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

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by TakeApartYourHead

Does anyone know which movie will be playing in IMAX on the August 19/20th weekend? I'll be near an IMAX in Minnesota that I always go to when I'm there.

Is it the Minnesota Zoo IMAX in Apple Valley? I would guess Dunkirk is supposed to stay on that screen until September 1st.

[NP13]

Originally Posted by TakeApartYourHead

Does anyone know which movie will be playing in IMAX on the August 19/20th weekend? I'll be near an IMAX in Minnesota that I always go to when I'm there.

Probably still Dunkirk. Nolan's films typically get at least a month on IMAX screens, and I can't think of any other big movies coming out this summer that are going to need it.

[ITDEFX101]

Ok.........

So I saw Dunkirk at Udvar last night................. . .. . .. .......

*sigh*

ok
Movie: 6/10 (ok/meh)
Audio: 9ish...was a 6 until the parts of the movie then it went up
Video: 9/10 There were a number of scenes that I questioned the use of being filmed in IMAX full frame. The letterbox scenes were ok, except color timing was all over the place. There wasn't consistency between the full frame IMAX and the letterbox scenes.
During the movie I kept on imagining where the letterboxing would be for each scene and yep, plenty of headroom to work with for standard projection theaters. The sky and water looked so drab. The dog fight scenes were good and the audio was excellent towards the end. The Music, I am going to have to get back to now that I have the score but I am not going to expect WOW.

I was like "Did he REALLY submerge an IMAX camera underwater?!??!?!?!" :O

In the end no one clapped, they just got up and left.

Oh and for those visiting Udvar.... there is this weird line (two of them actually) burned in to the screen in the upper 3 feet or so of the screen. Noticed it quite often during the movie.... is that a burn in of sorts? I have seen that in other theaters screens but they were smaller ones.

Overall could it have been without shooting in IMAX? Yes. Was it worth the hype (the trailers, TV spots, and so on)? No... See once...rent it but unless it's a steelbook, I would wait for it to be cheap when it comes to dvd/br/4k.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by antovolk

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...medium=twitter

Let's hope this spreads internationally too.

No, this is disappointing since IMAX 3D is one of the few 3D venues with decent projection every time.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by NP13

Probably still Dunkirk. Nolan's films typically get at least a month on IMAX screens, and I can't think of any other big movies coming out this summer that are going to need it.

Not that the BFI IMAX in London is anywhere near Minnesota but yeah, Dunkirk is playing right through to 24th of August with three or four showings every day.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by antovolk

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...medium=twitter

Let's hope this spreads internationally too.

I sincerely hope not! 3D when done well (Avatar, Titanic, Jurassic Park, War for the...Apes, Life of Pi, Fantastic Beasts, etc) adds to the experience which 2D simply cannot do. In Asian nations, including India, people prefer 3D than 2D. When I go to watch a movie in the theaters, I don't go just for the story. Cinema is primarily a visual medium (you can tell stories through books and Radio too) and 3D is a great feature which elevates that experience.

It's very disappointing that 3D is being killed in America. IMAX should first worry about the diminishing of its own brand value by making the format smaller (and lower rez) than 15/70. There are only a few full frame IMAX lasers available; none in my country.
If 3D is gone, It will also kill most superhero and blockbuster movies which offer an additional thrill in the third dimension. Because you know, there's absolutely nothing exciting about 2K 2D digital projection. The movies aren't that Oscar-worthy anyway.

I'd watch a celluloid shot film in 2D any day over a digitally shot 2D. Because for me, Digital 2D looks mostly lifeless and flat anyway and I wouldn't spend much money on it at all.

I'm eagerly waiting for Terminator 2 on 3D!

[Riddhi2011]

Saw this on July 27 at a premium screen. I asked and was told they use dual 4K projectors (not IMAX Laser 4K) and 4K DCPs. Picture looked tad soft to me. I have never seen 4K projected onto a giant screen but the image was disappointing. It felt like 2K blow-up than 4K. I could even see the stairs (jagged edges) on the subtitle letters. Focus seemed slightly off as well. Sound quality was tremendously good though. The screen has an Atmos sound system.
The DCP was projected on 2.20:1 and I felt I didn't miss too much on not having seen it in IMAX because there's no real IMAX in my country, only a few Liemaxes.
I was never blown away by the images and in retrospect I prefer not be blown away by spectacle in a film like this which has so much to say about war. The visuals within the 2.20:1 frame served the story well.

[UFAlien]

That Steve Yedlin video is very good. I don't agree with all of his observations 100% but most of his points and demonstrations are excellent.

For those of you who don't feel like sitting through the admittedly long video, here's what was, to me, the most interesting comparison - an IMAX film camera versus an "IMAX digital" camera, i.e., the Alexa 65.

There are two images in the first spoiler below. Both are extractions from 4K masters, shown here (and in the source video) at double size for analysis purposes. One is a frame from the Alexa 65 digital cinema camera that IMAX has endorsed, shot at the camera's max resolution of about 6K, downsampled to 4K, and with artificial grain added. The other was shot on full-size, 15-perforation IMAX film, which IMAX itself claims has an effective pixel resolution around 18K. This frame was scanned at 11K and downsampled to 4K. Can you tell which is which?

[Show spoiler]

Made your guess? Okay. The big reveal. The shot from the real, 15 perf IMAX film is

[Show spoiler]the one on the top.

Even if you guessed correctly, any reasonable person should be able to admit the difference is negligible at best. In fact, by my eye - spoilered so as to not to give any hints for people who read through before taking the "challenge" -

[Show spoiler]the Alexa 65 frame has better true image resolution. On the IMAX film frame, the details in the actor's iris blur together. The lines and inner circle are more distinct in the Alexa 65 frame. So are the eyebrow hairs.

These were shot under controlled conditions by professional cinematographer Steve Yedlin (Star Wars: The Last Jedi). Obviously different lenses were used, but as the lenses compatible with the IMAX film cameras are not compatible with the Alexa 65 and vice-versa, that difference will always exist.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

That Steve Yedlin video is very good. I don't agree with all of his observations 100% but most of his points and demonstrations are excellent.

For those of you who don't feel like sitting through the admittedly long video, here's what was, to me, the most interesting comparison - an IMAX film camera versus an "IMAX digital" camera, i.e., the Alexa 65.

There are two images in the first spoiler below. Both are full-sized extractions from 4K masters. One is a frame from the Alexa 65 digital cinema camera that IMAX has endorsed, shot at the camera's max resolution of about 6K, downsampled to 4K, and with artificial grain added. The other was shot on full-size, 15-perforation IMAX film, which IMAX itself claims has an effective pixel resolution around 18K. This frame was scanned at 11K and downsampled to 4K. Can you tell which is which?

[Show spoiler]

Made your guess? Okay. The big reveal. The shot from the real, 15 perf IMAX film is

[Show spoiler]the one on the top.

Even if you guessed correctly, any reasonable person should be able to admit the difference is negligible at best. In fact, by my eye - spoilered so as to not to give any hints for people who read through before taking the "challenge" -

[Show spoiler]the Alexa 65 frame has better true image resolution. On the IMAX film frame, the details in the actor's iris blur together. The lines and inner circle are more distinct in the Alexa 65 frame. So are the eyebrow hairs.

These were shot under controlled conditions by professional cinematographer Steve Yedlin (Star Wars: The Last Jedi). Obviously different lenses were used, but as the lenses compatible with the IMAX film cameras are not compatible with the Alexa 65 and vice-versa, that difference will always exist.

wow That is NUTS!

I couldn't believe the Alexa did a better job than the other camera!

[Poya]

Sometimes, it's not always about which has the better colors, details, dynamic range, etc. It's usually an aesthetic choice. For example, some work in digital if they're going for a clinical and clean look, and some work in film for that nostalgia period look that's present in period films. It's all about what works with the film you want to make.

Sometimes, it is about preference. I mean, I prefer the IMAX, even if it's not that sharp. What's the point of making it that sharp anyway? Doesn't make it more beautiful; it just means you can see more detail. More detail =/= great cinematography.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Poya

Sometimes, it's not always about which has the better colors, details, dynamic range, etc. It's usually an aesthetic choice. For example, some work in digital if they're going for a clinical and clean look, and some work in film for that nostalgia period look that's present in period films. It's all about what works with the film you want to make.

Sometimes, it is about preference. I mean, I prefer the IMAX, even if it's not that sharp. What's the point of making it that sharp anyway? Doesn't make it more beautiful; it just means you can see more detail. More detail > great cinematography.

