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

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

That won't stop it from being a gorgeous ass movie. It did snag a Best Cinematography award for Wally Pfister.

I agree. That movie made me think....ended up seeing it 3 times :O

[Riddhi2011]

Inception would have looked great in 1.43:1 but taken away from the interlocked nature of dreams and reality. Nolan did not want a format difference that would give up a dream from a reality. So, he kept a consistent aspect ratio. And as much as I love IMAX, I agree that Inception works the way it does.

However, I would have loved if Nolan made 70mm 2.20:1 extractions for IMAX rather than cinemascope. It would've been more immersive, whilst still keeping a consistent aspect ratio. This is especially given the fact that parts of the film were photographed on Panavision Super70 and Vistavision (aerials).

[UFAlien]

So I saw The Dark Tower in Cinemark XD this past weekend. I enjoyed the movie, certainly not a grand epic like the books may have warranted but it was a fun enough sci-fi/fantasy adventure for what it was.

It was shot primarily on the Alexa 65 and mastered/projected in 4K and it looked gorgeous on the big screen. There were some dark scenes that got fairly noisy and some that were still crystal clear (the Alexa XT was used for some shots).

It also had the best Auro mix that I've heard so far, but that's kind of damning it with faint praise as I've never really been impressed by Auro. I think their speaker/channel layout is really pretty stupid. Five height speakers (the effects of which are usually hard to notice) immediately above the standard 5.1 speakers and only a single ceiling channel (so overhead effects can't properly move around). I've never heard DTS:X or Dolby Atmos but, even with the same number of channels, the 7.1 + four ceiling channel layout of IMAX with Laser was, to me, a lot more immersive.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

So I saw The Dark Tower in Cinemark XD this past weekend. I enjoyed the movie, certainly not a grand epic like the books may have warranted but it was a fun enough sci-fi/fantasy adventure for what it was.

It was shot primarily on the Alexa 65 and mastered/projected in 4K and it looked gorgeous on the big screen. There were some dark scenes that got fairly noisy and some that were still crystal clear (the Alexa XT was used for some shots).

It also had the best Auro mix that I've heard so far, but that's kind of damning it with faint praise as I've never really been impressed by Auro. I think their speaker/channel layout is really pretty stupid. Five height speakers (the effects of which are usually hard to notice) immediately above the standard 5.1 speakers and only a single ceiling channel (so overhead effects can't properly move around). I've never heard DTS:X or Dolby Atmos but, even with the same number of channels, the 7.1 + four ceiling channel layout of IMAX with Laser was, to me, a lot more immersive.

Apparently Auro does have a 13 channel system, but no one mixes it as such which doesn't make sense since we hear sound directly behind us in the real world - for Auro to negate the back wall seems so counterintuitive it's baffling. One of the best Atmos mixes of this year was 'Alien: Covenant' that had the title creature scurrying/screeching behind you to nerve inducing effect; in Auro that effect (and sound cues) would be lost and less effective.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I thought it was originally filmed in IMAX based on a BTS still showing an IMAX camera (labeled) of the Elevator Hallway Rotation scene...but then you guys said it wasn't shot in IMAX. I would have loved to have seen it in that format.

Really? Do you have a link? Perhaps a few shots were done on IMAX film but presented in a scope ratio. I know there's a scene or two in the Prestige that was on IMAX as a test so perhaps he was doing the same thing in Inception.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/the...nning-visuals/

[Geoff D]

This is what was posted the last time ITDEF asked this question:

Originally Posted by UltraMario9

Looks like standard 35mm Panavision cannisters.

And the AC article specifically mentions no IMAX.

[fontcow]

Here's what is listed for Inception at IMDb:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/technical

Runtime
2 hr 28 min (148 min)

Sound Mix
Dolby Digital | DTS | SDDS

Color
Color

Aspect Ratio
2.35 : 1

Camera
Arriflex 235, Panavision Primo and G-Series Lenses
Arriflex 435 ES, Panavision Primo and G-Series Lenses
Beaumont VistaVision Camera, Panavision Primo Lenses
Panavision 65 HR Camera, Panavision System 65 Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL, Panavision C-, E-, G-Series and Super High Speed Lenses
Panavision Panaflex System 65 Studio, Panavision System 65 Lenses
Photo-Sonics 4C, Panavision Primo Lenses
Photo-Sonics 4ER, Panavision Primo Lenses

Laboratory
Imagica Corporation, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan (processing)
Laboratoires LTC, Paris, France (processing)
Technicolor, Hollywood (CA), USA (also prints)
Technicolor, London, UK (processing)

