[SOT] Movies

In article ,
lid says...
OM wrote:
While not a pure-Soviet film, the 3-D IMAX Space Station movie ...
That 60fps really makes a difference,
kids.
Bwah? I thought 3D IMAX was 2x24fps (eg, one strip at 48fps,
alternating between left and right eye).

That's correct. The visual impact comes from:
(1) The subject -- being close to the launch of a Soyuz is something
else.

(b) The huge IMAX format (an order of magnitude more visual information
than 35mm)

(iii) A fully debugged 3D presentation.


Doug Trumbull's "Showscan" is
the (only?) 60fps format I'm aware of.

True, but there have been a few other processes with an increased frame
rate. Heck, even the half-century old Cinerama used 26 fps.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier

In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
(1) The subject -- being close to the launch of a Soyuz is something
else.

It really is a sin and a shame that IMAX didn't exist quite early enough
to film a Saturn V launch...
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article , says...
In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
(1) The subject -- being close to the launch of a Soyuz is something
else.

It really is a sin and a shame that IMAX didn't exist quite early enough
to film a Saturn V launch...

Ayuh...

Except that IMAX was founded in 1967. The IMAX prototype was on public
display at Expo '67 in Montreal. Tiger Child premiered in Japan in 1970.
So IMAX was available during the all too brief time when we could walk
on the moon.

Heck, Cinerama was available in the early 1950s. Yet no one even tried
to use this roughly (then) 20 year old technology to docunent a launch
to the moon. (Atomic Bombs, Si! Moon walks, Non!)
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier

In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
It really is a sin and a shame that IMAX didn't exist quite early enough
to film a Saturn V launch...

Ayuh...
Except that IMAX was founded in 1967. The IMAX prototype was on public
display at Expo '67 in Montreal. Tiger Child premiered in Japan in 1970.
So IMAX was available during the all too brief time when we could walk
on the moon.

Except that any IMAX Saturn V footage taken then would have been like the
shuttle footage in "Hail Columbia": not bad, but not that impressive
either. That is, it would have been shot from the standard press-camera
sites, as "Hail Columbia" was. Not until people started dragging NASA
brass to see "Hail Columbia" did NASA wake up and really roll out the red
carpet for IMAX, notably allowing them to set up cameras much closer to
the pad, to get scenes like looking *up* at the shuttle stack at maybe a
45deg angle as the engines light. Even if IMAX had identified Apollo
launches as an early priority, I don't think there was time to gain NASA's
cooperation to that level.

I'm also not sure that IMAX had a self-contained remote camera early
enough. My impression is that the early cameras took a lot of babying
and really needed human operators on hand.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

Except that any IMAX Saturn V footage taken then would have been like the
shuttle footage in "Hail Columbia": not bad, but not that impressive
either. That is, it would have been shot from the standard press-camera
sites, as "Hail Columbia" was. Not until people started dragging NASA
brass to see "Hail Columbia" did NASA wake up and really roll out the red
carpet for IMAX, notably allowing them to set up cameras much closer to
the pad, to get scenes like looking *up* at the shuttle stack at maybe a
45deg angle as the engines light. Even if IMAX had identified Apollo
launches as an early priority, I don't think there was time to gain NASA's
cooperation to that level.

I'm also not sure that IMAX had a self-contained remote camera early
enough. My impression is that the early cameras took a lot of babying
and really needed human operators on hand.


Hmm, I don't think *I'd* be volunteering for those Saturn shots then. :-)


--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article , says...
In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
It really is a sin and a shame that IMAX didn't exist quite early enough
to film a Saturn V launch...

Ayuh...
Except that IMAX was founded in 1967. [...]

Except that any IMAX Saturn V footage taken then would have been like the
shuttle footage in "Hail Columbia": not bad, but not that impressive
either.

I mostly agree.

Stipulated: IMAX technology has evolved a lot between the Apollo era and
the 3-D IMAX used to film the launch of the Soyuz in Space Station.

Stipulated: IMAX and NASA now have a much better understanding of the
mutual benefits of giving IMAX special access to dramatic events.

On the other hand, it is an open secret that the IMAX cameras have a
Hasselblad lens mount, so even from the traditional 3-mile limit for any
big launch, it was possible to film a Saturn V launch in IMAX with
impressive results. Although not as extraordinary as the Soyuz launch,
the result would have been impressive enough for us to regret the lost
opportunity.


I'm somewhat surprised by your comment:
I'm also not sure that IMAX had a self-contained remote camera early
enough. My impression is that the early cameras took a lot of babying
and really needed human operators on hand.
It is certainly true that the prototype IMAX cameras had various
development issues. This isn't surprising given that it has to move 3
times as much film per second as any other movie camera ever made, an
order of magnitude more film than the traditional 35mm film camera. But
I haven't heard stories about the early production cameras being
finicky. (There were film-hungry, and needed frequent reloading -- there
is a reason that you never see long uninterrupted scenes in IMAX. But
for something as predictable as a rocket launch, this isn't an issue.)

Part of the reason for not having self-contiained remote cameras was
lack of need. Given a chance to film a S-V from up close, I'm convinced
the guys who developed IMAX could have developed some kind of remote
control.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

The loss of the American system of checks and balances
is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.
-- Bruce Schneier

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:23:29 -0500, Kevin Willoughby
wrote:

Part of the reason for not having self-contiained remote cameras was
lack of need. Given a chance to film a S-V from up close, I'm convinced
the guys who developed IMAX could have developed some kind of remote
control.

[Insert shot of 3-mile long bulb cable with plunger]

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:23:29 -0500, Kevin Willoughby
wrote:


Part of the reason for not having self-contiained remote cameras was
lack of need. Given a chance to film a S-V from up close, I'm convinced
the guys who developed IMAX could have developed some kind of remote
control.


[Insert shot of 3-mile long bulb cable with plunger]

OM

I was thinking of a shorter cable with the loony, er victme er operator
in a pit 10ft down or so.

Julian

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:50:55 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
(1) The subject -- being close to the launch of a Soyuz is something
else.

It really is a sin and a shame that IMAX didn't exist quite early enough
to film a Saturn V launch...

....Henry, wasn't a prototype for IMAX demonstrated at the '67 Expo?
IIRC, the original proof-of-tech concept was conceived in '65 or
thereabouts, and was supposed to be demonstrated at one of the expos
around that time. Wasn't Hemisfair '68, because I was there.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Henry Spencer wrote:
It really is a sin and a shame that IMAX didn't exist quite early
enough
to film a Saturn V launch...

Now that you mention it, I seem to recall that the IMAX film "To Fly"
did have a Saturn 5 launch. It was shot from a pretty good distance,
several miles. As the scene progressed the IMAX footage was
supplimented with a lot of the familiar 16mm film taken from Saturn 5
rockets of the interstages falling off. (Of course, the 16mm stuff was
way too grainy to blow up to a full frame. It was incorporated with
'Grand Prix' style split screen effects.)

-Mark Martin