having just watched the dark knight on blu-ray i have noticed the imax film footage is alot better than the 35mm camera footage. the imax footage is fantastic, more three dimensional and clearer. the film shot in 35mm is no slouch either and is superb,but can see the difference in quality straight away.who knows in the future imax cameras might get cheaper to film and we get full screen film footage on our tvs instead of letterbox ratios any views or ideas on the matter technically would be most appreciated.
imax hd footage a lot better than 35mm camera footage, any views on matter?
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
IMAX films are catastrophically expensive to produce, that's why they are so short. The cameras are also gigantic and heavy so are not ideal for fast action scenes. You also need a massive screen to get the most from the resolution. Not the best scenario for the home user.
yep they might not be ideal for some circumstances, but nolan who destroyed 1 camera on filming the dark knight film very expensive, the film quality is certainly better i have a panny 50" screen but i can see the difference in quality when film switches to 35mm, maybe my large screen makes a difference when viewing both formats.
Sure, I have a couple of IMAX DVDs and they look stunning. Only a few scenes of the dark knight were shot in IMAX due to the limitations I mentioned, didn't know he wrecked a camera though, that's a cool million down the drain!
IMAX have been losing money in recent years so they have been investing money in the production of mainstream film to boost profits.
IMAX have been losing money in recent years so they have been investing money in the production of mainstream film to boost profits.
Im sure IMAX will get cheaper as technology improves, it always does. A million is nothing for a studio nowadays to blow on a broken camera, Dark Knight will have made enough money back to buy every IMAX camera there is ten times over.
professorhat
Well-known member
Well, I'm pretty sure the studio didn't think the million (if that's a correct figure - seems exaggerated in my mind) was "nothing" when it happened. Yes, they'll make the money back, but no one, and I mean no one with any business sense would say a million is nothing. If they did, they would likely be fired. If I save a hundred pounds I'm applauded and I work for a multi-million pound turnover company! It really does all add up, I assure you.
As for the quality, absolutely, the IMAX scenes on The Dark Knight look spectacular, but IMAX really is the cutting edge of filming now - it's the best quality by far over 35mm.
As for the quality, absolutely, the IMAX scenes on The Dark Knight look spectacular, but IMAX really is the cutting edge of filming now - it's the best quality by far over 35mm.
The studio will have rented the camera from IMAX and they'd have had insurance. The million thing was from an documentary I watched about IMAX ages ago, maybe they are cheaper now?!
Given that an IMAX frame is about ten times the area of a 35mm one, it should be much better than 35mm.
That said, there is also an system to IMAXify 35mm film - think upscaling and upconversion - which seems a bit like cheating to me!
That said, there is also an system to IMAXify 35mm film - think upscaling and upconversion - which seems a bit like cheating to me!
ElectroMan
Well-known member
Remember watching an Imax fim in the U.S about 10-12 years ago. think the screen was about 5 storys high and the film was Blue Planet (all footage shot from the space shuttle of the planet).Stunning.Got it on Dvd and it says on the box its remastered from the original 70mm film elements.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram