Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Matrix Revolutions To Be Released On Imax

Posted by timothy on Sun Oct 12, 2003 06:58 PM
from the still-bitter-about-missing-lotr-trilogy-tickets dept.
captain igor writes "IMAX.com is reporting that Matrix Revolutions is going to be released at select IMAX theatres on November 5th, with a wider range of theatres picking the movie up shortly thereafter. (Link includes list of IMAX theatres that will premier the movie.)" We mentioned earlier this year that the Matrix sequels would be Imax-sized.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Morpheus (Score:4, Funny)

    by felonious (636719) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:00PM (#7196845) Journal
    I can only imagine how big Larry Fishburne's gut will look on an Imax screen. I never knew there was a Crispy Creme in Zion.
  • Deja-Vu? (Score:5, Funny)

    by wo1verin3 (473094) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:02PM (#7196854) Homepage
    Neo: I seem to recall this being posted on slashdot before!
    Trinity: Deja Vu, its a glitch in the Matrix. Is it a different article? Or the same article twice?
    • by Davak (526912) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:22PM (#7196945) Homepage
      Since the link from the original slashdot post is gone... here's the information on the conversion process.

      -----------

      IMAX(R) DMR

      From traveling back in time to the pre-historic age of the dinosaurs, to looking into the future on board the International Space Station, the unparalleled image and sound quality of the The IMAX ExperienceO transports audiences to places far beyond the reach of most people. Now, through the magic of IMAX(R) DMR(TM) (Digital Re-Mastering), movie-goers can also experience the larger than life adventure, drama and emotion of their favorite Hollywood films, such as "Apollo 13," which won two Academy AwardsO in 1995, and Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones. Coming to IMAX theatres this Spring and Fall will be The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, the second and third chapters in the Wachowski Brothers' revolutionary film trilogy. The release of The Matrix Revolutions on November 5, 2003 will mark the first time ever that a Hollywood live action event film is released concurrently in 35mm and in IMAX's format.

      IMAX motion picture systems, invented and developed by IMAX Corporation (IMAX), are the most technically advanced motion picture systems in the world. Images of unsurpassed size, clarity and impact, enhanced by a superb specially-designed six-channel, multi-speaker sound system, are projected onto giant rectangular screens, up to eight stories high and 120 feet wide in IMAX(R) theatres, and in IMAX(R) Dome theatres, onto domes as large as 27m (88'-5") in diameter.

      The film format used by IMAX (15/70) image is ten times larger than a conventional 35mm film and three times bigger than a standard 70mm film. The sheer size of a 15/70 film frame, combined with the unique IMAX projection technology, is the key to the extraordinary sharpness and clarity of films exhibited in IMAX theatres.

      IMAX(R) DMR(TM)
      IMAX Corporation has developed a total system to re-master 35mm live-action films into 15/70 film format for exhibition in IMAX theatres. Known as IMAX DMR this proprietary, patent pending technology digitally enhances the image quality of 35mm motion pictures for projection onto screens up to eight stories high and up to 120 feet wide. The resulting images are every bit as big, sharp and beautiful as those of the classic, visually stunning films originally produced in the 15/70 format.

      The core of the IMAX DMR process is based on our in-depth knowledge and understanding of the 15/70 format and the projection environment in IMAX theatres.

      There are no other systems available that can provide this degree of image enhancement. IMAX DMR is much more than just a software tool. It is a complete, purpose-built, end-to-end system designed to accommodate the high demands of day-and-date releases.

      The Process
      IMAX DMR starts by scanning, at the highest resolution possible, each individual frame of the 35mm film and converting them into digital images.

      Next, proprietary image enhancement tools, developed and refined over many years, optimizes each image for printing onto 70mm film. The useful information contained within the small area of the 35mm format is analyzed. Some of the techniques used to enhance the digital image include sharpening, color correction, grain removal, and eliminating unsteadiness.

