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

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Eric The Duke

I'm almost certain it is 1.43 because I saw Dunkirk there and it took up the whole screen.

What I imagine they would do for a 1.66 screen is crop the film slightly in order to fill the screen.

In NYC, they typically do this as well for Kips Bay (a scope screen, so no image expansion for IMAX shot movies from what I've seen there), and AMC Empire (though the screen is like 2:1, so the difference is not too dramatic) rather than going to a 1.9 image.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Eric The Duke

I'm almost certain it is 1.43 because I saw Dunkirk there and it took up the whole screen.

it is 1.43

[xbs2034]

Maze Runner: The Death Cure will be expanded to 1.9 for the entire film in IMAX

https://www.imax.com/news/maze-runne...ively-for-IMAX

[ITDEFX101]

Who has the final say on the final release AR? The studio, the theaters, the director? I was reading how some places had problems properly projecting the various AR's in their *IMAX* screens so some got images projected outside of the screen frame for Dunkirk.

As for Maze Runner...... 1.9AR for the entire movie? Isn't that overkill? I am still curious about how A:IW is going to be projected since it was said it was going to be filmed mostly with IMAX Cameras. I don't like full framed scenes of people talking....like in TDKR (that scene after Bruce's first night back as Batman)...in other words slow moments in the film.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Who has the final say on the final release AR? The studio, the theaters, the director? I was reading how some places had problems properly projecting the various AR's in their *IMAX* screens so some got images projected outside of the screen frame for Dunkirk.

As for Maze Runner...... 1.9AR for the entire movie? Isn't that overkill? I am still curious about how A:IW is going to be projected since it was said it was going to be filmed mostly with IMAX Cameras. I don't like full framed scenes of people talking....like in TDKR (that scene after Bruce's first night back as Batman)...in other words slow moments in the film.

I'd imagine the director, editor, and cinematographer have the most influence over aspect ratio, with perhaps studios suggesting expanded IMAX AR in some cases to help sell the IMAX version of the film. As for Maze Runner being entirely 1.9, that's not uncommon at all for some expanded IMAX films.

As for different theaters, it is important to remember that not all IMAXes have the same AR (and not just 1.43 and 1.9, I've seen plenty of variations all the way up to scope), and for expanded ratio films, I think the goal is to fill the screen as much as possible. Since they probably figure as long as the scope "safe area" is accounted for, any extra image is a bonus.

[Geoff D]

Movies are a business at the end of the day. The studios want to make money and things like expanded IMAX versions are a way to imbue a certain 'prestige' so directors and cinematographers are increasingly having this thrust upon them as well as 3D conversions. Roger Deakins would never have gone near 3D and/or an embiggened 1.90 version for BR2049 but it wasn't his decision to make so he protected for it as best he could and oversaw the process as best he could whilst proclaiming that the 2.39 2D version is his preferred iteration.

[Riddhi2011]

I so wish they do a 2.00:1 or 1.89:1 IMAX version for 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.' It'd be an incredibly immersive experience. Watching IMAX movies with black bars on top and bottom feel like a waste, given that IMAX is supposed to fully immerse you.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I so wish they do a 2.00:1 or 1.89:1 IMAX version for 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.' It'd be an incredibly immersive experience. Watching IMAX movies with black bars on top and bottom feel like a waste, given that IMAX is supposed to fully immerse you.

It'll most likely be specially formatted for IMAX, unless they shot it anamorphic.

If not, a 1.90:1 aspect ratio is still a possibility.

[Geoff D]

It wasn't anamorphic AFAIK so they'd be able to 'open up' for 1.90 with ease. I saw Riddhi mention that a 1.90 would be a "significant" crop from the 2.11 open gate sensor in another thread but no, it's not. When you're shooting 6.5K you've got a lot of leeway in the framing and they NEVER use the whole frame as captured when shooting flat anyway. They line up the 'active' picture area inside that frame and then compose accordingly, giving them space to move the framing in either axis if so desired in post.

[Riddhi2011]

They are using Alexa 65 full sensor for the VFX plates (2.11:1) and Alexa XT full sensor (1.5:1) for other scenes.

Here's the 2.11:1 full sensor render for the Baryonyx shot -

JW2 Baryonyx full frame lowrez.jpg

Same frame from 2.39:1 cropped trailer -

JW2 Baryonyx full frame lowrez Trailer.jpg

They are using a top-heavy Super-35 style framing.

[ITDEFX101]

Shit are there such things as Domed IMAX Theaters still in the US playing IMAX Hollywood films? I remembered seeing some Simpson's short playing in an IMAX domed screen around the year 2000 in south Florida.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Shit are there such things as Domed IMAX Theaters still in the US playing IMAX Hollywood films? I remembered seeing some Simpson's short playing in an IMAX domed screen around the year 2000 in south Florida.

They do on occasion, I think just for movies which have 15/70 print runs (Dunkirk and The Last Jedi listed domes among their 15/70 sites).

