Batman movie uses IMAX scenes, has the movie world buzzing..

[keithwms]

So... this film they shoot to for IMAX, what is it? And does anybody here shoot it for stills, just using it as a bulk film?

Some years ago my family asked what I wanted for Christmas and I said an IMAX camera to replace my handycam... but alas it didn't appear under the tree Just more aftershave and socks.

 

[Marco B]

Some years ago my family asked what I wanted for Christmas and I said an IMAX camera to replace my handycam... but alas it didn't appear under the tree Just more aftershave and socks.

Well, unless your house is big enough to accommodate a thousand year old Sequoia tree, I think your wife would have had a bit of trouble putting the camera under the tree

 

[eddym]

Some years ago my family asked what I wanted for Christmas and I said an IMAX camera to replace my handycam... but alas it didn't appear under the tree Just more aftershave and socks.

Maybe they're trying to tell you something about your, ummm... personal hygiene habits?

 

[Robert Brummitt]

Did you see that the Batman movie just made over 300 million in 10 days. Damn!

 

[Kino]

Yeah, but I bet the Studio books still show the production in the "red"...

 

[PHOTOTONE]

So... this film they shoot to for IMAX, what is it? And does anybody here shoot it for stills, just using it as a bulk film?

Most assuredly, it is the same Eastman Vision color negative stock, or whatever is the current color negative stock used for 35mm film production, just slit and perforated for 65mm use. You could buy "short ends" of it in 35mm at some dealers if you wanted to play with it for still camera photography...but it would really not be as good as Kodak color negative films "designed" for still photography. The magnificence of IMAX is due to the "size" of the film negative and the frame rate, rather than anything "special" about the film. The small volume of raw stock used for IMAX photography (as compared to the whole movie industry), would probably prevent you from finding any "short ends" in 65mm. The final release prints of IMAX are probably the same color release stock used for 35mm prints, again just cut to 70mm instead of 35mm, and perforated.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The camera originates on 65mm stock and it is transferred to 70mm print/projection stock. The extra 5mm is where they add the soundtrack to.

David

In the case of IMAX, there are no soundtracks on the film. There is a digital code on the film that syncs a separate multi-track soundtrack playing on a separate piece of equipment. In fact, most 35mm movies are exhibited this way now, with the soundtrack being on a disc that looks like a CD, which is played in a separate "sound reader" in sync with the time-code on the print.

The Original 70mm 5 perf Todd-AO system did have 5 discrete magnetic sound tracks on both edges of the film, and thus needed the 5 mm of extra width outside the sprocket holes for this.

 

[Kino]

I love it... digital Vitaphone.

Nothing is new under the Sun...

One slight correction; most DTS prints in 35mm DO have a 35mm optical track (in addition to the time code sync track) for the projector to fall back upon if (actually WHEN) the super whazbo digital sound processor has a seizure and stops functioning. I don't know if this is true for IMAX...

 

[Marco B]

...DO have a 35mm optical track (in addition to the time code sync track) for the projector to fall back upon...

I guess you mean:

"...DO have a 5 mm sound track..." :confused:

 

[Kino]

I really meant, "traditional 35mm optical track". Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[TLR]

The Original 70mm 5 perf Todd-AO system did have 5 discrete magnetic sound tracks on both edges of the film, and thus needed the 5 mm of extra width outside the sprocket holes for this.

In fact they are 6 magnetic sound tracks.

 

[Matt5791]

Many movie goers will watch a digital projection, certainly in the UK at least. for some strange reason. many cinemas have received National Lottery funding to rip out the 35mm projectors and go digital.

As far as I am aware, pretty much all commercial cinemas in the UK project from a 35mm film print. And the same is true for most of the world. The fact is that, at present, this is the way movies are distributed, and to change this would require all commercial cinemas to invest in new projection systems, and digital projection systems capable of comparable results are considerably more expensive than their 35mm counterparts. Of course, there is no way the cinemas want to shell this out as at present they don't pay for the film prints.....hence the main reason (other than quality) we still have mechanical projection.

I have heard of some of the "arty" cinemas having funding for digital projection so the low budget film makers dont have to go to the expense of having a print made.

