Jurassic Park taller IMAX version?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

There will not be a 15/70 print for JP3D. The movie is a 6 day release only.

Acc to big movie zone Jurassic Park is being released in both 15/70 and digital.

[Riddhi2011]

This is how Jurassic Park would look in a 16:10 aspect ratio , in the IMAX screen(15/70) (all sources are 35mm):
1.
Rex arrival 16-10 imax.JPG
This is a shot that looks particularly impressive when the mattes are opened-up.

2.
Malcolm 16-10 IMAX.JPG
You can fully realize the fact that I've merged two images into one, and in paint because I do not have photoshop installed (My Graphics Card is creating problems).

3.
Rexftmd 16-10 IMAX.JPG
Looks better in my opinion than the cramped 1.85:1 version where Grant and Lex's head's are threatening to be cut off the top edge.

4.
Lex 16-10 IMAX.JPG
Has the same impact, except its slightly taller.

5. And last but definitely not the least-
Rex framing.JPG
The Rex's eyes at the extreme top edge of the frame makes the widescreen version look distracting, whereas the framing on the Fullscreen DVD (the source for the top image) looks much more soothing to the eyes and the Rex looks better in that(my subjective opinion) framing.
Also the top image has lost a bit of width from the widescreen because that's how the 4:3 version was framed, but the original 35mm negative should contain the Full aperture image, which was not a CG shot.

NOTE: The Black Bars roughly represents the space that will be left unoccupied in the 1.44:1 15/70 IMAX screen. This is a close approximation!

There can be another alternative- framing the movie in 1.66:1 which is slightly shorter vertically (Django, most European movies, and the IMAX version of Apollo 13) than 16:10 (1.53:1 probably?)

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

This is how Jurassic Park would look in a 16:10 aspect ratio , in the IMAX screen(15/70) (all sources are 35mm):
1.
Attachment 58427
This is a shot that looks particularly impressive when the mattes are opened-up.

2.
Attachment 58428
You can fully realize the fact that I've merged two images into one, and in paint because I do not have photoshop installed (My Graphics Card is creating problems).

3.
Attachment 58429
Looks better in my opinion than the cramped 1.85:1 version where Grant and Lex's head's are threatening to be cut off the top edge.

4.
Attachment 58430
Has the same impact, except its slightly taller.

5. And last but definitely not the least-
Attachment 58433
The Rex's eyes at the extreme top edge of the frame makes the widescreen version look distracting, whereas the framing on the Fullscreen DVD (the source for the top image) looks much more soothing to the eyes and the Rex looks better in that(my subjective opinion) framing.
Also the top image has lost a bit of width from the widescreen because that's how the 4:3 version was framed, but the original 35mm negative should contain the Full aperture image, which was not a CG shot.

NOTE: The Black Bars roughly represents the space that will be left unoccupied in the 1.44:1 15/70 IMAX screen. This is a close approximation!

There can be another alternative- framing the movie in 1.66:1 which is slightly shorter vertically (Django, most European movies, and the IMAX version of Apollo 13) than 16:10 (1.53:1 probably?)

Why would Universal go through all that trouble for a re-release. If there were any 15/70 prints, just print the 1.85 image and box it.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Why would Universal go through all that trouble for a re-release. If there were any 15/70 prints, just print the 1.85 image and box it.

I know that they'll never do it, the whole point of this thread was what if that happened, surely, at least it would have been an interesting change if nothing else.
Why did Universal go through the trouble then, of making a 1.66:1 IMAX version of Apollo 13 when they could've printed the same 2.35 print on the IMAX version and be done with it?
They did because they wanted to make a more immersive experience for the IMAX version! I was suggesting likewise for Jurassic Park as well.
If it was in my power I'd have surely done it, but that's not possible.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I know that they'll never do it, the whole point of this thread was what if that happened, surely, at least it would have been an interesting change if nothing else.
Why did Universal go through the trouble then, of making a 1.66:1 IMAX version of Apollo 13 when they could've printed the same 2.35 print on the IMAX version and be done with it?
They did because they wanted to make a more immersive experience for the IMAX version! I was suggesting likewise for Jurassic Park as well.
If it was in my power I'd have surely done it, but that's not possible.

Cameron "opened up" Titanic for the 3D version, as well - but both Titanic and Apollo 13 were 2.35:1, Jurassic Park was 1.85:1, correct?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Cameron "opened up" Titanic for the 3D version, as well - but both Titanic and Apollo 13 were 2.35:1, Jurassic Park was 1.85:1, correct?