I felt dizzy and had a headache after seeing a 45 minute nature documentary in an IMAX dome, wouldn't want to watch a traditional Hollywood feature that way, but others may like the unique experience.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

They do on occasion, I think just for movies which have 15/70 print runs (Dunkirk and The Last Jedi listed domes among their 15/70 sites).

I felt dizzy and had a headache after seeing a 45 minute nature documentary in an IMAX dome, wouldn't want to watch a traditional Hollywood feature that way, but others may like the unique experience.

Now see that is an immersive experience. F' 3d!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It wasn't anamorphic AFAIK so they'd be able to 'open up' for 1.90 with ease. I saw Riddhi mention that a 1.90 would be a "significant" crop from the 2.11 open gate sensor in another thread but no, it's not. When you're shooting 6.5K you've got a lot of leeway in the framing and they NEVER use the whole frame as captured when shooting flat anyway. They line up the 'active' picture area inside that frame and then compose accordingly, giving them space to move the framing in either axis if so desired in post.

If they don't use the whole sensor area, then it beats me why the ILM Baryonyx still pic (see my previous post) is in a 2.11:1 ratio and why the 2.39:1 trailer is using the whole width of that 2.11:1 render?. The final DCP may be different, after the 3D conversion and what not but right now it seems they've rendered the whole 2.11:1 frame as a "base" at least.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

If they don't use the whole sensor area, then it beats me why the ILM Baryonyx still pic (see my previous post) is in a 2.11:1 ratio and why the 2.39:1 trailer is using the whole width of that 2.11:1 render?. The final DCP may be different, after the 3D conversion and what not but right now it seems they've rendered the whole 2.11:1 frame as a "base" at least.

Perhaps they're using the OG sensor for VFX plates. Like Geoff said, you have a crap ton of leeway with a 6.5K sensor, especially one as big as an Alexa 65's, so not a significant amount of information is lost in the process.

I still wouldn't rule out a possible 1.90:1 IMAX framing.

[Riddhi2011]

The best thing would be to not have any expectations for an expanded IMAX framing; seeing as Bayona prefers composing in 2.39:1.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

If they don't use the whole sensor area, then it beats me why the ILM Baryonyx still pic (see my previous post) is in a 2.11:1 ratio and why the 2.39:1 trailer is using the whole width of that 2.11:1 render?. The final DCP may be different, after the 3D conversion and what not but right now it seems they've rendered the whole 2.11:1 frame as a "base" at least.

Riddhi, you're still not seeing every last pixel of the entire frame as captured, the ratio of that "render" means nothing unless you've got the raw image alongside it for comparison. Images are typically extracted from the flat capture within a set of framing guidelines, not least because the bigger the sensor/negative area then vignetting becomes more of a problem as the glass struggles to cover the entire image circle. Even on regular 35mm-sized sensors/negative this can be an issue, e.g. on It they shot some spherical stuff with the Alexa capturing 3414x2198 at source but framed up for 3074x1730 within that active picture area, with a further 10% "punch in" owing to the vignetting effect of a certain wide angle lens.

What you see isn't always what you get, so if they are indeed going for an opened up 1.90 version on this latest JW flick then I have no doubt it was framed up for 1.90 within the sensor and the 2.39 was cropped down from that 1.90 framing. If we don't get an embiggened IMAX version then yes, they will have framed up for 2.39 first and foremost within the 2.11 open gate capture, but they would still not have gone 'edge to edge' with it as that leaves them no room to recompose in post. It's just not done that way.

[Riddhi2011]

Geoff, I think they were very conscious about adopting scope ratio when all the previous films were in flat formats. It kind of defeats the purpose to have a flat AR for IMAX again, when they want this movie to visually feel very different to the ones before. But time will tell if they prioritise the IMAX experience or just put out a blown-up version of the same scope ratio that everyone will see in regular cinemas. For example, look at 'The Last Jedi.' Even though they filmed partially with ALexa 65 and IMAX film cameras, there was no expanded framing.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Geoff, I think they were very conscious about adopting scope ratio when all the previous films were in flat formats. It kind of defeats the purpose to have a flat AR for IMAX again, when they want this movie to visually feel very different to the ones before. But time will tell if they prioritise the IMAX experience or just put out a blown-up version of the same scope ratio that everyone will see in regular cinemas. For example, look at 'The Last Jedi.' Even though they filmed partially with ALexa 65 and IMAX film cameras, there was no expanded framing.

See that's one question that should be brought up to the director instead of "How did Luke really pull off that stunt at the end of the movie????"

I don't twitter but I am sure someone can ask.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

See that's one question that should be brought up to the director instead of "How did Luke really pull off that stunt at the end of the movie????"

I don't twitter but I am sure someone can ask.

I loved The Last Jedi! I found it to be quite a satisfactory experience. As far as I know, they filmed Chewbacca roasting a porg, on IMAX film. It'd be very odd to have that scene be in 1.43:1. They may have shot some other stuff on Skellig Michael on the IMAX film cameras as well. The aerial shot of the island certainly felt very IMAX-like to me.