      The enhanced digital signal is then recorded onto 15/70 film resulting in a visual presentation which, when projected on IMAX's state-of-the-art rolling loop projection system, is bright, crisp, steady and absolutely stunning.

      The highly automated IMAX DMR system allows the process to meet rigorous film production schedules.

      Sound
      For IMAX DMR releases, the original soundtrack of the 35mm film will be re-mastered for IMAX's six-channel loudspeaker system. Unlike conventional theatre sound systems, IMAX sound systems are uncompressed, full fidelity and use proprietary l
  • Metreon (Score:3, Funny)

    by _ph1ux_ (216706) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:02PM (#7196857)
    As much as I would like to be against big ass theatres and corporate mega-complexes, the metreon in SF is actually a great theatre. I will definitely be seeing this there...
    • "As much as I would like to be against big ass theatres"

      What's this with white men not likin big booties?
    • Re:Metreon (Score:3, Informative)

      I realize the parent is in jest... but we should be supporting the little guys here.

      For the independent fan-produced version of the matrix, you can download it [fanimatrix.net] here.

      Obviously the graphics are not as sweet, but the story keeps the same feeling and theme...

      Support these guys!

      Davak
      • but we should be supporting the little guys here

        Why?

        I mean... Why?

        I want to see a movie, not make a statement.

        If there wasn't a Hollywood "Matrix," then there wouldn't be an "independent fan-produced version of the matrix."

        the story keeps the same feeling and theme...

        Boy, that's a relief! I just hate it when independent film-makers not beholden to Hollywood and with lots of time on their hands use the Internet to distribute something new and original, don't you?
  • woohoo! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quasar1999 (520073) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:03PM (#7196863) Journal
    Oh, I really hope someone can get a digital rip of that... better than DVD quality screener!
    • Algolith [algolith.com] has the software if you just wanna do it yourself.

      APPLICATIONS
      Mastering
      Conforming of multi-format sources
      SDTV to HDTV up-conversion
      HDTV and Film down-conversion to SDTV
      HDTV cross-conversion
      Video to Film conversion
      HDTV to IMAX conversion
      Edge correcting of computer generated animations
      Interlacing of computer generated animations

      REQUIREMENTS
      Apple Shake 3.0 software
      Mac OS X
      Linux

      Davak

    • You'd need a 1100-node dual-g5 supercomputer to hold all that! Or a soviet russian beowulf cluster of PDAs might do the trick
    • Re:woohoo! (Score:3, Interesting)

      How about a HDTV-quality Matrix Revolutions trailer [emptylogic.com] instead? 2.5mins in 122MB, and it looks awesome.

      Finally a reason to upgrade my old 1.2GHz athlon: to play HD video without dropping frames... :)

      --

  • by billstr78 (535271) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:07PM (#7196879) Homepage
    It has been out on the Sony Metrion IMAX theatre in San Francisco for some time now. It is truley a different movie when seen on the big big screen. The action scenes are emersive and you really feel like part of the movie.

    Probably does not translate as well to IMAX as some other films with more picturesque fly-by shots of detailed landscapes like say... LOTR, but still worth a second (or Nth) view
    • This is referencing revolutions (3rd film) not reloaded (2nd film)
    • Overloaded? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Davak (526912) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:38PM (#7197019) Homepage
      I am worried that the matrix series is going to end with "not a bang but a wimper."

      Releasing the movie on IMAX and the regular theater at the same time doesn't make sense (cents?) otherwise.

      The last matrix flick did it correctly. Fans will go to the regular theater to see it on release day... and then spend the extra dollars to see it larger than life later.

      For the third flick, die hards will see it on IMAX and then just purchase the DVD later... leaving the theaters out of the action. Are they afraid that after people see it in the theater that there will not be enough excitement to pay off the IMAX investment?

      Is it going to be that big of a dud? Gawd, I hope now.

      I guess alternatively this could just be IMAX's way of trying to position itself as a theater alternative...

      Davak

      • For the third flick, die hards will see it on IMAX and then just purchase the DVD later... leaving the theaters out of the action. Are they afraid that after people see it in the theater that there will not be enough excitement to pay off the IMAX investment?

        I think this is a move to protect the general moviegoing public from having to sit with the diehards. I know the high school crowd at the theatre I went to made me wish for a bag of grenades. Maybe now I can stop scrounging.

    • " It is truley a different movie when seen on the big big screen. The action scenes are emersive and you really feel like part of the movie."

      I wanted to take a potshot at Matrix Reloaded here, but something occured to me. Did they edit the movie's length for IMAX? I sorta vaguely recall reading something about the movie being made shorter for IMAX. 1.) Is this true? 2.) Did it help the pacing of the movie?

      That movie was entirely too long for my tastes, but if they had edited it down to say 45 minutes
  • Popcorn! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Davak (526912) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:10PM (#7196891) Homepage
    One thing will keep me from seeing this at my local IMAX.

    Popcorn!

    They don't allow food and beverages in the IMAX here. What's a movie without a $10 bucket of popcorn and a 7.50 keg of cherry coke!?!

    How long before everything is IMAX since we can approximate the current movie setups with our wide screens and dvds?

    Davak
    • I don't know what you get at your local theater for $17.50, but I would hesitate to use the terms "bucket" and "keg" to describe any drink or foor item available for purchase at most movie theaters.
  • It's hard enough watching all the movement and action on a normal cinema screen. Neck strain as well as eye strain? :)

    I would get plenty of sleep before going to that screening, you'll need to be in good shape.
  • Thats Great, I would love to see on an IMAX screen, too bad that movies for IMAX can't be longer then 120 minutes or so.. So it will have to be cut down from the regular version, as Reloaded was. Not to mention that it costs 12$ here in NYC.
  • by vchoy (134429) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:16PM (#7196919)
    As per usual, we 'Down Under' miss out :(
    I find it strange since the movie was produced in Sydney.
    (...and yes we do have Imax [imax.com.au])

    Oh wells.
  • TMD (Score:3, Insightful)

    by calcifer (649855) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:16PM (#7196924)
    See it on the big IMAX screen? Why would I want to pay to do that when I can download a low resolution TMD cam of a japanese subtitled screener off of Kazaa?

    I think we can all tell i'm not being serious, but my point is that when a good movie comes out, we will all pay to see it. if the movie industry tries to shovel some crap out the door and call it a movie, dont be surprised if we download that shit instead of paying for it.

  • by Kappelmeister (464986) on Sunday October 12 2003, @07:30PM (#7196986)
    I saw Apollo 13 on IMAX when it was the brave new world of 35mm blowups, and I was underwhelmed. It was exciting, sure, but it didn't add a lot to the movie.

    For one, the movie's length exceeded the capacity of the reels for the projector, so they had to cut something like a half hour from it. Knowing the movie really well (it really outfoxes other space movies), it was irritating, but to my friend who had never seen it before, it was downright confusing. "Day 4" led to "Day 6"; not only did they cut some needed exposition, but a lot of the smaller moments that make the movie rich. Disclaimer: I think they've solved this issue and Revolutions will not be similarly cut. Which is why I'm presenting these criticism in increasing order of importance.

    More severe is the clipping of the sides. An IMAX screen is proportioned to 1.66:1, which is closer to the 1.33:1 of TV than the 2:35:1 of movies like Apollo 13. The solution is to cut off the sides, like in the rightfully derided pan-and-scan telecine methods for TV. So for all the progress we've made in getting the mainstream public to embrace letterboxing with DVDs, this is a leap backward.

    The print just didn't look good. I mean, whether you show it on a 80-foot screen or 800-foot screen, you only shot it with so much grain in the negative, and you can only get so much detail on the way out. It looked incredibly fuzzy and indistinct next to movies that were shot natively in the jumbo IMAX format. When you watch Everest and other IMAX-shot movies, they look like they have as much detail as a regular movie, but the screen extends far in every direction. Whereas blowing up 35mm 8 stories high produces roughly the same effect as sitting 3 feet away from a normal screen. They had to pipe the movie through all sorts of algorithms to reduce what would have been enormus "grain flicker," but instead, it looked awfully posterized and compressed.

    Which leads me to the biggest point -- it was just overwhelming. For "epic" sequences like the liftoff, sensory overload is a good thing. But a lot of the latter part of Apollo 13 is played in close-ups -- scene after scene of Tom Hanks's face, 8 stories high. The face is so huge, it takes extra work for the eye to scan and recognize it. You have to turn your head, not just your eye, to get a bearing of where a scene is taking place. It's like watching a regular movie through a paper towel roll.

    The director shot the movie with the assumption that you would be able to scan the whole frame relatively quickly. You can shoot close-up and your brain will understand that the scene goes beyond the edges of the frame. Directors who shoot for IMAX or other large-frame formats know to keep everything really, really wide, so you don't get disoriented. The purpose is to immerse you in a certain place, to eliminate the constant reminder in your peripheral vision that you are looking at a "finite" image. When you shoot it wide and project it big, the focal length ends up back in the league of normal movies, and that's what happens. But when you shoot it close and project it big ... you get the idea.

    In short, IMHO, IMAX is a great format for certain types of movies, but keep 35mm prints on the normal screen where they belong.
    • ... would you see a post that contained both

      I saw Apollo 13 on IMAX when it was the brave new world of 35mm blowups, and I was underwhelmed.

      and

      Which leads me to the biggest point -- it was just overwhelming
      (emphasis added)
      I guess it averages out to being simply "whelmed". :)
    • I'm sold on IMAX (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2003, @08:15PM (#7197137)
      I saw the second installment of the Matrix on both a normal sized multiplex screen and an IMAX screen. Here is a list of the problems I noticed:

      1. A really blatant and horrible edit mistake during the big dance scene in Zion. For some reason, Trinity and Neo had sex, then met at the dance. Everything else was the same, and there were no other (noticable) edit problems.

      2. Due to the high level of detail, I could fairly easily notice when CG was being used. This was most problematical during the big 100 Smiths battle.

      What was good about it?

      Totally immersive! The superbike sequence was awesome, much better than the small screen. It's true that some of the fight sequences were more difficult to digest visually, but that was more than made up for by the awesome display of enormous images.

      As for your critiques:

      1. or one, the movie's length exceeded the capacity of the reels for the projector

      As you mentioned, this is no longer a problem.

      2. More severe is the clipping of the sides.

      As far as I could tell, there was no clipping. The film was shown in it's normal proportions, which meant that it did not take up the full height of the screen. Still, it was twice as large as the normal screen (4x the area).

      3. The print just didn't look good.

      I know what you mean by posterized. Yes, it was pretty obvious that some post production had taken place. But I wouldn't characterize it as not looking good. It was more than satisfactory.

      4. Which leads me to the biggest point -- it was just overwhelming.

      Yea, that's the idea. I like walking out of the theatre with my eyes moving in different directions!

      I am definitely going to see the next installments of the Matrix and LOTRs on IMAX. I'm not even going to think about going to the regular theatre. Big, flashy, epic films look great on big, flashy, epic screens.

  • IMAX vs dlp [dlp.com]!

    Did the last matrix come out in dlp format?

    I would imagine that this digital format would be better than our typical theaters... but what about IMAX?

    I am almost certain that the last two starwars movies came out on IMAX and dlp... so maybe somebody could compare those for us.

