DVD Talk
Raiders of the Lost Ark IMAX release in September [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Raiders of the Lost Ark IMAX release in September


stinkeye
08-14-12, 10:13 PM
LINK (http://screencrush.com/raiders-of-the-lost-ark-imax/)

Can’t get enough ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark?’ Well, you’re about to get a lot more. To help promote the upcoming release of the Indiana Jones Blu-ray Box Set, we can confirm that Paramount will be re-releasing ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ in IMAX theaters this September.

As it went through the restoration process for Blu-ray, Paramount and Steven Spielberg also worked with IMAX on reformatting ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ for 70mm. The ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ will IMAX re-release will hit theaters starting on Friday, September 7th and run through until September 13th. (The ‘Indiana Jones: The Complete Adventures’ Blu-ray box set hits shelves on September 18th.)

The IMAX re-release is expected to include both traditional IMAX and the Digital IMAX Experience (i.e., Fake IMAX). In addition to the IMAX re-release, ‘Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade’ will screen in 70mm at Austin’s Alamo Drafthouse from August 31st to September 6th.

An official press release is expected in the coming days with more information on exactly what theaters will be showing the IMAX re-release.

UPDATE: Steven Spielberg, who personally oversaw the IMAX conversion, says that no special effects or other visual elements of the film were changed and spoke to the New York Times about why he wanted to re-release ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ in IMAX and said:

It’s the only marked contrast we have to the generations that are seeing our movies on phones and hand-held platforms. It’s a complete relief to be able to see a film that many people have just experienced on a palm-sized platform technology, suddenly hurled at that them on an Imax-sized screen.

If you’re curious as to how a movie shot in 35mm gets reformatted to the 70mm IMAX format, Gizmodo has a good primer on how technicians achieve this.

We’ve seen ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ in 35mm on the big screen before but to be able to see it on the really big screen will be something no fan will want to pass up.

Roybq
08-14-12, 10:31 PM
I'm excited! I first saw "Raiders" when it first opened on a 70mm screen. I've seen it on the big screen many times since, but nothing really compared to that first experience. The last print that I saw was tinted pink due to age. It looked pretty bad but Indy did look purty.

trespoochies
08-14-12, 10:37 PM
I just hope they show this at the State Museum or The Paramount in Austin other than the Drafthouse. As much as I love the Ritz location, its a small screen that has the 70mm projector. Ill be seeing this either way.

Supermallet
08-14-12, 11:07 PM
I've seen Last Crusade in 70mm. Cannot wait to run this.

Giles
08-14-12, 11:20 PM
oh that's why Paramount/LucasFilms has been a dick lately: They didn't provide the AFI Silver the advertised 'new 35mm print' they had hoped for, and Bow Tie Reston they projected a DVD copy of the film since no DCP was given to them.

The term reformatting seems to be a misnomer - I would assume the aspect ratio isn't being changed, but retaining it's full 2.35 image, but is getting uprezzed to IMAX quality and standards - no different than when the original films were mastered for their premier 70mm theatrical engagements. Personally I'm stoked on hearing the new 5.1 remix of the film... and on an IMAX sound system - wowzers!!

is the title the original 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' or the newer 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark'? (which I hate by the way).

Why So Blu?
08-15-12, 02:40 AM
I think it's funny that all of this attention is being given to the first film while Doom and Crusade sit as extended special features to the first film. Weird.

Kal Varnsen
08-15-12, 05:19 AM
My local IMAX theater said Paramount and IMAX are indicating that it will only be available in Digital IMAX. I hope that's wrong.

Shannon Nutt
08-15-12, 02:40 PM
Also looks like Cinemark isn't being allowed to participate, as none of their theaters are listed on the IMAX site. AMC seems to be the major chain running this (and our local AMC IMAX sucks compared to our Cinemark one, so I may be skipping this).

Giles
08-15-12, 03:15 PM
AMC is also advertising all four movie as a marathon on the 15th for 25 bucks.

Dusty Bottoms
08-15-12, 04:14 PM
Also looks like Cinemark isn't being allowed to participate, as none of their theaters are listed on the IMAX site. AMC seems to be the major chain running this (and our local AMC IMAX sucks compared to our Cinemark one, so I may be skipping this).

I would check with the theater or ticketing site just to be sure. I didn't notice the Regal Opry Mills theater on the IMAX site either, but it's showing up on Fandango. I purchased my ticket for Raiders this morning.

Dr. DVD
08-15-12, 06:38 PM
Raiders is probably my favorite Action-Adventure movie and September 7th is also my birthday. Hmm....

mhg83
08-15-12, 07:06 PM
AMC is also advertising all three movie as a marathon on the 15th for 25 bucks.

fixed

Osiris3657
08-15-12, 11:41 PM
If this is shown at an IMAX near me I will be there. Love this film.

Supermallet
08-16-12, 12:37 AM
It's looking more and more like this will only be digital. What the fuck, Spielberg?

Matthew Chmiel
08-16-12, 01:11 AM
It's looking more and more like this will only be digital. What the fuck, Spielberg?
It should be more like, "What the fuck, Paramount?" Paramount has been notorious for trying to release all their IMAX films as digital-only.

However, I do agree that Spielberg has enough clout that he could dictate to release it in both 15/70 and digital IMAX a la Cameron and Titanic.

Supermallet
08-16-12, 01:46 AM
And for a much better, far more deserving film.

Matt
08-16-12, 11:08 AM
Poster:

http://i.imgur.com/X6Ah5.jpg

TGM
08-16-12, 11:10 AM
I miss young Harrison Ford. :(

B.A.
08-16-12, 11:29 AM
Yes, please.

islandclaws
08-16-12, 11:34 AM
It's looking more and more like this will only be digital. What the fuck, Spielberg?

Yep. The only IMAX showing this near me is a LIEmax. Really effing lame, as I was pretty damn excited to see this in 70mm.

devilshalo
08-16-12, 07:13 PM
So this wasn't shot for IMAX?

RagingBull80
08-16-12, 07:53 PM
I live in Oklahoma so I assume there won't be a showing here but I would love to see this on the big screen.

Giles
08-16-12, 07:59 PM
So this wasn't shot for IMAX?

uh.... no.

