Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Large Format Forum   » Titanic - the IMAX 3D experience - April 2012 (Page 1)

 
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: 1287
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008


 - posted 01-23-2012 10:53 PM      Profile for Jonathan Goeldner   Email Jonathan Goeldner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5116
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-23-2012 11:09 PM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wouldn't that only be true in IMAX theatres that still have the old IMAX 4:3ish screens? Don't all the new LIEMAX digital installs have standard scope ratio screens? How will they expand top and bottom of the image?

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17590
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 01-23-2012 11:30 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
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.
[fu] that! The movie was composed for a scope ratio. THAT is the ratio it should be presented in. [Mad]

 |  IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009


 - posted 01-23-2012 11:44 PM      Profile for Ian Parfrey   Email Ian Parfrey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
[Roll Eyes]

It is almost, aesthetically speaking, impossible to recompose framing from 2:35 to 4:3 no matter what the originating format is.

Yet more [bs] from Cameron. After his comment on a recent post that "..you can't shoot 3D on film", anything he now says is just rubbish.

It's one thing to promote one technique over another, but to deliberately lie to skew public opinion is just blatant marketing spin.

 |  IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 612
From: Berkeley, CA
Registered: Mar 2008


 - posted 01-23-2012 11:59 PM      Profile for Edward Havens   Email Edward Havens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1453
From: Notre Dame du Lac, Indiana USA
Registered: Mar 2003


 - posted 01-24-2012 12:01 AM      Profile for Aaron Garman   Email Aaron Garman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'd rather just see it in 2D on 35mm or 70mm in a room with a bright steady projector and a great EQ. Somehow I doubt I can find that anymore.

AJG

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17590
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 01-24-2012 12:20 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Will there even be 35mm prints of this re-release? I wonder if they will screw up the soundtrack mix.

After all, I'm sure Cameron WANTED to screw up the soundtrack mix, but simply didn't have the technology at the time.

 |  IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 774
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009


 - posted 01-24-2012 12:42 AM      Profile for Victor Liorentas   Email Victor Liorentas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I hope someone like Chris Nolan shoots a ground breaking 3d movie on film with astonishing results! [Big Grin]

I also wonder if there will be 35mm and 15/70 prints?
Perhaps Cameron is above that now. [Frown]

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17590
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 01-24-2012 02:16 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Well if there is 15/70 prints, they won't be worth it as the aspect ratio will be screwed. Also doesn't most IMAX theaters run Hollywood product without masking? That is such poor showmanship and lowers contrast. I've also never liked IMAX sound systems. Liemax/Digimax is as we all agree, a complete joke.

5/70 was and forever will be the proper format for Titanic, but I think most people will agree it will never happen as Cameron doesn't WANT people to see how good it can look.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5116
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 01-24-2012 04:31 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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

Paul Gordon
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 573
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Aug 2005


 - posted 01-24-2012 07:15 AM      Profile for Paul Gordon   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Gordon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There was 5/70mm print in Canada until a few months agao. We were going to play at our 70mm festival this year. But since the new 3d flick is coming out, Paramount decided to junk the mint condition DTS print. 70mm in 5perf never again I guess.

 |  IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 612
From: Berkeley, CA
Registered: Mar 2008


 - posted 01-24-2012 08:52 AM      Profile for Edward Havens   Email Edward Havens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, Frank, Cameron was well-known for shooting in Super 35 specifically so he had options when it came to theatrical (both 35mm and 70mm, which have different aspect ratios) and home video.

But, as I said, it all depends on what Cameron and his DP decided to do when it came to the IMAX conversion. We'll know for sure in a couple months.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12856
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 01-24-2012 09:28 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Frank Angel
Just because there happens to be stuff above and below the scope ratio doesn't mean you are intended to SEE it.
Exactly! A great example of this is Terminator 2's original VHS release which was uncropped to 4:3. When Arnie smashes the payphone for some change, you can see how it is rigged to crush when he hits it. Right as he hits it, the camera pans down and the coins start falling out. It works great in scope when you don't see what you're not supposed to see. But I imagine Cameron will CGI the boom mics and other stuff like that out. Still not cool as the extra top and bottom stuff will be more of a distraction. Will characters now have too much headroom?

 |  IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 774
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009


 - posted 01-24-2012 09:54 AM      Profile for Victor Liorentas   Email Victor Liorentas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In a way the headroom makes it like traditional Imax films where the main action takes place in the center.

 |  IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003


 - posted 01-24-2012 01:14 PM      Profile for Brian Guckian   Email Brian Guckian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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]

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.