Film Length
3,925 m (Portugal)
4,037 m (Sweden)

Negative Format
35 mm (also horizontal) (Kodak Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)
65 mm (Kodak Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)

Cinematographic Process
Panavision (anamorphic)
Panavision Super 70 (some scenes)
VistaVision (aerial shots)

Printed Film Format
35 mm (Kodak Vision 2383)
70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak Vision 2383)
D-Cinema


And here's what is listed for Interstellar at IMDb:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/technical

Runtime
2 hr 49 min (169 min)

Sound Mix
Datasat | Dolby Digital | IMAX 6-Track

Color
Color (FotoKem)

Aspect Ratio
1.43 : 1 (some scenes: IMAX 70mm version)
1.78 : 1 (some scenes: IMAX version - Blu-ray)
1.90 : 1 (some scenes: IMAX digital version)
2.20 : 1 (70mm version)
2.35 : 1

Camera
Beaumont VistaVision Camera, Leica Lenses
IMAX MSM 9802, Hasselblad and Mamiya Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision C-, D-, E-Series and Ultra Speed Golden Lenses

Laboratory
FotoKem Laboratory, Burbank (CA), USA (also prints)

Film Length
17,114.9 m (49 reels) (IMAX 70 mm)
4,582 m (Spain)
4,630.65 m (8 reels) (35 mm)

Negative Format
35 mm (also horizontal) (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)
65 mm (horizontal) (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219)

Cinematographic Process
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
IMAX
Panavision (anamorphic)
VistaVision (some scenes)

Printed Film Format
35 mm (Kodak Vision 2383)
70 mm (also horizontal) (also IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak Vision 2383)
D-Cinema


And Dunkirk:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/technical

Runtime
1 hr 46 min (106 min)

Sound Mix
IMAX 6-Track | Datasat | Dolby Digital

Color
Color

Aspect Ratio
1.43 : 1 (most scenes: IMAX 70mm venues)
1.90 : 1 (most scenes: IMAX digital venues)
2.20 : 1 (DCP ratio: Based in flat) (70mm prints)
2.35 : 1 (35 mm prints)

Camera
IMAX MSM 9802, Panavision Sphero 65, Hasselblad and Mamiya Lenses
Panavision 65 HR Camera, Panavision System 65 Lenses

Laboratory
FotoKem Laboratory, Burbank (CA), USA (prints)

Negative Format
65 mm (also horizontal) (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 200T 5213, Vision3 500T 5219)

Cinematographic Process
IMAX
Panavision Super 70

Printed Film Format
35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383)
70 mm (also horizontal) (also IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak Vision 2383)
D-Cinema (2K DCP) (4K DCP)

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

So I saw The Dark Tower in Cinemark XD this past weekend. I enjoyed the movie, certainly not a grand epic like the books may have warranted but it was a fun enough sci-fi/fantasy adventure for what it was.

It was shot primarily on the Alexa 65 and mastered/projected in 4K and it looked gorgeous on the big screen. There were some dark scenes that got fairly noisy and some that were still crystal clear (the Alexa XT was used for some shots).

It also had the best Auro mix that I've heard so far, but that's kind of damning it with faint praise as I've never really been impressed by Auro. I think their speaker/channel layout is really pretty stupid. Five height speakers (the effects of which are usually hard to notice) immediately above the standard 5.1 speakers and only a single ceiling channel (so overhead effects can't properly move around). I've never heard DTS:X or Dolby Atmos but, even with the same number of channels, the 7.1 + four ceiling channel layout of IMAX with Laser was, to me, a lot more immersive.

Power Rangers had some crazy noise during the first parts of the cave scene leading to the ship. I haven't seen the BR/DC yet of that scene as I have been too busy lol...

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

This is what was posted the last time ITDEF asked this question:



And the AC article specifically mentions no IMAX.

Yes this.......... you guys helped cleared that up for me... But still bothers me that I thought one of those cameras had an blue IMAX Label on it all these years.

[Geoff D]

Memory is a strange thing. Until you start leaving your coffee pot inside the dryer I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[ITDEFX101]

Film vs Digital: Can You Tell The Difference? - Christopher Llewellyn Reed #IB12 - YouTube

Film VS Digital | Video Essay - YouTube

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Power Rangers had some crazy noise during the first parts of the cave scene leading to the ship. I haven't seen the BR/DC yet of that scene as I have been too busy lol...

