Large Format/"Premium" Theaters (IMAX 15/70, Digital IMAX, XD, ETX, RPX, etc.)

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

Still confused as to whether the IMAX Alexa 65 camera can shoot 1.43:1 or 1.90:1. I've heard both ratios, but I'm unclear as to whether it can shoot either or both.

I've seen it mentioned at least twice in interviews with IMAX executives that it shoots 1.43. Not sure if it also shoots 1.9, but if you've heard both ratios, my guess is it can shoot both.

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by 42041

You mean the first film shot entirely in digital IMAX (whatever that means, since any filmmaker can use the Alexa 65... a taller aspect ratio?).
Unforunately it's still got a long, long way to go before it approaches a 15/70 negative - though of course, with 15/70 projection on the way out, not much point to a >4K master.

Yeah the new laser projectors are 4K so the Alexa IMAX camera is enough for that

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

Still confused as to whether the IMAX Alexa 65 camera can shoot 1.43:1 or 1.90:1. I've heard both ratios, but I'm unclear as to whether it can shoot either or both.

From what I heard it shoots 1.43 by having a special anamorphic lens from IMAX that squeezes the image vertically. But they didn't have that for Civil War evidently as the IMAX sequence there will be presented 1.9:1.

No idea as to whether Sully will have the full ratio, but I'd imagine the Avengers Infinity War films will.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

Still confused as to whether the IMAX Alexa 65 camera can shoot 1.43:1 or 1.90:1. I've heard both ratios, but I'm unclear as to whether it can shoot either or both.

Originally Posted by antovolk

From what I heard it shoots 1.43 by having a special anamorphic lens from IMAX that squeezes the image vertically. But they didn't have that for Civil War evidently as the IMAX sequence there will be presented 1.9:1.

No idea as to whether Sully will have the full ratio, but I'd imagine the Avengers Infinity War films will.

I think I'm the one who started mentioning the reverse anamorphic lens, but I *think* that will just be on the projection end seeing as the 4K laser projectors have a native 1.90 aspect. Why? Because the ASC recently commented on the Alexa IMAX camera and they stated that the 1.43 aspect will be cropped from the native 2.11 sensor (presumably shot Open Gate, natch).

That'll still give a working resolution of something like 4433x3100, and before someone haughtily states that that's not a patch on true 65mm IMAX (I agree ), lemme say that I don't think it's intended to be, reading between the lines. IMAX have decided on 4K laser as being 'good enough' to replace the 65mm system so it's no wonder they've gone with 4Kx3K capture on what will presumably become their 'stock' digital camera.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think I'm the one who started mentioning the reverse anamorphic lens, but I *think* that will just be on the projection end seeing as the 4K laser projectors have a native 1.90 aspect. Why? Because the ASC recently commented on the Alexa IMAX camera and they stated that the 1.43 aspect will be cropped from the native 2.11 sensor (presumably shot Open Gate, natch).

That'll still give a working resolution of something like 4433x3100, and before someone haughtily states that that's not a patch on true 65mm IMAX (I agree ), lemme say that I don't think it's intended to be, reading between the lines. IMAX have decided on 4K laser as being 'good enough' to replace the 65mm system so it's no wonder they've gone with 4Kx3K capture on what will presumably become their 'stock' digital camera.

So there's literally no difference between the Alexa 65 and the Alexa 65 IMAX version beyond the legal rights to crop to 1.43.

Sigh.

[Geoff D]

Looks that way, it'll probably just have a 1.43 selection mode in the menu.

I'm not sure there was any difference when they used a new 'digital IMAX' camera on Transformers 4, it was basically a Phantom 65 Gold IIRC.

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think I'm the one who started mentioning the reverse anamorphic lens, but I *think* that will just be on the projection end seeing as the 4K laser projectors have a native 1.90 aspect. Why? Because the ASC recently commented on the Alexa IMAX camera and they stated that the 1.43 aspect will be cropped from the native 2.11 sensor (presumably shot Open Gate, natch).

That'll still give a working resolution of something like 4433x3100, and before someone haughtily states that that's not a patch on true 65mm IMAX (I agree ), lemme say that I don't think it's intended to be, reading between the lines. IMAX have decided on 4K laser as being 'good enough' to replace the 65mm system so it's no wonder they've gone with 4Kx3K capture on what will presumably become their 'stock' digital camera.

Actually I did see the info about the reverse anamorphic elsewhere:
http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t011974.html

IIRC IMAX and Arri are working on some 1.25x anamorphics to fit the Alexa 65 where the squeeze/stretch is done vertically to create a taller image for original aspect ratio (1.43:1) IMAX screens.

But yeah that comment from ASC......ouch. That's a load of bollocks then....

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by antovolk

Actually I did see the info about the reverse anamorphic elsewhere:
http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t011974.html

And my comment predates that thread by more than year. Yay me! (Dude makes a great comment about Rogue One though, putting that ruddy great UP70 glass on the A65 then cropping it down to 2.40 anyway was kinda pointless, as Spike will attest to when he saw the trailer and wasn't impressed.)

But yeah that comment from ASC......ouch. That's a load of bollocks then....

Yep.

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And my comment predates that thread by more than year. Yay me! (Dude makes a great comment about Rogue One though, putting that ruddy great UP70 glass on the A65 then cropping it down to 2.40 anyway was kinda pointless, as Spike will attest to when he saw the trailer.)


Yep.

For R1 I did hear it was pretty much all shot with UP70 and actually composed for the wider ratio, so a 2.75 release is still possible. I mean they let Bird do 2.20 for Tomorrowland, I don't see why not with R1, although the 2.40 trailer isn't a good sign.

But yeah sucks for IMAX. Seems they just don't want to bother with the taller aspect ratio anymore, as evidenced by the massive 1.90 screens like the TCL Chinese in LA and the Empire in London. 1.43 is now a legacy ratio for them except for 70mm productions like BvS and Dunkirk.

I wonder what Eastwood will do for Sully.....

[Geoff D]

Maybe Rogue One will get a Roadshow 2.76 release, complete with an intermission and special booklet?

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Maybe Rogue One will get a Roadshow 2.76 release, complete with an intermission and special booklet?

Nah, Disney won't shell out $$ for 70mm prints haha

[Geoff D]

From Disney? Heh. It'll probably have a bloody 2K finish anyway.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

From Disney? Heh. It'll probably have a bloody 2K finish anyway.

cheap bastards.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

From Disney? Heh. It'll probably have a bloody 2K finish anyway.

All the screencaps Disney's releasing are 4K, so here's to hoping.

I'm entirely fine with cropping to 2.40 from 2.76 UP glass, though. I think 2.76 is a bonkers aspect ratio given the screen dimensions of theaters these days.

[Geoff D]

Weren't those IMAX comparison grabs that disney released early on for TFA also 4K res? I'm not counting any chickens yet, no sir.

And agreed on the second point, having that ultra-wide ratio just eats into the available acreage on most screens these days. It's fine for a Tarantino-style statement but for regular movies it's a waste.

But I think it's not so much the aesthetic aspect of the cropping that the guy at the film-tech forum was referring to, it's more them going to all that trouble to use the large format Alexa - only to end up futzing the image with elderly glass and cropping away usable resolution so we end up with PQ that seems to be hardly worthy of the large format capture. They shoulda just shot it flat.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Weren't those IMAX comparison grabs that disney released early on for TFA also 4K res? I'm not counting any chickens yet, no sir.

And agreed on the second point, having that ultra-wide ratio just eats into the available acreage on most screens these days. It's fine for a Tarantino-style statement but for regular movies it's a waste.

But I think it's not so much the aesthetic aspect of the cropping that the guy at the film-tech forum was referring to, it's more them going to all that trouble to use the large format Alexa - only to end up futzing the image with elderly glass and cropping away usable resolution so we end up with PQ that seems to be hardly worthy of the large format capture. They shoulda just shot it flat.

Right, but all the 35mm screenshots we saw were 2K.

Gotta disagree about shooting Rogue One flat. Anamorphic definitely compliments Edwards visual style in a pretty wonderful way that I wouldn't want to lose, not to mention it's a part of the Star Wars aesthetic in general. Give me the footage from Rogue One over Doctor Strange any day of the week.

[Geoff D]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of his work so I can't comment on that, but with a few plug-ins they could've had all the anamorphic-style streaks they wanted and not compromised on the quality. Funny thing about large format is that because it uses more glass (even on spherical, never mind anamorphic) it creates a similarly shallow depth of field anyway, though I take your point about maintaining that visual consistency with the other movies (sans II and III). It's just that, given what they're doing, they could've just shot a regular Alexa with a regular 2x anamorphic and been done with it.

Fingers crossed on the 4K finish, it would be most welcome.

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I can't say I'm a huge fan of his work so I can't comment on that, but with a few plug-ins they could've had all the anamorphic-style streaks they wanted and not compromised on the quality. Funny thing about large format is that because it uses more glass (even on spherical, never mind anamorphic) it creates a similarly shallow depth of field anyway, though I take your point about maintaining that visual consistency with the other movies (sans II and III). It's just that, given what they're doing, they could've just shot a regular Alexa with a regular 2x anamorphic and been done with it.

Fingers crossed on the 4K finish, it would be most welcome.

HA! That's a good one.

[Geoff D]

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sorry for being blunt, amigo. But let's face it; 2K gets things done cheaper and quicker and studios are all about that s**t.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That'll still give a working resolution of something like 4433x3100, and before someone haughtily states that that's not a patch on true 65mm IMAX (I agree ), lemme say that I don't think it's intended to be, reading between the lines. IMAX have decided on 4K laser as being 'good enough' to replace the 65mm system so it's no wonder they've gone with 4Kx3K capture on what will presumably become their 'stock' digital camera.

I think they at least oughtta increase the oversampling factor a bit. With the quality hit of optical low-pass filtering and de-Bayering, looking at almost the native sensor resolution is not going to be an ideal 4K IMAX experience. The Sony F65 seemed better suited for IMAX far as that goes, since I think its 4K output is oversampled internally at 8K (though same deal as the Alexa - too widescreen for IMAX).

I'm curious, does IMAX laser use regular DCI 4K or does it have more pixels in the vertical dimension?