Matthew Chmiel
08-16-12, 08:22 PM
Yep. The only IMAX showing this near me is a LIEmax. Really effing lame, as I was pretty damn excited to see this in 70mm.
Yup. All of the theaters showing this are the digital-only ones in my area. :thmbsdwn:

Goddamn you Spielberg! I can't use MoviePass at a Regal you son of a bitch!

Giles
08-16-12, 10:57 PM
question: I could have sworn I saw a 35mm print a number of years back with the expanded title: 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark' - ?? It's possible I'm having a senior moment but I'd like someone to confirm that I'm not going totally cuckoo that Paramount DID strike some 35mm prints with said title.

Yup. All of the theaters showing this are the digital-only ones in my area. :thmbsdwn:

Goddamn you Spielberg! I can't use MoviePass at a Regal you son of a bitch!

and this is the director that didn't allow any digital DCP's of 'Crystal Skull' to be created/distributed theatrically - sign of the times I guess.

Kal Varnsen
08-17-12, 04:49 AM
I am guessing that 70mm IMAX prints are really expensive. With only a one week run, Paramount probably didn't want to spend for prints.

DonnachaOne
08-17-12, 05:13 AM
Have any 15/70 theatres announced this, and if so, do those theatres also have digital IMAX capability? It makes sense that this would be digital-only, not just because the one-week run negates the cost of creating all those IMAX 70mm prints, but also because using limited digital theatrical releases to advertise subsequent Blu-ray releases has become much more common. You just use the 4K hi-def master to create a DCP as well as the Blu-ray.

Kal Varnsen
08-17-12, 05:40 AM
Have any 15/70 theatres announced this, and if so, do those theatres also have digital IMAX capability? It makes sense that this would be digital-only, not just because the one-week run negates the cost of creating all those IMAX 70mm prints, but also because using limited digital theatrical releases to advertise subsequent Blu-ray releases has become much more common. You just use the 4K hi-def master to create a DCP as well as the Blu-ray.
My local IMAX theater can do both 70mm and digital. They said it is digital nationwide.

Giles
08-17-12, 08:28 AM
Have any 15/70 theatres announced this, and if so, do those theatres also have digital IMAX capability? It makes sense that this would be digital-only, not just because the one-week run negates the cost of creating all those IMAX 70mm prints, but also because using limited digital theatrical releases to advertise subsequent Blu-ray releases has become much more common. You just use the 4K hi-def master to create a DCP as well as the Blu-ray.

the DCP of 'Raiders' has actually been making the rounds since early last year, the marathon will be the first time the other two, ahem, three films will be released as such.

stinkeye
08-17-12, 09:06 AM
I'm going regardless, because I'll sacrifice presentation for more classic releases like this *cough* Jaws *cough*

Matt
08-17-12, 09:38 AM
I live in Oklahoma so I assume there won't be a showing here but I would love to see this on the big screen.

According to IMAX.com (http://www.imax.com/movies/m/indiana-jones-and-the-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-the-imax-experience/), it will be playing at the Warren in Moore, and AMC at Quail Springs, as well as the AMC in Tulsa. I'm a lot closer to Quail but I'll go see it at the Warren.

None of the AMCs here are doing the marathon, however.

TomOpus
09-07-12, 10:19 AM
*bump* as a reminder :)

TheGuy
09-07-12, 10:29 AM
Went to the 12:01 showing last night in NJ, there was 7 people there. Still had a great time and got a free mini poster as well.

TomOpus
09-07-12, 11:00 AM
How did the movie look?

TheGuy
09-07-12, 11:01 AM
How did the movie look?

HUGE! Filled the whole screen, very clear and clean.

Matthew Chmiel
09-07-12, 11:05 AM
HUGE! Filled the whole screen, very clear and clean.
So it was cropped or do you have a lieMAX screen that has a ratio closer to 2.1:1?

TheGuy
09-07-12, 11:09 AM
I am no IMAX expert, there was a little empty space at top and bottom of the screen, otherwise it filled the whole screen. Did not notice any cropping. Again I am no expert.

Giles
09-07-12, 12:48 PM
they cropped it to 1.78 ?? - [valley speak]"like ew"...[/valley speak]

WeylandYutani
09-07-12, 03:27 PM
Went to the 12:01 showing last night in NJ, there was 7 people there. Still had a great time and got a free mini poster as well.


Did you notice any brightness changes during the opening credits? Is Marion's final scream after she's bombarded by the skeletons in the Well of the Souls still muted? Is the glass reflection when Indy is face-to-face with the Cobra there like in the original release or is it still erased as on the DVD? When the Nazis in the jeep fly over the edge of the cliff and fall down the abyss, is it the original matte painting or the bullshit CGI touchup as on the recent television airings?

TheGuy
09-07-12, 11:37 PM
I just remember the snake reflection is gone.

lamphorn
09-08-12, 08:53 AM
Arg. Was planning on going as this is being widely reported as a 70mm presentation. Did someone at paramount just point-blank lie about this? Every news article bends over backwards to state that this is a 70mm film restoration when the IMAX site clearly states that this is a digital restoration. Also, here I am in L.A. with TWO full-size "real" IMAX theatres and it is not showing in either of them, but only in the fake little IMAX's as a digital projection. I'll probably pass. If I go to a theatre to see a classic film for $20, I expect to see a FILM. If I want to watch a "digital presentation", I have a perfectly lovely bluray player and gorgeous plasma at home.

It's hysterical that the movie business laments declining theatre attendance. The story has been that TV's are becoming more like cinema. While TV's have been getting bigger and nicer, the sad truth is that the cinema has been made more like television. It's the pictures that got small.

lamphorn
09-08-12, 09:11 AM
In addition, this will not be in 4K, but only 2K. In other words, this $20 Lie-MAX showing will be no better than the nonsense going on in the $11 theatres next door. Not gonna waste my money on this. The Egyption or the Aero in L.A. are always good about showing movies in actual 70mm when possible so I'll wait for a screening there.

You can read about the cynical cheapiness of this release here- http://badassdigest.com/2012/09/07/should-you-go-see-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-imax/

Matthew Chmiel
09-08-12, 10:09 AM
In addition, this will not be in 4K, but only 2K.
Yes. Digital IMAX consists of two 2K projectors.

