|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Titanic - the IMAX 3D experience - April 2012
|
Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008
|
posted 01-23-2012 10:53 PM
PARAMOUNT PICTURES, TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX AND LIGHTSTORM ENTERTAINMENT TO SET SAIL AGAIN WITH JAMES CAMERON’S OSCAR-WINNING “TITANIC” WITH A WORLDWIDE 3D RE-RELEASE ON APRIL 6, 2012
Movie’s Re-Release to Coincide With the Centennial of the Ship’s Sailing
HOLLYWOOD, CA (May 19, 2011) – Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox and Lightstorm Entertainment jointly announced today that James Cameron’s “TITANIC” will be re-released worldwide on April 6, 2012.
The release, which marks the 100th anniversary of the Titanic setting sail (April 10th), will present the film in 3D for the first time ever.
Written, directed and produced by Cameron, “TITANIC” is the second highest grossing movie of all time. It is one of only three films to have received a record 11 Academy AwardsÒ including Best Picture and Best Director; and launched the careers of stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet.
Called “A spectacular demonstration of what modern technology can contribute to dramatic storytelling” by Variety upon its release in 1997, the long in the works 3D conversion is being overseen by Cameron and his Lightstorm producing partner Jon Landau who produced the hit movie.
Said Cameron, “There’s a whole generation that’s never seen ‘TITANIC’ as it was meant to be seen, on the big screen. And this will be ‘TITANIC’ as you’ve never seen it before, digitally re-mastered at 4K and painstakingly converted to 3D. With the emotional power intact and the images more powerful than ever, this will be an epic experience for fans and newcomers alike.”
“This new presentation of Paramount’s top-grossing film is particularly special because 2012 is the 100th anniversary of our studio. Paramount has had the pleasure of introducing audiences to some of the all-time classics of cinema during that century of moviemaking and we cannot think of a better way to mark the occasion than with this re-release of ‘TITANIC’,” said Brad Grey, Chairman and CEO of Paramount Pictures.
Commented Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairmen and CEOs, Jim Gianopulos and Tom Rothman: “Our 30-plus year relationship with Jim Cameron and Lightstorm has been enormously rewarding, from ‘Aliens’ to ‘Avatar’, and the global phenomenon of ‘TITANIC’ remains one of the greatest sources of pride in our history. We are pleased to allow a new generation of audiences to experience the film in its brilliant digital restoration in 3D.”
------
new news:
http://www.slashfilm.com/video-blog-...-preview-imax/
The other reason I would recommend viewing the movie at an IMAX theatre is that you will see more than you would in a normal 3D theatre. Cameron announced that since the film was shot in Super 35, they were able to remaster the entire film at a larger aspect ratio than its original (and normal 3D re-release) theatrical distribution. This means you’ll get more image at the top and the bottom, which hopefully provides a more immersive experience.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 01-23-2012 11:59 PM
From a 1997 ASC article...
quote:
According to Carpenter, Titanic's IP, like that of True Lies, was made at CFI on Kodak's 5244 intermediate stock, utilizing a wetgate direct-contact printer at full aperture, running at 180 feet per minute. A precision ground-glass was used to focus the image through the liquid, while fine-grade filters made overall color compensations. The 2.35:1 anamorphic squeeze was not made at this point, as the IP would also be used to make prints in other aspect ratios.
And since Super 35 captured the image at 1.33:1, it's probable the IMAX 3D version would be 1.43:1, if that's what Cameron and Carpenter decided to do.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-24-2012 04:31 AM
quote: Edward Havens
And since Super 35 captured the image at 1.33:1, it's probable the IMAX 3D version would be 1.43:1, if that's what Cameron and Carpenter decided to do.
Doesn't matter if it was phographed full-frame super 35, it was COMPOSED for 2.39:1 scope. END OF EFFIN STORY. Just because there happens to be stuff above and below the scope ratio doesn't mean you are intended to SEE it. The fact that there is clean image above and below the scope frame only means that they had one hellofa time keeping extranious set gack from getting in the field, not that the cinematographer was composing for full frame; he COMPOSED for a 2.39:1 presentation.
They can't have it both ways...either they composed it for full-frame presentation back in 1997, which is ludicrous because that would mean that what everyone saw in theatres back then was cropped to shit, OR they composed it to be seen in scope, which means that this incarnation, when it plays in the pittiful few theatres that still actually have real IMAX square-ish screens, you will be seeing, not picture content that means anything, but a scope picture sitting in the midde of the screen with a lots of extranious, non-essential "material" on top and bottom of the original image. Only ONE of these scenarios can be correct and true to the DPs composition.
Contrary to all the babeldegook these sleezy used salesmen are spewing, patrons going to spend extra $$ to see it in the real IMAX theatres are not getting anything "more" just because non-essential image above and below is visible. In fact, that extra stuff will more than likely detract from the orginal compostion and give a totally different feel to the film.
Big screen IMAX patrons will just getting the same nonsense that they would get if a theatre were to run a film intended to be screened cropped 1.85:1 wide screen but instead, presented it in 1.37:1 just because there happened to be full-frame exposure on the print. It's total horseshit. For Cammeron to claim differently with all that trash talk means all he did was make sure there was no extranious set gack in the shots, but he can't be serious thinking trying to convince anyone that they are seeing something BETTER in big screen IMAXs. Just shows he will do anything to make an extra buck. Him and Lucas...Hollywood whores all.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-24-2012 01:14 PM
quote: Ian Parfrey
Yet more from Cameron. After his comment on a recent post that "..you can't shoot 3D on film", anything he now says is just rubbish.
Yes it's odd because of course Cameron himself has shot stereo material using film before - for the ground-breaking Terminator 2: 3-D ride at Universal Studios, which was shot on dual-strip 65mm rigs and presented Cinerama-style via 3 pairs of 5-70 projectors!
In similar vein:
quote:
I hope someone like Chris Nolan shoots a ground breaking 3d movie on film with astonishing results!
There is a fascinating reference to Linwood Dunn and Film Effects' Dynavision process here:
Wide Screen Movies Magazine - 3D Processes
quote:
Which brings us to another system that tried to combine the best of both worlds, when veteran cinematographer Linwood G. Dunn and Film Effects of Hollywood developed a system they called Dynavision. This system was intended to combine the brightness and steadiness of 70mm projection while eliminating vertical parallax error which plagued dual strip presentation. Dynavision was an 8 perf 70mm system which printed left and right frames from a dual rig 65mm set up in an over and under format, left over right and with each frame now reduced from the usual 5 perfs to only 4. Apparently the system worked well, and with an extremely wide aspect ratio, resulting from the reduction in frame height, of 2.77:1 must have looked impressive on a large screen. However, I can find no record of any feature or short that was released commercially in this system (please tell me if you know of one).
So - for truly astonishing results, one could shoot dual-strip 65mm, enlarge for dual-strip 15-70 release, reduce for over-under 8-70 release and over-under 35mm release too. All the advantages of film, and no more headaches! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
that! The movie was composed for a scope ratio. THAT is the ratio it should be presented in. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
from Cameron. After his comment on a recent post that "..you can't shoot 3D on film", anything he now says is just rubbish.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic