IMAX Develops Movie Transfer Technology

kazama writes: "Toronto-based IMAX said that it had developed a new process called DMR (for "digital remastering") to digitally convert conventional 35mm films to the IMAX format without significant loss of detail. 'Our customers have been saying to us for years, "We want to see Star Wars on IMAX, we want to see The Matrix on IMAX." and DMR is the technology which is the enabler,' Co-CEO Bradley Wechsler told Reuters. 'That's going to be an increasingly important part of the company's performance.'" So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?

How do they do it now?

[SClitheroe]

This is confusing to me...a long time ago, I watched Jurrasic Park on an IMAX screen, and was disappointed - the image was not IMAX size (didn't fill the whole screen)nor aspect ratio. The only benefit was the better sound system.

But recently, I went to the local mega theater to see SpiderMan, and was suprised to learn they were showing it on the IMAX screen. I expected the same thing, but it wasn't - it was a full sized IMAX image, and the image quality seemed fine to me.

So if this technology in the article is some new innovation, how are they doing it right now, and what are the disadvantages of the current approach?

Re:Not the Matrix

[Xaoswolf]

I would have to agree, the whole reason for watching an IMAX is to become immersed in the movie, Which is what makes the nature ones so good. When flying over a volcano, you feel like you are actually flying there. The sharks swimming around you become a little more scarry. A 30' tall Keanu does nothing to inhance the film.
I wouldn't mind watching Star Wars though, I bet some of the space battles would be pretty beat ass, not to mention watching a bunch of ATAT's crushing Hoth.

Picture might be clear but...

[John Harrison]

What isn't clear is if they only want to go back and remaster past films that have been hits or if they want to do this to first run films. I would love to see LoTR: TTT on an IMAX screen. At least I think I would. I am assuming that they aren't lying when they say they can bump up the quality.

For action films lots of people might want to see them first run on the IMAX screen. I don't know about dramas. Who wants to see Road to Perdition on a giant screen? Or worse yet, When Harry Met Sally?

Of course this trend might annoy George Lucas. I am not aware of any digital project capability for IMAX theaters. They would need a really impressive high resolution digital projector to go to IMAX size. Which reminds me, most IMAX movies run for a long time. I mean they are at the theater for about a year. I would guess that the film is expensive to produce and transport. Would it make economic sense to convert The Matrix? How many people would pay $10 to see it again on a really big screen? Maybe first run movies would be a better bet.

IMAX locations?

[TonyZahn]

Where are these theaters located anyway? Here in Maryland we have one in the Baltimore Science Center, and one in the Smithsonian (I think it's the Museum of Natural History) in DC. Are any of these theaters meant for the general movie-going public or all they all attatched to educational centers?
If they're all in museums and such, then I don't see the point in releasing the latest summer blockbuster there.

Re:How do they do it now?

[Sir Banana]

I saw spiderman on an IMAX screen. The manager told us that they were using a big magnifying lens, of which only a few exist in the country. The image quality was just about OK however I don't think that it was good enough for me to want to see many other movies in the same way. The other problem with IMAX for me is that the frame rate is too slow sometimes on the big sweeping shots and I find it a little uncomfortable.

Edward

Contact and LOTR please :)

[Darkstar9969]

First on a personal note I'm really pleased to hear this since I moved half a mile away from a beautiful new IMAX theatre! :)

Back to the post...I'd love to see the shots in Contact where Jody Foster is "time/space traveling" in IMAX, tho I'd be afraid of flashing back to my Deadhead days. (who am I kidding..I've never completely left)

And not to restate an obvious Slashdot reader favorite but Lord of the Rings would translate very well IMHO. The orcs would be THAT MUCH BIGGER and the battle scenes gargantuan to add to their already epic look.

My $.02 over and over again!

Re:pr0n? no.

[delld]

This is the exact same reason as to why high definition television has not caught on. As everyone knows porn is the primary driver of technology.

Re:How do they do it now?

[Tablizer]

(* That was my sense on it. I think that the digital transfer must be to improve the resolution somehow....? *)

You can use digital techniques on some analog images to sharpen the image a bit. However, it would also likely sharpen the film grains, which you don't want.

Thus, they probably have another technique which cleans up the film grain by comparing it to subsequent and/or prior frames.

For example, if there is a dot at point X in frame 120, but that same dot is *not* in point X in frame 119 and frame 121, then it is taken out or reduced in magnitude. In most movie images the scene does not change significantly from frame to frame. Thus, you can take advantage of this duplication to figure out what is likely film noise.

(If the background around the example dot in 119 and 121 is different, then perhaps you leave it alone because it may signify movement there. Graininess is harder for the eye to notice around movement anyhow.)

Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX

[krugdm]

Cool vistas? How about Dances With Wolves? With the sound system that most IMAX theatres have, the buffalo hunt would be awesome.

Re:So how does making the neg bigger improve the i

[captaineo]

I think the point of their process is to avoid multiple 35mm generations between the camera negative and release print. If you blow up the camera negative to 70mm and stay at 70mm throughout the print-making process, the result will look (marginally) better than a release print made from 35mm intermediates.

Of course this process isn't going to achieve the same quality as if you actually recorded 70mm film in the camera. But cutting out one or two generations of 35mm printing can help - e.g. SW:Episode II had very little grain in the film release prints, since they were all first-generation copies of ILM's digitally-recorded negatives.

What I Hate About iMAX

[Anonym1ty]

What I hate about iMax

Big isn't all there is... and it's used too much in iMax. Many times I have seen iMax films and the shooting is just horrible. The whole point of iMax (or OmniMax) is to fill your perephiral vision with the image, or show more. One thing I hate is iMax movies where the person is 7 stories tall and I'm less than 15 feet from the screen. It is nauseating and gives me a headache. I prefer when the director shoots it so the main action is about the same size as a normal movie, yet you have all this other stuff going on around it. That is what iMax was meant for. Otherwise you can have the entire front 10 -20 rows of the theater. pr0n at that size would require an entire different way of doing things for sure.

The other annoying thing about iMax is the gad-aweful flicker! It needs at least 3 times the framerate