I absolutely agree with your statement (maybe not for preferring the IMAX image, I'm not sure I have a preference) and as a matter of fact the overall crux of Yedlin's video is that cinematographers should focus more on artistic choice and other ways to create the look they want instead of trying to count pixels. I just found it ironic that IMAX goes around claiming their film has the equivalent of 18K resolution and yet this is the result we got from an as-controlled-as-practical experiment.

[testmon112]

I think also people tend to overrate the shooting format and underrate the impact of the selection of lenses used. Whether it's spherical or anamorphic (which is a big choice), in some instances, several production companies have taken vintage anamorphic glass and modified/coated them in a certain way to change the characteristics (flaring, barrel distortion, edge softness etc.) to where it even becomes difficult to separate whether a spherical anamorphic lens was used (general audience DGAF). My favorite anamorhpic line are the Panavision C-series which have been used on recent films (Civil War, Terminator Genisys, Fantastic Beasts, Super 8, Dawn of Justice etc.) just to name a few. They don't distort as much as other lenses but they still retain those key character traits, even if they are not as distinct as other brands (Hawk-V lite, Isco, LOMO, Kowa etc).

Spherical lenses (used widely by internet content creators DSLR's, Mirrorless and on Documentaries, Features etc.) tend to bite on the details more harsher than anamorphic, are great for low light though can look (subjective) too clean on a digital sensor to some and produce a "digital video" look (if that makes any sense).

Even thinking about what size lens going from macro to telephoto has an impact on the shots you are creating. I love the fact that alot of directors are using vintage glass on digital sensors it ironically keeps the legacy of that element of film production alive. Also one of the reason why cine glass is so damn expensive (50K and upwards) at that level. All these key elements (and more) play into how your film will look and ultimately feel towards your audience, even if they don't realize it.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by testmon112

I think also people tend to overrate the shooting format and underrate the impact of the selection of lenses used. Whether it's spherical or anamorphic (which is a big choice), in some instances, several production companies have taken vintage anamorphic glass and modified/coated them in a certain way to change the characteristics (flaring, barrel distortion, edge softness etc.) to where it even becomes difficult to separate whether a spherical anamorphic lens was used (general audience DGAF). My favorite anamorhpic line are the Panavision C-series which have been used on recent films (Civil War, Terminator Genisys, Fantastic Beasts, Super 8, Dawn of Justice etc.) just to name a few. They don't distort as much as other lenses but they still retain those key character traits, even if they are not as distinct as other brands (Hawk-V lite, Isco, LOMO, Kowa etc).

Spherical lenses (used widely by internet content creators DSLR's, Mirrorless and on Documentaries, Features etc.) tend to bite on the details more harsher than anamorphic, are great for low light though can look (subjective) too clean on a digital sensor to some and produce a "digital video" look (if that makes any sense).

Even thinking about what size lens going from macro to telephoto has an impact on the shots you are creating. I love the fact that alot of directors are using vintage glass on digital sensors it ironically keeps the legacy of that element of film production alive. Also one of the reason why cine glass is so damn expensive (50K and upwards) at that level. All these key elements (and more) play into how your film will look and ultimately feel towards your audience, even if they don't realize it.

Yeah. Yedlin has a portion in his presentation about that, specifically about vintage glass.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by testmon112

I think also people tend to overrate the shooting format and underrate the impact of the selection of lenses used. Whether it's spherical or anamorphic (which is a big choice), in some instances, several production companies have taken vintage anamorphic glass and modified/coated them in a certain way to change the characteristics (flaring, barrel distortion, edge softness etc.) to where it even becomes difficult to separate whether a spherical anamorphic lens was used (general audience DGAF). My favorite anamorhpic line are the Panavision C-series which have been used on recent films (Civil War, Terminator Genisys, Fantastic Beasts, Super 8, Dawn of Justice etc.) just to name a few. They don't distort as much as other lenses but they still retain those key character traits, even if they are not as distinct as other brands (Hawk-V lite, Isco, LOMO, Kowa etc).

Spherical lenses (used widely by internet content creators DSLR's, Mirrorless and on Documentaries, Features etc.) tend to bite on the details more harsher than anamorphic, are great for low light though can look (subjective) too clean on a digital sensor to some and produce a "digital video" look (if that makes any sense).