Per Barco's website, Power Rangers wasn't in Auro though. It was in Atmos and DTS:X but not Auro. An Auro-equipped XD auditorium presumably would've played it in 7.1.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Memory is a strange thing. Until you start leaving your coffee pot inside the dryer I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I have to..check on my laundry. I mean coffee... gotta go.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by fontcow

And Dunkirk:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/technical


Aspect Ratio
1.43 : 1 (most scenes: IMAX 70mm venues)
1.90 : 1 (most scenes: IMAX digital venues)
2.20 : 1 (DCP ratio: Based in flat) (70mm prints)
2.35 : 1 (35 mm prints)

What do they mean "most"? I just saw this in IMAX 70mm. I truly do not remember any aspect ratio changes. Maybe I was too caught up with the story (as I should have been), but it filled the screen the entire film as far as I remember.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

What do they mean "most"? I just saw this in IMAX 70mm. I truly do not remember any aspect ratio changes. Maybe I was too caught up with the story (as I should have been), but it filled the screen the entire film as far as I remember.

Dialogue was shot in 5p70mm with an aspect ratio of 2.20.

[Geoff D]

The IMAX version most definitely changes aspect ratio at several times throughout the movie, though it's not the jarring on/off/on/off rhythm that Nolan previously employed so it draws less attention to itself. And it may be more/less impactful depending on the aspect ratio of the specific screen you're viewing.

Still, if viewing on 15/70 IMAX the drop in quality alone should be enough to mark it out, as the glossy 15-perf gorgeousness gives way to dull, grainy 5-perf images.

As for Inception, here's one more confirmation on no IMAX, this time from British Cinematographer: https://britishcinematographer.co.uk...asc-inception/

Nolan and Pfister discussed producing Inception in the 65mm IMAX format they used while filming The Dark Knight, however they agreed that would have been impractical, because of the many “runaround” handheld shots envisioned. The visual grammar they created was produced with a blend of shots in 65mm and 35mm anamorphic formats augmented with VistaVision aerial images. They also used a Photosonics camera to record ultra-slow motion images for dream scenes.

The camera package provided by Panavision included 35mm Panaflex MXL and ARRI 235 bodies, with a complete set of anamorphic lenses, Panaflex 65 mm Studio and Spinning Mirror bodies, and a full range of lenses. Pfister had Kodak Vision 3 500T 5219 negative on his palette for night and interior scenes, and Vision 3 250D 5207 and Vision 2 50D 5201 for daylight exteriors.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Per Barco's website, Power Rangers wasn't in Auro though. It was in Atmos and DTS:X but not Auro. An Auro-equipped XD auditorium presumably would've played it in 7.1.

no no...not Audio Noise...........but Video Noise.... I think it's called Mosquito noise....like you could see the pixelation blocks in the darkest part of the scenes in the cave. When I saw that I was like What the???

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The IMAX version most definitely changes aspect ratio at several times throughout the movie, though it's not the jarring on/off/on/off rhythm that Nolan previously employed so it draws less attention to itself. And it may be more/less impactful depending on the aspect ratio of the specific screen you're viewing.

Still, if viewing on 15/70 IMAX the drop in quality alone should be enough to mark it out, as the glossy 15-perf gorgeousness gives way to dull, grainy 5-perf images.

As for Inception, here's one more confirmation on no IMAX, this time from British Cinematographer: https://britishcinematographer.co.uk...asc-inception/

The scene I truly recalled as to going Letterbox was on that small boat when they picked up the pilot.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The...glossy 15-perf gorgeousness gives way to dull, grainy 5-perf images.

On IMAX maybe but even on a 2K pillarboxed projection, the 5-perf footage looked extraordinarily rich and the grain made the image all the more delicious and crisp. The colour timing was also deep and very natural. Film grain aesthetic is one of the reasons I try my best to watch that movie on the big screen and pay good money for it.
Digital images do not excite me much at all. It is those that look incredibly character-less, dull and flat. Almost all film shot movies have that textured, sharp aesthetic including The Hateful 8, The Mag 7, The Mummy, Dunkirk.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

On IMAX maybe but even on a 2K pillarboxed projection, the 5-perf footage looked extraordinarily rich and the grain made the image all the more delicious and crisp. The colour timing was also deep and very natural. Film grain aesthetic is one of the reasons I try my best to watch that movie on the big screen and pay good money for it.
Digital images do not excite me much at all. It is those that look incredibly character-less, dull and flat. Almost all film shot movies have that textured, sharp aesthetic including The Hateful 8, The Mag 7, The Mummy, Dunkirk.

You are talking about the 2017 version and not the 1999 one right?