However saying that the Electric Cinema in Birmingham (the oldest cinema in the UK) which is kind of an "arty" venue sports a great old 35mm projector, and screens 80's films from original prints (eg Ghostbusters / Indianna Jones etc etc.) on Sundays, as well as art house stuff.

 

[Marco B]

I have heard of some of the "arty" cinemas having funding for digital projection so the low budget film makers dont have to go to the expense of having a print made.

This might be true, I regularly visit some more "alternative" cinemas her in the Netherlands, and some do indeed have digital projection as well (next to normal analog, or as complete replacement). There is also a European support network for alternative cinemas.

Generally speaking, the quality is acceptable if it's fed with HD material. I once visited a cinema running the film "The Kite Runner" about Afghanistan. It was standard DVD projected on an HD digital projector. Yikes!! For the first 15 minutes or so, it gave me a terrible headache... After that, my brain somehow slightly adapted and it became bearable, but all in all, this was an unacceptable projection.

 

[Akki14]

Even if the movie output is "hybrid" like the last two Matrix films on IMAX, that'd help the film industry stay alive, I'm sure... Probably takes a good chunk of a roll of kodak's master rolls to do enough copies of IMAX films to go around the world. Costly but good. Even the hybrid, scaled up Matrix films were awesome in normal IMAX. The sets in those two movies were so detailed my brain couldn't take it all in at once.

 

[JBrunner]

Even if the movie output is "hybrid" like the last two Matrix films on IMAX, that'd help the film industry stay alive, I'm sure... Probably takes a good chunk of a roll of kodak's master rolls to do enough copies of IMAX films to go around the world. Costly but good. Even the hybrid, scaled up Matrix films were awesome in normal IMAX. The sets in those two movies were so detailed my brain couldn't take it all in at once.

Hi Akki,

Motion picture production isn't headed anywhere soon. Motion picture film sales are as strong as they have ever been.

However, the connection between the films we use, and motion picture film are rather remote. Kodak could easily continue to make motion picture film while ending production of the films we use. Most still photographers would find MP film to be nearly useless for still photography.

The Imax sequences in Batman were choices made for effect. The majority of the release prints for the movie will be 35mm. The positive stock used for release prints, 35mm and otherwise is a completely different animal than even color negative motion picture film.

While it is heartening that motion pictures are nearly all still shot on film, the idea that motion picture production has any connection with the viability of the films we use is mostly (sadly) false.

 

[JBrunner]

So... this film they shoot to for IMAX, what is it? And does anybody here shoot it for stills, just using it as a bulk film?

Some years ago my family asked what I wanted for Christmas and I said an IMAX camera to replace my handycam... but alas it didn't appear under the tree Just more aftershave and socks.

Most of Kodak's standard stocks are available as 65mm loads. A roll of 65mm film is 1000' long. The cost alone would be prohibitive. Processing would also be an issue, as these films are not C41.

You might be able to procure some short ends , but even if you some how sorted out the processing, you would find the results puzzling at best, basically extreme latitude with very low contrast, and requiring heavy CC.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

While it is heartening that motion pictures are nearly all still shot on film, the idea that motion picture production has any connection with the viability of the films we use is mostly (sadly) false.

I tend to disagree with you, because.....If Kodak were not making motion picture films they could not sustain the large factories to produce color still films, much less the R&D labs to develop new film emulsions. While the emulsions certainly ARE different between movie and still films, the new advances in Portra and T-max films were offshoots of ongoing developments first applied to motion picture camera films. The market for "improved" still films ALONE would not justify the R&D, however if a development in movie film can be PORTED over to improved still films, it is a "gift" to us. (so to speak). So, with Kodak keeping the coating lines running mostly with movie film stocks, the short times needed for coating all the still film stocks we need are quite economical, as the movie film production is amortizing the equipment. Imagine having to amortize these huge high-speed coating machines ONLY on todays current market for still film. While I think Ilford is top-notch, we haven't seen them come out with any totally new film emulsions in b/w..and the problem is figuring out how to get back their R&D dollars with only a limited market. Their newest technology in relation to coating emulsions is making a bayrta based inkjet paper based on the Gallerie silver paper. A sure bet, as Inkjet printing is still a growth industry.

 

[JBrunner]

Phototone,

I don't disagree with some of your musings, but your conclusion may be overly optimistic.

