Harry Potter 6 with new IMAX 3D footage

today I saw an announcement that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (HarryPotter6) will be running with 25 minutes of IMAX footage.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=23296

of course, that's really cool and all that good stuff, but a lot of people don't know what that really means and because I got a few emails asking, I'm gonna explain it in the most non-technical way I can.

first of all: yes, movies in theaters are still on film, 35mm film (there are a growing number of digital theaters, but for the most part it's emulsion running through sprockets on reels in the projection booth.

IMAX film is the biggest film format of them all -- the frame size is almost TEN TIMES the size of a 35mm film frame. when people come to visit my booth, I compare the two to show just what I mean. "IMAX" literally stands for "IMAGE MAXIMUM."

when an announcement like today's is made, what they're really saying is the traditional movie is being transfered to IMAX 70mm, and something called a DMR print is being made. "DMR" is IMAX's term for the digital remastering process where a 35mm negative, print, or digital source is essentially "upres'ed" to the IMAX 15/70 film format. (*of course, most digital sources, if they know from the start that it'll end up in IMAX there maybe no upres'ing needed.)

this is different from what Christopher Nolan did for THE DARK KNIGHT -- Nolan had realized or had the foresight that an IMAX print would be made, and so, shot his 35 minutes of footage with IMAX CAMERAS. but the rest of the movie was shot on 35mm and upres'ed.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-07/ff_darknight
http://www.filmwad.com/nolan-to-shoot-i-dark-knight-i-in-imax-format-2642-p.html

anyone who caught The Dark Knight in it's IMAX version knows that there are entire sequences that suddenly and dramatically "GO WIDE" and the image is even more stunning and breathtaking. this is the difference between film that's been converted and footage specifically shot in IMAX.

then of course, there's IMAX 3D, which means, two entire prints of film running with either dual projectors, or with an "over-under" system that ran the right eye and left eye of each print. this is costly, cumbersome and creates twice as many problems when problems arise. most recently BEOWULF was in IMAX 3D and it was stunning.

on the horizon and in the near future comes yet another format: IMAX is stepping into the DIGITAL 3D environment.

just two weeks ago, I attended the Giant Screen Cinema Association convention where I saw, among other things, the demo of the new IMAX DIGITAL system. there were a few issues with this, but on the whole, the system looked FANTASTIC. was it the shape of traditional, "classical" IMAX movies? no. but it was higher res than any HD image available, it could handle HIGH CONTRASTS (which is a huge issue between digital video and film) and the image was sharp (for the most part). where it also excelled was with 3D. it handled the 3D better than any RealD or other digital 3D system out there, and to my eye (and many others in attendance) was better looking than 3D on film.

what does this all mean for the public? hopefully, continued trips to the theater. I can't help but get giddy about the whole thing. I usually get criticized for my enthusiasm (because nobody can believe I like my job this much) but bigger picture, better sound, and continued 'A' level content.

frankly, I think nothing's cooler.

IMAX @ natural history

right now I'm sitting in the IMAX projection booth at AMNH.

(that'd be the America Museum of Natural History.)

I love it here.

currently we're running the same slate of films that I run during the week at my other place The Maritime Aquarium: SEA MONSTERS & WILD OCEAN.

here in New York, they're only running 'OCEAN because it was recently nominated for some kind of Academy award. I say "some kind" because it was always my understanding that the Oscars were announced in like, february for a mid-march show. but I guess that since it's a documentary, they do that sort of business earlier.

anyway, the movie certainly deserves it. congrats to those who worked on it -- it's pretty good. the images are stunning, and the music is dramatic and robust. (right now I'm looking at a swirl of fish that form a massive sphere -- it's pretty cool to see).

what's also pretty cool (*you call that writing? "pretty cool", jeeze dave... I'm just not feeling like adjective-guy right now) is how it's shot half IMAX cameras, and half underwater-HD. the transfer and color correct is pretty strong and you can only tell if you're a video pro and know where to look.

that's about it for now, gotta get back to it.

holy smokes, it's been a while!

I'm trying to get myself in order... and in so doing, thought "yeah, I should see what shape my 'blog is in."

bad idea. or good.

cause the shape it was in is NO SHAPE. I hadn't written or posted anything to it in years.

how embarrassing. I know I've written, and I know I've been writing... and thinking. and doing the whole self-referential thing that 'blogs are good for too. yet, something was preventing me from posting any of it here.

there's that feeling that in pouring your heart out (or even just your thoughts) to a 'blog that could be read by random people is... well, unsettling. that doesn't bother me.

it's the people WHO KNOW ME reading those random thoughts and then not copping to the fact that they've read them... and know them. THAT'S what bugs me.

nothing's weirder than people knowing things about you that you don't know they know.

y'know?

anyway, though I've said it, I'm gonna break myself of it. who the hell is reading this? no one. (hell not even my mom.) but there's value in doing this. and as long as this doesn't become another crazed thing I have to do, I think it'll be just fine.

also, I think for now, I'll be linking my twitter  account here, just to expand a thought or whatever that I might start out over there.

so that's that, good to see ya (to anyone reading).