    Davak
  • by smithmc (451373) on Sunday October 12 2003, @08:31PM (#7197185) Journal

    ...I recently saw Reloaded at the IMAX theater in the Luxor in Vegas. It rawked. I had an almost perfect seat, halfway up and halfway across. Very immersive, in some cases (e.g. the outdoor scenes) almost vertigo-inducingly so.
    • Well, it didn't totally blow me away; not like being a totally new experience. (I'd seen it before on a regular screen.) There were two things I did notice:
      • First, you could see the texture of the clothing and other materials a lot better; you could tell more easily what things were made out of.
      • The second is an extension of the first. You could see people's skin tones a lot better. Fishburne looks like a craggy asteroid in close-up, and I was surprised by the woman who played Persephone; Imax added about
  • by Awptimus Prime (695459) on Monday October 13 2003, @06:17AM (#7198360)
    I saw Matrix Reloaded at the local IMAX. It was obvious the movie had not been shot for and IMAX screen. The aspect ratio seemed wrong. The resolution and focus also weren't that great in this movie, as there were a lot of scenes where the director wants you to look at a particular character so more focus is on them and not their surroundings. This is fine for the 16:9 cinema screen but when you are looking at a 3 story IMAX screen, your eyes want to wander and look at all the details. This, I thought, was a little disappointing. The smoother flowing scenes, such as scenes of Zion looked incredible.

    You'll also be able to see Trinity's blond nose hairs a number of times. The fact that the prop cars on the freeway action scenes have no motors in them becomes very apparent. I could go on for an hour about the visual flaws with the Matrix series on IMAX, but I'll stop my complaining there. Oh okay, one more: the oracle's skin. EWWWWWWWW. Get that lady some scar cream, stat!

    I'd say to go see the new one on IMAX, but not for the visual difference (it's just bigger, blurrier, and choppier looking), go for the audio. IMAX theaters tend to have very strong, very clear, sound systems that really add to action sequences. The can really feel the music when the fighting breaks out.

    It also would have helped a lot if the movie had been shot at ~60 fps. I've seen movies shot for IMAX and they didn't appear to have such jagged motion when panning and, overall, more focus and attention to visual details. The focus seems clearer for a whole scene in an IMAX native film, too.

    • Simple economics. Compare the population of the UK to the US.

      Once the frenzy dies down here, we can send our used movie reels to you for your showing. That's right, you get sloppy seconds.
    • Re:UK? (Score:2, Informative)

      >However I don't reckon that we have IMAX cinemas over here in the good ol' U of K.

      There are IMAX cinemas in London [bfi.org.uk], Bristol [at-bristol.org.uk], Bournemouth [bournemouthimax.com], Birmingham [www.imax.ac], Bradford [imaxnorth.co.uk], Manchester [manchesterimax.co.uk] and Glasgow [gsc.org.uk].

      For some reason, they seem to be unusually heavily concentrated in cities beginning with B. Coincidence? I think not!
            • VCD or actually SVCD has the same resolution as a TV and the same frame rate.

              Actually, only SVCD can claim that - the OP. said "VCD", which is 320x240. Television is 720x480 (D1).

              Also, resolution has nothing to do with bitrate, which is the main problem with SVCD and VCD.

              And yes, I've seen them. I've made my own. They look like crap. Which is why I burn DVDs today, instead of SVCDs or VCDs. (That, and DVD burners got cheap enough).
    • I thouhg he was busy uniting the Triforce and saving Princess Zelda...
    • Why is Link helping you out? Doesn't he have better things to do? Like helping Neo save the human race?

      No, he just got tired of fighting with Dr. Strangepork and 1st Mate Piggy.

    • 3D Imax is indeed cool, but there was one thing I noticed about it. A "dissolve" or "cross-fade" in 3D is really disorienting, at least for me. On a 2D screen everything is in the same plane of focus, but in 3D it's totally different. My brain just flipped out every time they did a dissolve, I couldn't figure out where to focus.

      If this is at all common, 3D movies will need some new visual idioms. Anyone else have this problem?

    • I refuse to see movies that are advertisements for other movies. When a feature-length picture ends in "to be continued", you should ask for your money back.

      Okay, guess I'll skip seeing that "Empire Strikes Back" flick, then. Thanks for the warning. I'll stay home and read "The Fellowship of the Ring" instead, or maybe watch a couple episodes of "24."