When laser IMAX starts rolling out in the next year or two, all of those digital projectors will be upgraded to two 4K projectors.

lamphorn
09-08-12, 10:24 AM
Believe me, I understand the desire to see this (and other great movies) on the big screen again. I've seen Raiders on the big screen and it's great. But I'm saddened by the acceptance of corporate cheapskating when it comes to arguably the greatest American art form. Just 10 years ago, the majority of theatres were still showing film. Now they're showing HDTV instead. Not because it's better (it's not), but because it's cheaper. And they're not charging less for this reduction in quality, but MORE. Why are we okay with this? I love my blurays, but they are essentially a well-done approximation of the original work. Theatres should charge a DISCOUNT, not a premium, for a glorified bluray screening.

The best comparison I can make is if a museum advertised a showing of the Mona Lisa and when you arrive, it's a framed photograph of the painting, not the actual painting. It may be a very well-done photograph of the painting, and the frame may have been carefully modeled after the original, but it is not the painting.

Strevlac
09-08-12, 11:23 AM
Believe me, I understand the desire to see this (and other great movies) on the big screen again. I've seen Raiders on the big screen and it's great. But I'm saddened by the acceptance of corporate cheapskating when it comes to arguably the greatest American art form. Just 10 years ago, the majority of theatres were still showing film. Now they're showing HDTV instead. Not because it's better (it's not), but because it's cheaper. And they're not charging less for this reduction in quality, but MORE. Why are we okay with this? I love my blurays, but they are essentially a well-done approximation of the original work. Theatres should charge a DISCOUNT, not a premium, for a glorified bluray screening.

The best comparison I can make is if a museum advertised a showing of the Mona Lisa and when you arrive, it's a framed photograph of the painting, not the actual painting. It may be a very well-done photograph of the painting, and the frame may have been carefully modeled after the original, but it is not the painting.

I'm right there with you. The problem is, almost no one cares. 99.9% of people out there don't even know what film is, or that there is actually a projector up there in the booth with reels of film running through it. They just want to see a movie on the screen. I'm afraid the economics of film have doomed it to extinction for the general public.

That said, digital projection, even at 2K, has gotten really good. Colorspace and compression levels are much, much better than the HDTV signals you watch at home. I saw Raiders last night and even on the gigantic imax screen it looked very respectable. In terms of absolute detail it probably rivaled a 70mm blow-up. There are problems that still need to be ironed out...fine details still reveal the pixel grid and the fact that these are digital transfers of films means that the people making the masters tend to unnecessarily do a lot of digital tweaking to make the transfer look "better."

If the mastering technicians would lay of the digital tweaks and the resolution issue could be sorted out to get rid of the visible pixels I'd be very happy with digital projection.

Giles
09-08-12, 11:57 AM
Arg. Was planning on going as this is being widely reported as a 70mm presentation. Did someone at paramount just point-blank lie about this? Every news article bends over backwards to state that this is a 70mm film restoration when the IMAX site clearly states that this is a digital restoration. Also, here I am in L.A. with TWO full-size "real" IMAX theatres and it is not showing in either of them, but only in the fake little IMAX's as a digital projection. I'll probably pass. If I go to a theatre to see a classic film for $20, I expect to see a FILM. If I want to watch a "digital presentation", I have a perfectly lovely bluray player and gorgeous plasma at home.

It's hysterical that the movie business laments declining theatre attendance. The story has been that TV's are becoming more like cinema. While TV's have been getting bigger and nicer, the sad truth is that the cinema has been made more like television. It's the pictures that got small.

it was never a 70mm restoration - it's been known for quite some time as a 4K 35mm restoration/transfer - it was shot in 35mm in the first place.

aside from Sony 4K projector's - most projector's are 2K, until DLP starts aggressively releasing/advertising 4K actual projection it's all rather vague if we are really seeing the full potential of 4K imagery

Osiris3657
09-08-12, 02:29 PM
Well I just got back from a screening, and I was also disappointed that it was being shown in a "little" IMAX, not a full, 100ft screen IMAX theater (didn't realize it would be a small one as I've never been to the theater I went to). Fortunately the ticket was only $10

That being said the picture looked great and it was an awesome experience seeing this on a big screen. This is one of the greatest adventure films of all time. Perfect!

WeylandYutani
09-08-12, 03:25 PM
I just remember the snake reflection is gone.


Well, that is one alteration I can actually live with.

WeylandYutani
09-08-12, 03:26 PM
That being said the picture looked great and it was an awesome experience seeing this on a big screen. This is one of the greatest adventure films of all time. Perfect!


One of ? Name a better one. You can't.

lamphorn
09-08-12, 08:03 PM
it was never a 70mm restoration...

It was widely reported as a 70mm release for the past month. The only place to find out that it's not is on the official IMAX site. I wonder how that happened. Did all of the reporters get it wrong, or were they all lied to?

Solid Snake
09-08-12, 08:08 PM
One of ? Name a better one. You can't.

I don't think you understood the statement. *bites lip*

ken_572002
09-08-12, 08:38 PM
Any idea if this engagement will last longer than 1 week? I'd like to try and see this next weekend, if possible.

Giles
09-08-12, 10:16 PM
I doubt it, Sony is really pushing the new Resident Evil movie and it's IMAX-3D engagement.

wm lopez
09-09-12, 02:45 PM
It should be more like, "What the fuck, Paramount?" Paramount has been notorious for trying to release all their IMAX films as digital-only.

However, I do agree that Spielberg has enough clout that he could dictate to release it in both 15/70 and digital IMAX a la Cameron and Titanic.

What is wrong with digital?

DonnachaOne
09-09-12, 03:16 PM
Did all of the reporters get it wrong, or were they all lied to?All the reporters got it wrong, copying other site's stories or assuming things about theatres that have both 15/70 and digital setups. There's never been a press release from IMAX indicating a 15/70 release - at least, none that I could find when I asked about this a couple of weeks ago.

DonnachaOne
09-09-12, 03:19 PM
So it was cropped or do you have a lieMAX screen that has a ratio closer to 2.1:1?

It has black bars on the top and bottom. It's not cropped.

