|
Kassandros
Rohan
Nov 15 2012, 9:58pm
Post #19 of 73
(678 views)
Shortcut
|
I have no idea where the "h" came from... I'm looking at my keyboard and can't figure it out. Wow.
all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Nov 15 2012, 9:59pm
Post #20 of 73
(665 views)
Shortcut
|
When projecting a film at 48 fps, you're showing the same number of pixels, but twice as often. So within a second, you cycle through 48 images instead of 24. But that's the only difference. The resolution of those images doesn't change.
But in terms of how it registers on the brain, via human eyes, seeing twice as many images in the same amount of time should appear denser than it actually is. (?)
Now I wonder if 48fps will train our eyes and brains in such a way that 24fps will ever after look like 16fps (the average lowest frame rate needed to create a passable illusion of motion)?
|
|
|
jimmyfenn
Rohan
Nov 15 2012, 10:01pm
Post #21 of 73
(662 views)
Shortcut
|
filming at 48fps will just make everything clearer.
if its a still frame for example then it doesnt matter how many frames per second it wont make it clearer , its only when moving objets are watched then they become clear and less blurred, unless of course you want things blurred! like how you see things with your eyes!
i think dark knight imax was shot at 4k. things have moved on since then, and yes red cameras can go to 5k, though i think the actual sensor is 4:3 format and it crops from that to whatever you want.
for quickbeam often laughed, he laughed if the sun came out from behind a cloud, he laughed if they came upon a stream or spring:
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Nov 15 2012, 10:37pm
Post #22 of 73
(644 views)
Shortcut
|
I may have to follow your example next time. I hate taking bathroom breaks, and missing parts of the movie.
Do IMAX theaters usually distribute implements to make this a cleaner process?
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Half-elven
Nov 15 2012, 10:49pm
Post #23 of 73
(650 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ack, I saw that you spelled near as neat
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
the other one flew right past me
|
|
|
narflet
Bree
Nov 15 2012, 10:56pm
Post #24 of 73
(656 views)
Shortcut
|
|
IMAX is a film format. Read long, technical explaination here:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The standard size film (when films are shot on film) is 35mm, IMAX film is 70mm. This makes it much bigger than the 35mm format and the bigger your film the higher resolution image you get when it's projected.
IMAX is actually nothing to do with the screens, it's all to do with the film stock. Because it's larger format film you need a IMAX projector to run the film through and a screen with the correct dimensions on to project it on to (IMAX has a different aspect ratio to traditional film, it looks squarer). IMAX screens are larger than standard screens because of the higher resolution of the film.
However, because the film and projectors are expensive (and, I think, because so much is digital now) there's now 'IMAX Digital', which is much more common now than a true IMAX and is, essentially, just a floor-to-ceiling screen with a digital projector and good sound. The IMAX Digital cannot actually display the true 70mm IMAX format, making the screens somewhat of a con (apart from a few screens that have, however, been retrofitted so they can display 70mm format if needed). It'd be more accurate to just call them 'giant screens'.
Hope that explained things a bit!
Reposted (and slightly edited) from here
|
|
|
narflet
Bree
Nov 15 2012, 11:02pm
Post #25 of 73
(630 views)
Shortcut
|
If you go and see the film on an IMAX branded screen nothing will be cut off left and right, and nothing will be added to the top and bottom. You will see exactly the same as everyone else. See my post further down the thread for a fuller explanation of IMAX.
|
|
|
|
|
1
