IMAX vs non-IMAX scenes

[4K2K]

Which scenes do you think look the best on the Blu-ray version of The Dark Knight. The IMAX scenes (the ones that fill your screen) or the non-IMAX scenes?

[MrFattBill]

As per my vote I enjoy the IMAX scenes a lot.

Bill

[thebat2]

Overall The Dark Knight looks great, but the IMAX scenes are crisper and bring you into the movie.

[Propellarhead9]

I really enjoy the IMAX scenes

[Moefiz]

I also liked the Imax scenes in both the Dark Knight and Transformers.

[progers13]

This thread will likely descend into the technical merits of IMAX resolution vs conventional film resolution, which has been beat to death in many other threads. However, when comparing the 2 in this particular movie, I agree with other posters that the IMAX sequences are visually superior to the non-IMAX sequences.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by progers13

This thread will likely descend into the technical merits of IMAX resolution vs conventional film resolution, which has been beat to death in many other threads. However, when comparing the 2 in this particular movie, I agree with other posters that the IMAX sequences are visually superior to the non-IMAX sequences.

It also has some similarities with the thread underneath this one.

[Rblu-Dblu]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

It also has some similarities with the thread underneath this one.

Well its not on top of that thread anymore because you posted.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Rblu-Dblu

Well its not on top of that thread anymore because you posted.

It is on my screen.

[scweb13]

If DNR and EE is your thing, than the non-IMAX scenes will look pretty good.

Is there an option for "The IMAX scenes are the only ones that look good"?

[progers13]

Originally Posted by scweb13

If DNR and EE is your thing, than the non-IMAX scenes will look pretty good.

Is there an option for "The IMAX scenes are the only ones that look good"?

True, very true!

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Which scenes do you think look the best on the Blu-ray version of The Dark Knight. The IMAX scenes (the ones that fill your screen) or the non-IMAX scenes?

The imax scenes, firstly as they don't have artificial sharpening etc everywhere and there shot on 70mm film, which is a lot more detailed then 35mm film.

[KingLeonidas300]

I do enjoy the IMAX scenes but if they weren't there I would be OK with it.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

The imax scenes, firstly as they don't have artificial sharpening etc everywhere and there shot on 70mm film, which is a lot more detailed then 35mm film.

It's actually a little bigger than you give it credit for.

First, 35 mm has the audio track on the film. This cuts into the 35 mm available for visual information. IMAX has the audio separate, so IMAX actually has over 2x the space for visual information available just for that.

But that's not all. Traditional 35 mm is oriented with the notches on the left/right of the picture. The picture's widest side is represented by the width of the 35 mm film. IMAX is oriented the other way. Notches for running the film are on the other side of the picture. This produces an image on the IMAX film which is 2x as tall as 35mm is wide, meaning that it's even MORE wider.

It's the difference between landscape and portrait orientation.

See this:


When 70 mm film is oriented in the same way 35 mm is, it's not QUITE as impressive technically as IMAX, and again, because of the built-in audio strip, it's often called 65 mm. I'd love to see movies move towards traditional 70 mm filmmaking though, since it'd give higher quality than 35 mm without introducing the ridiculous technology and cost hurdles that full-on IMAX introduces. But either way, I contend that 35 mm doesn't need to be processed as it is to be displayed on IMAX screens. Wish they'd just let it be a little grainy and relatively soft than process the hell out of everything.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by blu1183

What's the difference between imax? Just bigger picture or is it hi def also?

Anamorphic 35mm Widescreen

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

It's actually a little bigger than you give it credit for.

I didn't say how much better it is, so that statment really is moot. Personally I think one of the things that makes imax footage look so much better is not only the film, but the lense (which is comparitivly shallow to an anamorphic lense) and allows everything (or close to) be in focus. Which is what gives it the real wow factor for me.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I didn't say how much better it is, so that statment really is moot. Personally I think one of the things that makes imax footage look so much better is not only the film, but the lense (which is comparitivly shallow to an anamorphic lense) and allows everything (or close to) be in focus. Which is what gives it the real wow factor for me.

Focus is built into the picture. "Everything" cannot be in focus unless it all falls within the depth of field and was all filmed in focus because of that.

I think what you're alluding to is just that fact that the FILM itself is in focus, a "feat" often failed at in traditional theaters showing 35 mm prints. I know my local theater that shows 35mm prints never has it quite completely in focus, but I've never seen any features in the IMAX be anything BUT perfectly in focus. When I saw pores in the skin of the actors in Spider-man 3 (...), I thought it was due to the IMAX film showing details never otherwise visible, but in reality, those features were available all along and just invisible to me due to seeing things out of focus all of the time.

I think the "wow factor" for me comes from the screen size though. The resolvedness it has wouldn't do anything special for me if it was on a "tiny" screen, but even 35mm features impress me on that enormous screen.