B.A.
09-09-12, 08:30 PM
All the reporters got it wrong, copying other site's stories or assuming things about theatres that have both 15/70 and digital setups. There's never been a press release from IMAX indicating a 15/70 release - at least, none that I could find when I asked about this a couple of weeks ago.It says on the site that it only runs from the 7th to the 13th.

http://www.imax.com/movies/m/indiana-jones-and-the-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-the-imax-experience/

Roybq
09-09-12, 08:51 PM
Saw this earlier today and it was just as great as it's always been. There were some weird blurry parts in the picture at times, but the soundtrack was incredible in IMAX. The showing that I went to had around 100+ people in it and many clapped at the end. I first saw this when I was a teenager and I felt like I had been transported back to that time during the showing.

I wonder how well this would've done this weekend if they had added non-IMAX screens and increased the number of screens. It had a pretty high screen average for a movie 30+ years old. Looking forward to the Blu ray later this month. My theater also had a couple of posters left, so I snagged one. That was a nice bonus because I figured I missed out by waiting until today.

mhg83
09-09-12, 08:59 PM
Saw this earlier today and it was just as great as it's always been. There were some weird blurry parts in the picture at times, but the soundtrack was incredible in IMAX.

It was blurry at my theater as well.

Matthew Chmiel
09-09-12, 09:14 PM
What is wrong with digital?

Blu-ray: 1920 x 1080 pixel resolution.
2K Digital Cinema: 1998 × 1080 pixel resolution.
4K Digital Cinema: 3996 × 2160 pixel resolution.

You can't put a pixel count on film. However, doing the math, a 35mm print would have a resolution slightly higher than 4K Digital Cinema. However, IMAX's current digital setup is that of dual 2K Digital Cinema projectors. At the end of the day, a digital IMAX setup maxes out at that 1998 × 1080 pixel count.

Raiders of the Lost Ark received a 4K remaster, however the IMAX release is that of 2K DCP. Yes, it's still superior to a Blu-ray release as there's less compression due to the codecs involved. The problem is this is a film originally shot on 35mm. This is a film that has 70mm prints in existence. Paramount could've taken the time and made a 15/70mm print based upon that new 4K remaster and that would've looked far superior to that of a 2K DCP. All this re-release is a gimmick into promoting the Blu-ray release next week. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but a ticket shouldn't cost $17.

B.A.
09-09-12, 09:38 PM
My dad and I are going to catch a show tomorrow night. Really looking forward to it.

story
09-09-12, 10:23 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with some of the laments regarding the digital over film nature of the presentation in this thread.

However.

I've never seen this on the big screen and my buddy and I are going tomorrow night. This is my favorite film and I am so excited!

jeffkjoe
09-10-12, 12:36 AM
Saw it with my son.



You can clearly see the fly entering Belloq's mouth.

DonnachaOne
09-10-12, 12:45 AM
It says on the site that it only runs from the 7th to the 13th.

http://www.imax.com/movies/m/indiana-jones-and-the-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-the-imax-experience/
That's never been in dispute. The point is that IMAX never claimed it was running 15-perf 70mm film prints.

Rypro 525
09-10-12, 01:05 AM
Saw it with my son.



You can clearly see the fly entering Belloq's mouth.

i also noticed too that the guy flying the plane "hey thats my pet reggie" had on a modern day New York Yankees hat on. oops

wm lopez
09-10-12, 07:51 AM
Blu-ray: 1920 x 1080 pixel resolution.
2K Digital Cinema: 1998 × 1080 pixel resolution.
4K Digital Cinema: 3996 × 2160 pixel resolution.

You can't put a pixel count on film. However, doing the math, a 35mm print would have a resolution slightly higher than 4K Digital Cinema. However, IMAX's current digital setup is that of dual 2K Digital Cinema projectors. At the end of the day, a digital IMAX setup maxes out at that 1998 × 1080 pixel count.

Raiders of the Lost Ark received a 4K remaster, however the IMAX release is that of 2K DCP. Yes, it's still superior to a Blu-ray release as there's less compression due to the codecs involved. The problem is this is a film originally shot on 35mm. This is a film that has 70mm prints in existence. Paramount could've taken the time and made a 15/70mm print based upon that new 4K remaster and that would've looked far superior to that of a 2K DCP. All this re-release is a gimmick into promoting the Blu-ray release next week. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but a ticket shouldn't cost $17.

Is this going to give the movie that greenish, teal look also?

B.A.
09-10-12, 07:54 AM
That's never been in dispute. The point is that IMAX never claimed it was running 15-perf 70mm film prints.That's what I get for not reading the entire conversation. :D

Giles
09-10-12, 01:29 PM
It was blurry at my theater as well.

I counted around six times where the image was blurry.

- the spider scene
- Marion walking down the stairs before meeting Sallah
- Indy and Marion standing to the left of Sallah, as he introducing them to the boat's captian
- Marion and Indy standing walking down the stairs at the Government building, following the shot of the Washington Monument
- The shot of the seaplane
- the nazi's and the jeep falling down into the chasm.


most of the time, the close up shots were sharp, but a lot of mid and long shots were problematic. This was a 4K remaster? - really? pathetic.

what is IMAX quality control email address that is usually at the end of the end credits - I'm going to give them my overall impression of 'Raiders'.

the 5.0 IMAX soundmix though was incredible.

bunkaroo
09-10-12, 01:54 PM
Going tomorrow to see this. I expect it will be the best movie I've seen in a theater all year.

Matthew Chmiel
09-10-12, 02:59 PM
what is IMAX quality control email address that is usually at the end of the end credits - I'm going to give them my overall impression of 'Raiders'.

the 5.0 IMAX soundmix though was incredible.
http://www.imax.com/corporate/contact-us/

TomOpus
09-10-12, 07:31 PM
Yep, I saw the blurry parts too. Very odd considering other parts of the movie looked great. As others said, the sound was pretty damn good.

Even with the inconsistent picture, it was still great seeing Indy on the big screen. Simply great movie-making.

Strevlac
09-10-12, 07:43 PM
This movie wasn't shot with digital cameras, guys. It was shot on 35mm film with anamorphic lenses, all special effects were optically printed, and it was shot very quickly. Yes there are minor focus issues with certain scenes, just like with thousands of other films. You guys do know what a focus puller is, right? The guy that sits there by the camera and manually focuses shots? Well, sometimes they don't get it 100% perfect 100% of the time, especially on anamorphic productions.

