‘Avengers: Infinity War’ to Be Shot Entirely With Imax Cameras
- Thread starter Jimmy Pierce
- Start date
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
They should just be honest and call it "Avengers: Infinity Budget".
Which reminds of the old Jack Kent Cooke line about George Allen, when the former hired the latter to coach his NFL franchise.
"I gave him the unlimited budget and he exceeded it on the very first day".
Of course, in relative terms, Avengers isn't likely to come close to the Sergey Bondarchuk version of "War and Peace" (four parts, 1966-68) either.
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
Interstellar just shot with a shoulder mounted IMAX camera.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
When I saw this thread last night, I had literally just walked in the door from seeing Ultron. And while I love big-budget summer action movies, most Marvel movies just don't feel like they have any soul. (I'd say GOTG is the exception to that.) I love Whedon's dialogue, and all the pieces are strong enough, but it all just feels like a soulless, empty exercise in spectacle.
That said, it's still pretty damned entertaining.
That said, it's still pretty damned entertaining.
The Stevesy
Active member
I was thinking about that this morning. The bad guys keep looking the same. These faceless, kinda robotic horde with a witty, quippy leader. Kinda soulless, but still fun.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Why? Are they really going to shoot it on 65mm film? If so, why?
Sony has shown pretty conclusively that the vast majority of theater goers, because of the location of the seats and the size of the screen, etc., can only "use" the resolution in 4k if they are sitting in the first couple of rows. If you sit back at a reasonable distance, you can't tell the difference between 2k and 4k. That's just the laws of physics talking to ya. Once you exceed the limits of what your human visual system can deal with, the extra resolution is just a waste.
The only possible reason to shoot a movie on IMAX is to display it on an IMAX screen. And there are damn few real IMAX screens around (the faux-IMAX screens don't count because they run into the same limitations that Sony has already illustrated, and therefore don't take advantage of what IMAX can do). The nearest true IMAX screen to me is a five hour car trip away in Washington DC. I gotta tell ya, I'm not going to drive that far for a frellin' movie.
So again, why shoot on 65mm?
Sony has shown pretty conclusively that the vast majority of theater goers, because of the location of the seats and the size of the screen, etc., can only "use" the resolution in 4k if they are sitting in the first couple of rows. If you sit back at a reasonable distance, you can't tell the difference between 2k and 4k. That's just the laws of physics talking to ya. Once you exceed the limits of what your human visual system can deal with, the extra resolution is just a waste.
The only possible reason to shoot a movie on IMAX is to display it on an IMAX screen. And there are damn few real IMAX screens around (the faux-IMAX screens don't count because they run into the same limitations that Sony has already illustrated, and therefore don't take advantage of what IMAX can do). The nearest true IMAX screen to me is a five hour car trip away in Washington DC. I gotta tell ya, I'm not going to drive that far for a frellin' movie.
So again, why shoot on 65mm?
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Because they can.
Piszkos Fred
Active member
Not film, digital. The new Imax digital cameras will be some variations of the Alexa 65.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
OK, I'm seeing that Arri is making a new digital camera based on the Arri Alexa 65 for IMAX, and that it's first use is supposed to be on Captain America: Civil War.
Maybe it'll be a 4k camera and they'll use the bigger capture area for bigger photosites, and work that to give more dynamic range. That would be cool.
Piszkos Fred
Active member
Well, the 65 is 6K and it has the same Alev III sensor as the regular Alexas.
the same technology but three times the size.
It's called longevity. The finer the master print, the longer its quality is deemed practical for the mass consumption.
Or you'd be seeing a bunch of B&W movies in prime time. After all, if it were only the story that mattered, a Bogie & Bacall flick still stands the test of time.
Except, consumers don't want to watch B&W films.
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
A great many films were shot on high quality film 50 years ago. They are not running in theaters or on TV. Not because they aren't colorful and clear, it's because they're 50 years old. They have their place, just like the cars from that era.
They are shown off at classic car shows (screenings), function and drive just like cars today (on screen or TV), and some are truly beautiful (name your favorite classics.) But they're a by gone era.
I suspect your original line is spot on though. I think with the success of IMAX screenings (which I imagine simply continue to grow) of big budget films like Marvel makes, has them wanting to shoot in IMAX quality, save money by shooting digital, cross promotion with IMAX branding and longevity as 4K, at long last, after years and years, is finally looking to be, truly, "just around the corner" and perhaps be able to monetize on the newest distribution format for higher end consumers, just like how Blu-ray cost more than DVD 5-10 years ago, right?
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Oh please. The number of films captured to 65/70mm film is extremely small. Less than 50 Hollywood films made were shot on 65mm film. 16mm was far more prevalent, and 35mm was and is clearly the standard by such a huge margin it's not worth discussing.
This has to do with something, but whatever it is, it's not longevity.
Because IMAX tickets sell for more money.
B&W films are just not a popular item. One can even take a "recent" classic like the "Raging Bull" and people won't tune in. That is why Ted Turner decided to colorize the old classics like "Casablanca" and nowadays one can find the colorized version of even the Three Stooges and Laurel and Hardy.
And this is also why foreign films - what foreign film? ... you ask - are dubbed. A casual American moviegoer hates subtitles even more than the B&W.
As to delivery, the current target is 4K, which requires about 20 Mbps download speed. As cable moves into the gigabit range - Comcast is rolling out Docsis 3.1 in 2016 with 2 Gbps symmetric via coaxial - the ability to deliver a far superior picture quality will make even 8K 48 fps HDR a piece of cake. And, for that, a 6K image is a good start.
The technology is moving toward bigger sensors, higher resolution, frame rate and the dynamic range. Until the picture exceeds the human eye's ability to discern the differences, this is how it's going to be.
As to why there weren't many films shot on 65 mm, the reason was simple. There were practically no theaters to exhibit them and TV picture was garbage in comparison anyway. Do note that Vista Vision was a fairly popular format because it could be used with the existing infrastructure.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
As I said already, Sony has shown (published, google is your friend) that we are already well past the human visual system's limits.
Yet I agree that the industry is going to chase bigger sensors, higher resolution, etc. But it has nothing to do with the what the consumer can see, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with longevity -- it's only about marketing.
We're just going in circles; I'm done here. Last word is yours if you want it.
High1ander
Well-known member
We are not past the human limits. At least if that means 4K theatre (I guess your "Sony-proof" is their old 2K vs 4K in cinema). Vision is far too complex to just be reduced into "60 pixels per degree", and Sony used 42 I think, also, 20/20 vision isn't the average (which corresponds to 60ppd), but most people see better than that (according to some sources).
It is kinda same thing as people will claim humans only see around 70 FPS, but don't care about humans can se a black insert in over 100th of a sec, and a white insert in a 500th of a sec...
For example NHK, Japanese TV use 120ppd as the baseline for human vision.
Sony thinks only 42ppd is enough, and thus 90% in a normal 4K cinema can't see the difference between 4K and beyond (depending on where you sit), but if you use 120ppd as guide you get closer to 50% I would guess.
For example, in a 25m (82 feet) diagonal screen you need to be closer than 10m (32 feet) to see a differnce if the PPD is 42, make that 120 PPD and you will se a difference when being closer to 36m (118 feet).
