| Message/Author |
|
|
|
|
| There's been a lot of talk about how the Sorcerer's Apprentice and live action interstitials are grainy in the IMAX version of Fantasia. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the live action was filmed with 35mm, which just naturally looks grainy when blown up, and that the Sorcerer's Apprentice was filmed in 35 with the multiplane cameras far before the days of digital compositing. Because the new animation was composited in the digital realm, the new pieces look stunningly crisp and clear in the IMAX format. I want to congratulate Disney for doing an excellent job on the conversion from 35 and reducing the amount of noise that could have been on the screen from a 35 to 15/70 blowup. Even though the older and interstitial segments are grainy, they still look great. If you want to see a botched job of a blow-up, I recommend riding the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas. The live action flyover of Las Vegas has some of the worst noise I've ever seen on film, contrasting with the crystal clear CGI ships flying over the Vegas strip created by Rhythm & Hues. |
|
|
 Anonymous posted on Sunday, January 23, 2000 - 10:51 am
|
|
|
| Fantasia is proving once and for all that grain is not an issue. From now on, Imax will have a much tougher time in talking commercial exhibitors into spending the big bucks for a 3D system when they can buy an 870 3D projector at about 1/3 of the cost. |
|
|
|
|
| Fantasia wasn't originally done for LF. They did what they could to adapt it for 1570. Why would a commercial theatre go 870? (Megasystems? Yeah, right) Check your numbers Mr./Mrs. Anon. 870 houses vs. 1570 houses in the commercial market...The reason they select 1570, and IMAX 1570 in particular, is the brand recognition in the public's eye. You want grain? Watch an 870 film on a 65 x 90 screen... |
|
|
|
|
| Fantasia wasn't originally done for LF. They did what they could to adapt it for 1570. Why would a commercial theatre go 870? (Megasystems? Yeah, right) Check your numbers Mr./Mrs. Anon. 870 houses vs. 1570 houses in the commercial market...The reason they select 1570, and IMAX 1570 in particular, is the brand recognition in the public's eye. You want grain? Watch an 870 film on a 65 x 90 screen... |
|
|
|
|
| Fantasia wasn't originally done for LF. They did what they could to adapt it for 1570. Why would a commercial theatre go 870? (Megasystems? Yeah, right) Check your numbers Mr./Mrs. Anon. 870 houses vs. 1570 houses in the commercial market...The reason they select 1570, and IMAX 1570 in particular, is the brand recognition in the public's eye. You want grain? Watch an 870 film on a 65 x 90 screen... |
|
|
|
|
| Fantasia wasn't originally done for LF. They did what they could to adapt it for 1570. Why would a commercial theatre go 870? (Megasystems? Yeah, right) Check your numbers Mr./Mrs. Anon. 870 houses vs. 1570 houses in the commercial market...The reason they select 1570, and IMAX 1570 in particular, is the brand recognition in the public's eye. You want grain? Watch an 870 film on a 65 x 90 screen... |
|
|
|
|
| Pardon my multiple posts...it's this crazy ice storm, and a lousy internet connection... :) |
|
|
|
|
| I believe the 870 numbers are relatively high considering how much longer that system has been around Until the advent of the IMAX theatres in regular cinema locations I would think the numbers were probably fairly close considering the number of 870 that were set up in smaller park settings and portable faird |
|
|
| Anonymous posted on Sunday, January 23, 2000 - 07:47 pm
|
|
|
| As far as 3D is concerned, 870 looks as good as 1570. But that's not the point. Most 1570 3D commercial theaters are not profitable (by a long shot). The large format industry needs a cheaper alternative. What good will the "Imax" brand name do, when theaters start closing down. |
|
|
|
|
| How many IMAX Theatres can you think of that were closed down? I can only think of two, and that's because they were replaced by bigger and better theatres in the same area by the same owners. |
|
|
| Jim DiDio posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2000 - 08:53 am
|
|
|
Whether you're talking 35, 870, or 1570, what it comes down to is the quality of the theater, the quality of the film you're watching (as in, "is it a good film content-wise," not technologically), and the quality of your advertising and marketing.
I can't say what Hollywood plans on doing. I don't know in what technical direction they'll go, if they go in any at all. But, in general, given the number of Imax 1570s out there, that's probably the way things will continue to go.
Of course, all of this will be moot with digital projection. As that technology improves, so will screen size, and terms like "870" and "1570" will no longer apply. Hell, terms like "Estar base" won't apply. (Sorry, Kodak... don't shoot the messenger.) My latest Big Frame mentions the new Minnesota theater, the first convertible flat/Dome in the U.S., and I found the last sentence in the blurb to be of interest: they put in a digital system (JVC, I think?) and I remember seeing the term "12K". (As in, 12 kilowatt?) I'd like to see what this thing looks like when it's projecting--how much of the flat screen it fills, and what the brightness looks like. Pretty soon, we all may be reduced to polishing optics and inserting hard drives as our chief physical responsibilities while in the booths. |
|
|
| Dean K. Fick posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2000 - 12:51 pm
|
|
|
Somebody above was calling into question the
quality of an 870 image on a large screen (say 60
by 90 feet) versus 1570. As someone who worked for
15 years for Imax theaters and Imax Corporation
subsidiaries, I can tell you that you will be
surprised at how nice 870 looks.
Here at COSI in Columbus, Ohio, we throw a
beautifully sharp 870 image on a 63-foot-tall
screen. I invite all of you to come here and take
a look at our setup. We show credits that look
like slides, have amazingly long print life, and
never have to clean a field flattener. And, oh
yeah--we pay half price for each print compared to
1570.
Digital projection will soon make all of this
discussion pointless, but in the meantime, we're
doing quite well, thank you. |
|
|
|
|
| Dean...don't forget lamps costing 1,200 bucks as opposed to 6,400!! At the 1998 LFCA 870 film festival, I was impressed by the linear loop system and it's projection quality...The 870 Ballantyne system doesn't even touch it. |
|
|
| Dean K. Fick posted on Thursday, January 27, 2000 - 11:12 am
|
|
|
Well, we don't get that particular advantage here
since we buy and use 12 kW lamps.... |
|
|
|
|
| Once again, it's an institutional/commercial thing. As an IMAX in a 20-screen multiplex, we need the brand-recognition that goes with the name "IMAX". If we took down our huge, blue neon sign with "IMAX" and put up "MEGASYSTEMS" the public would go "Huh? Wazzat?". Or better yet, "Ballentyne of Omaha".... Oh I can hear 'em now! :) I think you're lucky to have a place to show LF features, with other fun things to do. I can't say that about our location...it's justa mall.. (but a really BIG mall) :) |
|
|
| Back to top |