That shot of the seaplane is an optical composite of a matte painting. That shot of the washigton monument is stock footage from another production. The shots with the spiders and Alfred Molina have always been fucked up because of an on-set camera issue.

And that's Raiders. Quick and dirty and great. None of the issues (aside from maybe color timing) have anything to do with the 4K scan or IMAX. Complaining about these things is what gets us shit transfers like the Patton, Longest Day, and Predator blurays.

B.A.
09-10-12, 09:46 PM
Yep, I saw the blurry parts too. Very odd considering other parts of the movie looked great. As others said, the sound was pretty damn good.

Even with the inconsistent picture, it was still great seeing Indy on the big screen. Simply great movie-making.++++

Loved hearing Williams' score on the IMAX sound system.

The flick still flies by after all these years.

My dad had a smile on his face throughout the movie. As did I.

I forgot how young Karen Allen looked.

whotony
09-10-12, 09:47 PM
My dad and I are going to catch a shower tomorrow night. Really looking forward to it.

What? -eek-
I counted around six times where the image was blurry.

- the spider scene
- Marion walking down the stairs before meeting Sallah
- Indy and Marion standing to the left of Sallah, as he introducing them to the boat's captian
- Marion and Indy standing walking down the stairs at the Government building, following the shot of the Washington Monument
- The shot of the seaplane
- the nazi's and the jeep falling down into the chasm.


most of the time, the close up shots were sharp, but a lot of mid and long shots were problematic. This was a 4K remaster? - really? pathetic.

what is IMAX quality control email address that is usually at the end of the end credits - I'm going to give them my overall impression of 'Raiders'.

the 5.0 IMAX soundmix though was incredible.

This movie wasn't shot with digital cameras, guys. It was shot on 35mm film with anamorphic lenses, all special effects were optically printed, and it was shot very quickly. Yes there are minor focus issues with certain scenes, just like with thousands of other films. You guys do know what a focus puller is, right? The guy that sits there by the camera and manually focuses shots? Well, sometimes they don't get it 100% perfect 100% of the time, especially on anamorphic productions.

That shot of the seaplane is an optical composite of a matte painting. That shot of the washigton monument is stock footage from another production. The shots with the spiders and Alfred Molina have always been fucked up because of an on-set camera issue.

And that's Raiders. Quick and dirty and great. None of the issues (aside from maybe color timing) have anything to do with the 4K scan or IMAX. Complaining about these things is what gets us shit transfers like the Patton, Longest Day, and Predator blurays.
I noticed all of those problems too and as Strevlac said and other sites have also mentioned that too.

Giles
09-10-12, 09:50 PM
This movie wasn't shot with digital cameras, guys. It was shot on 35mm film with anamorphic lenses, all special effects were optically printed, and it was shot very quickly. Yes there are minor focus issues with certain scenes, just like with thousands of other films. You guys do know what a focus puller is, right? The guy that sits there by the camera and manually focuses shots? Well, sometimes they don't get it 100% perfect 100% of the time, especially on anamorphic productions.

That shot of the seaplane is an optical composite of a matte painting. That shot of the washigton monument is stock footage from another production. The shots with the spiders and Alfred Molina have always been fucked up because of an on-set camera issue.

And that's Raiders. Quick and dirty and great. None of the issues (aside from maybe color timing) have anything to do with the 4K scan or IMAX. Complaining about these things is what gets us shit transfers like the Patton, Longest Day, and Predator blurays.

I don't believe that for a second, I've seen Raiders countless times, on DVD, 70mm, 35mm, broadcast - the anomalies have never been this obvious, maybe 1080 digital just accentuates these flaws, cause what I saw today looked like a botch transfer job.

TomOpus
09-10-12, 10:18 PM
This movie wasn't shot with digital cameras, guys. It was shot on 35mm film with anamorphic lenses, all special effects were optically printed, and it was shot very quickly. Yes there are minor focus issues with certain scenes, just like with thousands of other films. You guys do know what a focus puller is, right? The guy that sits there by the camera and manually focuses shots? Well, sometimes they don't get it 100% perfect 100% of the time, especially on anamorphic productions.

That shot of the seaplane is an optical composite of a matte painting. That shot of the washigton monument is stock footage from another production. The shots with the spiders and Alfred Molina have always been fucked up because of an on-set camera issue.

And that's Raiders. Quick and dirty and great. None of the issues (aside from maybe color timing) have anything to do with the 4K scan or IMAX. Complaining about these things is what gets us shit transfers like the Patton, Longest Day, and Predator blurays.

Have you seen this IMAX presentation?

Supermallet
09-10-12, 10:25 PM
I don't believe that for a second, I've seen Raiders countless times, on DVD, 70mm, 35mm, broadcast - the anomalies have never been this obvious, maybe 1080 digital just accentuates these flaws, cause what I saw today looked like a botch transfer job.

Digital IMAX isn't 1080, it's two 2k projectors.

Strevlac
09-10-12, 10:26 PM
I don't believe that for a second, I've seen Raiders countless times, on DVD, 70mm, 35mm, broadcast - the anomalies have never been this obvious, maybe 1080 digital just accentuates these flaws, cause what I saw today looked like a botch transfer job.

Then you are severely misremembering. I've seen Raiders countless times too. In 35mm and 70mm blowups. Public showings and private prints. Dozens of times. The characteristics of the photography are all the same. As they should be because that's how the film was shot. Crazy gate weave in a few shots surroung the tarantula bit, soft opticals, grainy blacks in underlit scenes, stock footage and all.

Have you seen this IMAX presentation?

Yep. The only issues I had were some of the color timing and the sound was way too damn loud.

lamphorn
09-11-12, 06:22 AM
This movie wasn't shot with digital cameras, guys. It was shot on 35mm film with anamorphic lenses, all special effects were optically printed, and it was shot very quickly. Yes there are minor focus issues with certain scenes, just like with thousands of other films. You guys do know what a focus puller is, right? The guy that sits there by the camera and manually focuses shots? Well, sometimes they don't get it 100% perfect 100% of the time, especially on anamorphic productions.

That shot of the seaplane is an optical composite of a matte painting. That shot of the washigton monument is stock footage from another production. The shots with the spiders and Alfred Molina have always been fucked up because of an on-set camera issue.