Even thinking about what size lens going from macro to telephoto has an impact on the shots you are creating. I love the fact that alot of directors are using vintage glass on digital sensors it ironically keeps the legacy of that element of film production alive. Also one of the reason why cine glass is so damn expensive (50K and upwards) at that level. All these key elements (and more) play into how your film will look and ultimately feel towards your audience, even if they don't realize it.

My favorite lens are the Zeiss Master Anamorphics. They're anamorphics with the benefits of spherical. Their ability to handle light at T 1.9 is absolutely amazing.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

In the end no one clapped, they just got up and left.

99% of the movies I see, no one claps. It only happens very rarely, and usually only at "event" films like Star Wars movies.

If people clapped at the end of every movie they liked, that would be just weird. It's not like the filmmakers are there to hear your acclaim. Do people applaud at their TV's when they watch a movie at home?

[singhcr]

The Alexa 65 is an impressive camera and I can buy that it has better shadow detail compared to a film print, but I really don't buy that it's superior in detail to 15/70 film. If a 35mm OCN can tease out 4K (ideally), how the hell can a 6K digital camera beat something that's six times larger than 35mm?

How is it fair to compare the two from 4K stills? Of course there's not going to be much of a difference at such a low resolution. With the aforementioned screenshots, showing a 4K still of 15/70 film throws out nearly 75% of what the scanner picked up, and the scanner isn't even capturing the full detail of the film so we're not even getting the full benefit of oversampling. Not an accurate test at all. Throwing out color space/volume/etc discussions, let's simply focus on captured detail. The only conclusion one can make from this particular comparison is that when comparing down sampled digital stills of 15/70 film to down sampled digital stills of Alexa 65 footage, the Alexa 65 has an edge in visible detail at a resolution of 4K. This is hardly sufficient data to conclude that the Alexa 65 bests or even equals the detail captured by 15/70 cameras and film.

In my mind the most fair comparison would be to show the footage on a huge IMAX sized screen with the best available projection method for each source: a dual 4K laser projector for the Alexa footage and optical projection of the 15/70 film interpositive. Since we cannot use the exact same display technology for both sources in order to truly see what each one is capable of as printing digital footage to film would bias the test towards film and projecting down sampled scans of film on a 4K laser projector would bias the test towards digital, this is the best way to remain objective.

Otherwise this comparison is about as accurate as comparing music digitally recorded at CD quality (44.1 KHz/16-bit) to something recorded on 30 IPS reel to reel tape that's been digitized at 192 KHz/32-bit and down sampled to CD quality and saying "See? CD quality recording is as good as tape."

[Poya]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

99% of the movies I see, no one claps. It only happens very rarely, and usually only at "event" films like Star Wars movies.

If people clapped at the end of every movie they liked, that would be just weird. It's not like the filmmakers are there to hear your acclaim. Do people applaud at their TV's when they watch a movie at home?

Only if it's The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

99% of the movies I see, no one claps. It only happens very rarely, and usually only at "event" films like Star Wars movies.

If people clapped at the end of every movie they liked, that would be just weird. It's not like the filmmakers are there to hear your acclaim. Do people applaud at their TV's when they watch a movie at home?

I dunno....there have been quite a number of films that I have been to where the audience have clapped at the end. Star Wars was one (Any of them), Fences, Hidden Figures, Logan...and so on. Someone in the audience starts it and everyone else starts clapping. There was at least one movie someone clapped, but no one else did..........very awkward.

[Riddhi2011]

With all this film vs digital talk, I'd say this. The industry is saying 4K is the next best thing. I did see a 4K DCP with dual 4K projection of Dunkirk yesterday and it felt like a 2K blowup. I also remember seeing 'The Dark Knight Rises' on 15/70 film, which was way, way better than this 4K nonsense I saw. It's just a bigger screen, but 4K cannot capture the detail, richness and beauty of actual film. Maybe I have to see more 4K DCPs but I doubt this will change.
Now laser projectors might be something else, but regular 4K is no better than 2K, at least not discernibly.

[Dubstar]

Just read in the Washington Post that the Smithsonian plans on gutting the IMAX theater at Natural History for the reasoning of low attendance and wanting to expand the cafeteria, feeding the masses and not educating through large format 'nature' movies became a priority -- I'm livid ...apparently there's an attempt to get public petition at SaveOurIMAX (Twitter and Facebook)