Yep, but because there is a way to create a more immersive experience with JP, why not? Especially when the medium is 3D a taller aspect would be great. Something probably never done for Movies, I think!

[Dubstar]

both 'Robots' and 'The Ant Bully' (1.85 films) were reformatted to 1.44 for their IMAX engagements.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

both 'Robots' and 'The Ant Bully' (1.85 films) were reformatted to 1.44 for their IMAX engagements.

So Jurassic Park could at least have received a 1.66:1 IMAX version, if not 1.44:1. Couldn't it?
Were Robots and Ant Bully in 1.44:1 3D or standard formats?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

So Jurassic Park could at least have received a 1.66:1 IMAX version, if not 1.44:1. Couldn't it?
Were Robots and Ant Bully in 1.44:1 3D or standard formats?

as I recall Ant Bully was 1.44 3D, but Robots was not.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

as I recall Ant Bully was 1.44 3D, but Robots was not.

Anyway, Jurassic Park will not work in 1.44:1 because the effects shots were done in 16:10, and also the fact that the film was tightly framed, with few or none panoramic shots to speak of. Even the wide shots were tight. Opening up the mattes to 16:10 or 1.66:1 would make it look more immersive because of the added height+3D.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Anyway, Jurassic Park will not work in 1.44:1 because the effects shots were done in 16:10, and also the fact that the film was tightly framed, with few or none panoramic shots to speak of. Even the wide shots were tight. Opening up the mattes to 16:10 or 1.66:1 would make it look more immersive because of the added height+3D.

I remember reading in a magazine interview, Spielberg said he purposefully shot this film in flat (1.85) because he wanted the dinosaurs to look tall and a scope film wouldn't have conveyed it effectively.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I remember reading in a magazine interview, Spielberg said he purposefully shot this film in flat (1.85) because he wanted the dinosaurs to look tall and a scope film wouldn't have conveyed it effectively.

Absolutely, and a 1.66:1 version would add even a bit more of vertigo, making it look more impressive, in my opinion! Look at the shot of the T-Rex arrival that I've posted(framed in 16:10).

[mediaguy]

In fact Universal did create a 15/70 ....

Hi all, I'd like to chime in after watching the IMAX 3D version of JP this weekend. My son and I are lucky enough to live near Henry Ford IMAX which has a 84 ft x 62 ft screen and was showing Print #9 of only 15 made (for the globe) featuring TRUE 15-PERFORATION/70MM IMAX FILM print specially created for this release 3D event. All other versions (including nearly all IMAX theaters) were showing digital versions around the world. The film was comprised of 62 reels and took them 4 days to setup prior to the showing, the booth room (huge room) looks to be configured to ready 3 film-based films at any given time and x number of digital IMAX films.

Universal went all out but only made 15 film-based prints and our local (esteemed) IMAX at the Henry Ford Museum History Museum & Complex was lucky enough to get #9 of the 15 for the 2 week run. My son and I ran to the viewing observation area of the projection booth to see the final credits rolling ... the image, sound, and thrill was awesome throughout!!

I noticed no oddities with the aspect ratio having watched the numerous versions from the earliest home video releases from LD, VHS, DVD, to Blu-ray ... or at least nothing to complain about regarding cropping ... simply beautiful image and the sound ... amazing ... the 3D was understated but enhanced the realism of the moment and the various 'scare moments' seemed to make everyone jump ... what a great ride.

[kenny3001]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

as I recall Ant Bully was 1.44 3D, but Robots was not.

or Re-rendered to 1.44

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by mediaguy

Hi all, I'd like to chime in after watching the IMAX 3D version of JP this weekend.
I noticed no oddities with the aspect ratio

Well, was it Full 1.44:1 or taller than 1.85:1 as some folks who've visited IMAX theaters are stating?

[Eric The Duke]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Well, was it Full 1.44:1 or taller than 1.85:1 as some folks who've visited IMAX theaters are stating?

I don't think you can get a 1.44 image from a movie that wasn't shot in IMAX film unless you crop the sides. Which I don't think would ever happen.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Eric The Duke

I don't think you can get a 1.44 image from a movie that wasn't shot in IMAX film unless you crop the sides. Which I don't think would ever happen.

Every non-anamorphic movie shot on 4-perf 35mm, the vast majority anyway, could produce a 1.44:1 image, since the actual image on the negative is 1.33:1 and the widescreen framing is obtained by cropping that.