I don't think they use the same lines to coat, PE might know for sure. The R&D spill over is nice. That's the "mostly". If a still film reaches less than a certain economy they will dump it, (as they have already demonstrated with specific emulsions) while still producing the MP stocks. On the last film I shot we used over 120,000 feet of 35mm. That kind of usage on a broad scale keeps the wheels turning for motion picture stock, but as I said, I'm pretty sure the actual production is unrelated. I would like for you to be right.

There is the common misconception that the films are the same, and that MP film sales will somehow keep still film in production. This has already been demonstrated to be false. By in large only sales of a specific emulsion keep that emulsion in production.

Also, Ilford (Harman) currently produces only black and white emulsions, and has a fundamentally different product line, market position, structure, scale, and outlook.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Phototone,

I don't disagree with some of your musings, but your conclusion may be overly optimistic.


There is the common misconception that the films are the same, and that MP film sales will somehow keep still film in production. This has already been demonstrated by Eastman to be false. By in large only sales of a specific emulsion keep that emulsion in production.

I still feel there is a synergy that helps still film production if you are profitable in the movie film manufacturing business. Of course the films are not the same, but the technology to coat IS. The efficiencies and production techniques are, I'm sure, quite similar. I doubt Kodak could justify ONLY still film production. I understand that for a film to be a viable product, the coating run for that film has to sell within a certain time-frame so there is little waste. So, certainly that is a determining factor for any still film.

 

[JBrunner]

I still feel there is a synergy that helps still film production if you are profitable in the movie film manufacturing business.

Of that there is no doubt. How much it helps is the question. I'm certainly glad that it does, but what I'm trying to point out is that the commonly spouted broad assurance that "as long as they make movie film you'll be able to get TriX" is a ringer.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

what I'm trying to point out is that the commonly spouted broad assurance that "as long as they make movie film you'll be able to get TriX" is a ringer.

If they didn't make movie film, then they probably would be out of the "film" business altogether. I doubt they could sustain production facilities just for b/w
still camera films.

 

[JBrunner]

If they didn't make movie film, then they probably would be out of the "film" business altogether. I doubt they could sustain production facilities just for b/w
still camera films.

Perhaps, but I am as near certain as a reasonable person could be that motion picture film production will far out live still film production at Kodak.

Ilford/Harman will likely be making film long after Kodak stops.

I certainly hope all of our favorite emulsions will continue, and to the extent that Kodak cine films contribute to that, all the better, but my thinking is save for certain raw materials, the production of cine and still emulsions at Kodak aren't as connected to each other as you seem to believe.

I would love to hear from PE on this, and would be very happy to be wrong.

 

[Matt5791]

If they didn't make movie film, then they probably would be out of the "film" business altogether. I doubt they could sustain production facilities just for b/w
still camera films.

I'm sure they could (Others do. eg Ilford) But I suppose the real question is whether they would want to, and whether they could slim down the production facilities to a smaller level.

 

[Kino]

Filmotec/Orwo in Wolfen, German still makes B&W cine film; in fact, the are the ONLY other manufacturer in World actively making and exporting B&W film in camera and lab stock configurations. While Fuji may make some b&w cine film, they do NOT export it to the World.

The ORWO rep in the USA is one Ek Stachler in New Jersey.

http://www.filmotec.de/English_Site/english_site.html

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Perhaps, but I am as near certain as a reasonable person could be that motion picture film production will far out live still film production at Kodak.

Ilford/Harman will likely be making film long after Kodak stops.

I certainly hope all of our favorite emulsions will continue, and to the extent that Kodak cine films contribute to that, all the better, but my thinking is save for certain raw materials, the production of cine and still emulsions at Kodak aren't as connected to each other as you seem to believe.

I would love to hear from PE on this, and would be very happy to be wrong.

I don't think you quite realize how wrong your scenario is. B&W is not even a self-sufficient source of revenue at Kodak right now. C-41 is just barely sustainable. E-6? No.

ECN-2, and even more important ECP-2 print stock you see at the theatre sold *9 billion feet* at Kodak a couple years ago, something like that this year too. I think 6 billion feet of that were print stock. If movies, and especially theatrical projection go digital, C-41 at Kodak is dead, and that is the sad truth of the matter. They'll *maybe* keep Portra around and kill everything else.

I love it when people pump up digital projection that are film fans, not realizing the contradiction. . .