And that's Raiders. Quick and dirty and great. None of the issues (aside from maybe color timing) have anything to do with the 4K scan or IMAX. Complaining about these things is what gets us shit transfers like the Patton, Longest Day, and Predator blurays.

I disagree strongly. I went and saw it last night out of curiosity (plus a friend wanted to go). And look, I enjoyed it. It's a great movie! If you gotta see it in the big screen, by all means go! I may even be back for the marathon just because I've never seen Temple of Doom on a big screen. A great movie can be enjoyed even when it's not presented well... but the issue is hyping this as an "upgrade" of some sort when it's of lower quality than a scratchy 35mm print would be. And parts of it did look good, but it was overall not a good transfer.

If the film at times had focus flaws, that's one thing. If transferring that flaw to video means you're gonna get a weird doubling spaz-out pixelation effect, well then they either need to reexamine transfer methods or, better yet, or reserve digital downrezzing of classic movies for home video and use 35mm for re-releases. Or at minimum, it's time to dump 2K right away.

The sound was awesome. The picture, not so much. Aside from the already mentioned haze of digital mud that crept in at times, there was the embarrassingly bad moments of total digital spaz when the whole image would pixelate into a weird double-image. Totally unprofessional. I wonder who sat through that presentation and decided it was ready to be released much less hyped as an upgrade? I saw 4K showings of Barry Lyndon and The Shining, and they had pristine quality... I grudgingly admit that to make the point that it's possible to not have wacky digital splattercrap when transferring film to video. I'm not really sure I follow your argument that complaining about crappy transfers will bring us more crappy transfers.

Strevlac
09-11-12, 09:23 AM
I disagree strongly. I went and saw it last night out of curiosity (plus a friend wanted to go). And look, I enjoyed it. It's a great movie! If you gotta see it in the big screen, by all means go! I may even be back for the marathon just because I've never seen Temple of Doom on a big screen. A great movie can be enjoyed even when it's not presented well... but the issue is hyping this as an "upgrade" of some sort when it's of lower quality than a scratchy 35mm print would be. And parts of it did look good, but it was overall not a good transfer.

If the film at times had focus flaws, that's one thing. If transferring that flaw to video means you're gonna get a weird doubling spaz-out pixelation effect, well then they either need to reexamine transfer methods or, better yet, or reserve digital downrezzing of classic movies for home video and use 35mm for re-releases. Or at minimum, it's time to dump 2K right away.

The sound was awesome. The picture, not so much. Aside from the already mentioned haze of digital mud that crept in at times, there was the embarrassingly bad moments of total digital spaz when the whole image would pixelate into a weird double-image. Totally unprofessional. I wonder who sat through that presentation and decided it was ready to be released much less hyped as an upgrade? I saw 4K showings of Barry Lyndon and The Shining, and they had pristine quality... I grudgingly admit that to make the point that it's possible to not have wacky digital splattercrap when transferring film to video. I'm not really sure I follow your argument that complaining about crappy transfers will bring us more crappy transfers.

Barry Lyndon and The Shining are not Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Surely I'm not the only one here who understands this. Those two films had no optical special effects (that I'm aware of) and were meticulously shot over rediculously long production schedules. If the dailies came back and a particular shot wasn't focused exactly how Kubrick wanted it to be, then they would re-shoot the thing, 100 times if that's what it took. Not so with Raiders.

It sounds like your main complaint is with the bit with Alfred Molina and the spiders, and a bit of the shots directly before/after. Am I correct? If so I grant you that the digital scan made that shot look a bit stranger than it looked on film. But not by much and it still was there on film and the shots lasted a total of maybe 6 or 7 seconds.

Otherwise, I don't know what digital mud you are referring to. The only evidence of digital projection I saw were the expected pixels from the 2K projectors. Obviously those are there. Do you agree that the shot of the seaplane and the insert of the Washington Monument looked like they always have?

Matthew Chmiel
09-11-12, 09:33 AM
Digital IMAX isn't 1080, it's two 2k projectors.
Two 2K projectors don't double a pixel count.

Strevlac
09-11-12, 10:20 AM
Two 2K projectors don't double a pixel count.

I could be wrong but I think Supermallet's point was that 2K is not the same as 1080. It's not much different I concede but it is slightly higher resolution

Giles
09-11-12, 04:58 PM
I disagree strongly. I went and saw it last night out of curiosity (plus a friend wanted to go). And look, I enjoyed it. It's a great movie! If you gotta see it in the big screen, by all means go! I may even be back for the marathon just because I've never seen Temple of Doom on a big screen. A great movie can be enjoyed even when it's not presented well... but the issue is hyping this as an "upgrade" of some sort when it's of lower quality than a scratchy 35mm print would be. And parts of it did look good, but it was overall not a good transfer.

If the film at times had focus flaws, that's one thing. If transferring that flaw to video means you're gonna get a weird doubling spaz-out pixelation effect, well then they either need to reexamine transfer methods or, better yet, or reserve digital downrezzing of classic movies for home video and use 35mm for re-releases. Or at minimum, it's time to dump 2K right away.

The sound was awesome. The picture, not so much. Aside from the already mentioned haze of digital mud that crept in at times, there was the embarrassingly bad moments of total digital spaz when the whole image would pixelate into a weird double-image. Totally unprofessional. I wonder who sat through that presentation and decided it was ready to be released much less hyped as an upgrade? I saw 4K showings of Barry Lyndon and The Shining, and they had pristine quality... I grudgingly admit that to make the point that it's possible to not have wacky digital splattercrap when transferring film to video. I'm not really sure I follow your argument that complaining about crappy transfers will bring us more crappy transfers.

the remastering of Raiders was 4K, not 2K, how and why I saw all these warts and flaws in IMAX-Digital is just utterly wonky.

now my interest is piqued in seeing the four movies on Saturday to see if the DCP has the same problems, because when projected on a rather large IMAX-Digital screen - the flaws looked ten times worse. It's just surprising that noted cinematographer Douglas Slocombe and Spielberg filmed 'Raiders', in such 'guerrilla' filmmaking style, that the 'out of focus' moments (that I noticed) were considered okay and acceptable - in the digital realm it just amplified them.

The seaplane shot on the bluray looks more acceptable than what I saw on the IMAX-Digital screen.

likewise, according to member of the blu-ray.com - there's slight shimmering of the tarantulas on the bluray, but not the severe double imaging of Molina as I had seen.


as for the logic of "complaining about crappy transfers will bring us more crappy transfers" is just silly - Fox got DNR happy with some it's titles, not by public pressure, but by decisions made by folks who did the transfer - thankfully, due to public disgust, Fox is actually rectifying the Patton bluray by doing a new transfer. Suck it up to Fox for actually listening to the public (for once) for a right reason, and correcting a problem that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Strevlac
09-11-12, 06:57 PM
the remastering of Raiders was 4K, not 2K, how and why I saw all these warts and flaws in IMAX-Digital is just utterly wonky.

now my interest is piqued in seeing the four movies on Saturday to see if the DCP has the same problems, because when projected on a rather large IMAX-Digital screen - the flaws looked ten times worse. It's just surprising that noted cinematographer Douglas Slocombe and Spielberg filmed 'Raiders', in such 'guerrilla' filmmaking style, that the 'out of focus' moments (that I noticed) were considered okay and acceptable - in the digital realm it just amplified them.

The seaplane shot on the bluray looks more acceptable than what I saw on the IMAX-Digital screen.

likewise, according to member of the blu-ray.com - there's slight shimmering of the tarantulas on the bluray, but not the severe double imaging of Molina as I had seen.


as for the logic of "complaining about crappy transfers will bring us more crappy transfers" is just silly - Fox got DNR happy with some it's titles, not by public pressure, but by decisions made by folks who did the transfer - thankfully, due to public disgust, Fox is actually rectifying the Patton bluray by doing a new transfer. Suck it up to Fox for actually listening to the public (for once) for a right reason, and correcting a problem that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

It's hard to believe you guys don't get this, but it's not complaining about crappy transfers that will bring us more crappy transfers. It's complaining about perfectly fine transfers due to some percieved flaws that exist ON THE FILM that will bring us more crappy transfers. Why do you think those mastering houses slathered those titles in DNR? Because they figured if they just mastered the film warts and all there would be complaints, just like the complaints in this thread!

Fuckin a', one would think you guys have never seen a pre-digital anamorphic special effects film projected on a giant ass screen before. They don't all look like Lawrence of Fuckin' Arabia.

Supermallet
09-11-12, 07:11 PM
I could be wrong but I think Supermallet's point was that 2K is not the same as 1080. It's not much different I concede but it is slightly higher resolution

Correct.

Also, I spoke to a friend who got the Indy Blu-rays early, and he says Raiders looks significantly better on Blu-ray than it did in IMAX, comparing it to the Jaws Blu-ray transfer.

CharlieK
09-11-12, 07:11 PM
If I could talk about pubic hair for a moment, I had never noticed Marion's huge bush under that silky number she wears on the deck of the ship. For a second I thought she was wearing a cup. That was one of the bigger revelations I saw with this new presentation.

Strevlac
09-11-12, 07:16 PM
Correct.

Also, I spoke to a friend who got the Indy Blu-rays early, and he says Raiders looks significantly better on Blu-ray than it did in IMAX, comparing it to the Jaws Blu-ray transfer.

I doubt it's a case of the bluray itself looking better. Probably has more to do with the fact that he isn't projecting the bluray on a giant imax screen.

Supermallet
09-11-12, 07:35 PM
It's possible. IMAX does put all their released films through a "remastering" process to make it look good on a large screen, so it could have been a rush job for Raiders and the Blu-ray actually does look better.

Giles
09-11-12, 09:14 PM
It's hard to believe you guys don't get this, but it's not complaining about crappy transfers that will bring us more crappy transfers. It's complaining about perfectly fine transfers due to some percieved flaws that exist ON THE FILM that will bring us more crappy transfers. Why do you think those mastering houses slathered those titles in DNR? Because they figured if they just mastered the film warts and all there would be complaints, just like the complaints in this thread!

Fuckin a', one would think you guys have never seen a pre-digital anamorphic special effects film projected on a giant ass screen before. They don't all look like Lawrence of Fuckin' Arabia.

but they should ;) :D

It's possible. IMAX does put all their released films through a "remastering" process to make it look good on a large screen, so it could have been a rush job for Raiders and the Blu-ray actually does look better.

and that's what I believe as well.

filmerp
09-14-12, 02:06 AM
This movie wasn't shot with digital cameras, guys. It was shot on 35mm film with anamorphic lenses, all special effects were optically printed, and it was shot very quickly. Yes there are minor focus issues with certain scenes, just like with thousands of other films. You guys do know what a focus puller is, right? The guy that sits there by the camera and manually focuses shots? Well, sometimes they don't get it 100% perfect 100% of the time, especially on anamorphic productions.


The blurry shots did not look like missed focus, but rather more like motion blur, as if the shots have been stabilized in post. I can't imagine these shots would need stabilization, so I'd guess there was some type of artifacting introduced in the digital sharpening process for IMAX. Even during the opening title cards, I noticed some slight vertical "tearing" of the image when quick motion (like a hand) moved behind the superimposed letters.

Spiderbite
09-14-12, 08:04 AM
If I could talk about pubic hair for a moment,

We always have time to talk about pubic hair on this forum.

Giles
09-14-12, 09:49 AM
The blurry shots did not look like missed focus, but rather more like motion blur, as if the shots have been stabilized in post. I can't imagine these shots would need stabilization, so I'd guess there was some type of artifacting introduced in the digital sharpening process for IMAX. Even during the opening title cards, I noticed some slight vertical "tearing" of the image when quick motion (like a hand) moved behind the superimposed letters.

that's what I've been hinting at

We always have time to talk about pubic hair on this forum.

:lol: see the 'Titanic' threads.

Giles
09-14-12, 10:05 AM
oh and this week select theaters have shifted their IMAX screenings to standard DCP screenings of 'Raiders'

lamphorn
09-14-12, 07:18 PM
:lol: see the 'Titanic' threads.

Flings the door open and runs down the hall towards the Titanic threads to see what sort of pubic greatness is there to be discovered.

grip
09-16-12, 10:58 AM
Went to the marathon yesterday and had a great time. First time for my son on the big screen for the first three movies. While he has seen these movies off of DVD many times, he commented about how much more detail there he could see and all of the errors made.

The first three movies were soooo enjoyable and fun. The pixilation and matte backgrounds didn't take us out of that experience. Raiders is by far the best of them. But each movie seemed to fly by, 2 hours was over before we knew it.

BTW we stayed for all four and the last one was still fun so there....

(One thing I didn't point out was Karen Allens very obvious...um curvatures. Ah 1981)

WeylandYutani
09-17-12, 01:02 PM
Went to the marathon yesterday and had a great time. First time for my son on the big screen for the first three movies. While he has seen these movies off of DVD many times, he commented about how much more detail there he could see and all of the errors made.

The first three movies were soooo enjoyable and fun. The pixilation and matte backgrounds didn't take us out of that experience. Raiders is by far the best of them. But each movie seemed to fly by, 2 hours was over before we knew it.

BTW we stayed for all four and the last one was still fun so there....

(One thing I didn't point out was Karen Allens very obvious...um curvatures. Ah 1981)


Saw it this past Saturday in DCP format. There were a lot of parents at my showing who brought their little ones who were most likely seeing it for the first time. It was funny because you could tell that a few of them had forgotten just how violent the film gets at times(like when Marion's cockpit gets painted by that German guy's blood after being hit by the propellor), and quite a few had to comfort and console their kiddies during certain scenes, especially the Ark opening scene. It was fun.

arminius
09-17-12, 01:44 PM
Saw it this past Saturday in DCP format. There were a lot of parents at my showing who brought their little ones who were most likely seeing it for the first time. It was funny because you could tell that a few of them had forgotten just how violent the film gets at times(like when Marion's cockpit gets painted by that German guy's blood after being hit by the propellor), and quite a few had to comfort and console their kiddies during certain scenes, especially the Ark opening scene. It was fun.

I remember when my wife and I went to see Watership Down. There were quite a few parents there who were under the impression this was a kids film. The screaming and running for the exits was pretty funny.

Supermallet
09-17-12, 02:15 PM
The only consoling you need to do after the ark sequence is "Shut up or they'll get you, too!"

WeylandYutani
09-17-12, 02:18 PM
The only consoling you need to do after the ark sequence is "Shut up or they'll get you, too!"

:lol:

bunkaroo
09-17-12, 02:18 PM
oh and this week select theaters have shifted their IMAX screenings to standard DCP screenings of 'Raiders'

Wish I would have known that was going to happen - would have preferred to set it that way.

Giles
09-18-12, 10:47 PM
I counted around six times where the image was blurry.

- the spider scene
- Marion walking down the stairs before meeting Sallah
- Indy and Marion standing to the left of Sallah, as he introducing them to the boat's captian
- Marion and Indy standing walking down the stairs at the Government building, following the shot of the Washington Monument
- The shot of the seaplane
- the nazi's and the jeep falling down into the chasm.


most of the time, the close up shots were sharp, but a lot of mid and long shots were problematic. This was a 4K remaster? - really? pathetic.

what is IMAX quality control email address that is usually at the end of the end credits - I'm going to give them my overall impression of 'Raiders'.

the 5.0 IMAX soundmix though was incredible.

so taking a look see at these scenes/shots on the bluray just now, they weren't out of the focus at all (very minoring shimmering of the tarantulas, but not Molina going double imaged). Thank god the the bluray is superior to the flawed IMAX-D presentation I witnessed. .

TomOpus
09-19-12, 11:19 PM
Curious as to what the people that claimed the movie always was blurry in the places mentioned think about the Blu-ray. Maybe they re-filmed those scenes so they were in-focus? ;)

Giles
09-20-12, 08:48 AM
Curious as to what the people that claimed the movie always was blurry in the places mentioned think about the Blu-ray. Maybe they re-filmed those scenes so they were in-focus? ;)

I'm assume during the 4K scan they manually fixed each problem on each frame where the out of focus occurred - why this flaw was present on the IMAX-D harddrive disc is very odd, it should have mirrored what the bluray looks like.

Strevlac
09-20-12, 02:14 PM
Curious as to what the people that claimed the movie always was blurry in the places mentioned think about the Blu-ray. Maybe they re-filmed those scenes so they were in-focus? ;)

Could it be the fact that you notice things on a 90 foot screen that are not as apparent on a 40 inch TV set?

WeylandYutani
09-20-12, 02:17 PM
Could it be the fact that you notice things on a 90 foot screen that are not as apparent on a 40 inch TV set?

:lol:

Supermallet
09-20-12, 04:47 PM
Could it be the fact that you notice things on a 90 foot screen that are not as apparent on a 40 inch TV set?

I'm not sure why you're so quick to disregard the fact that IMAX does additional processing that would not be present on the Blu-ray.

Strevlac
09-20-12, 05:51 PM
I'm not sure why you're so quick to disregard the fact that IMAX does additional processing that would not be present on the Blu-ray.

Because I think it's BS that whatever alleged processing is going on is the cause of the "vibrating" picture in these very short scenes or the focus pulling issues at various times throughout the film....scenes that have had these same anomolies ever since I saw it in 1981, and the dozens of times since then.

Supermallet
09-20-12, 05:52 PM
Alright, so let's get scientific about it. Someone pull up screencaps or clips of those scenes on DVD and then the same scenes on the Blu-ray.

Strevlac
09-20-12, 06:05 PM
Alright, so let's get scientific about it. Someone pull up screencaps or clips of those scenes on DVD and then the same scenes on the Blu-ray.

Yes, that would be interesting to see. Although I've got a feeling that any caps pulled from the DVD are going to look like crap in comparison to the BD anyway, and possibly not highly resolved enough to differentiate focusing issues.

Supermallet
09-20-12, 06:10 PM
Alright, let's scan some 70mm frames and compare against Blu-ray screen caps. :)

Strevlac
09-20-12, 06:15 PM
Alright, let's scan some 70mm frames and compare against Blu-ray screen caps. :)

Anything is possible on the internets. Although I would prefer 35mm as that is of course the native filming format. So...whoever has those handy, get to work!

Strevlac
09-20-12, 06:31 PM
OK I just watched the spider scene on my projection system and the vibrating effect is absolutely, 100% there on the BD (as expected), just like in the IMAX screening, just like in the 35-40 some odd times I've seen this on film, either 35mm or 70mm.

I'll take a look at some of the other scenes people are complaining about later tonight when I have more time.