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

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Not being able to shoot sync sound did not stop the filmmakers from shooting something like "Born to be Wild" on this camera. Nolan doesn't even use 3D, so this camera is not in his radar anyway. But Dual strip 15-perf 3D is like the holy gail of 3D in terms of the sheer resolution, clarity of IMAX. The Alexa IMAX camera does not even come close to the level of detail that this format can resolve.

The majority of Born to Be Wild was shot using their prototype 3D camera using two Phantom 65 cameras.
As for the the IMAX camera you're referring to, I'm aware that Nolan doesn't use 3D but the those IMAX film cameras are so loud, you cannot shoot any usable dialogue footage without major ADR. Nolan has said this himself.

[GLaDOS]

Oh, brother. Here we go again.

[Riddhi2011]

No we don't!

[dannphou]

For "Ready Player One" in IMAX. I saw this "In 2D and 3D (conversion). Aspect ratio cropped to 1.90:1 for the entire film".

Does this mean that we''ll be losing a part of the image, since it's being cropped?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by dannphou

For "Ready Player One" in IMAX. I saw this "In 2D and 3D (conversion). Aspect ratio cropped to 1.90:1 for the entire film".

Does this mean that we''ll be losing a part of the image, since it's being cropped?

Any scenes shot anamorphic will be cropped unless they letterbox it.

[Riddhi2011]

I think it's crazy that they'd crop from 2.39:1 anamorphic and blow-up to 1.90:1. Imdb cannot be relied upon. The site mentioned that Jurassic World 2 was in 1.85:1 before Bayona announced otherwise on Twitter.

It is possible that only some scenes would open up and those were shot with spherical lenses. The only instances of such cropping I've heard is back in the 1980s and '90s when anamorphic shot movies (in 2.35:1) were blown-up to 70mm (2.20:1) with the sides cut off. Same thing was done for Kong: Skull Island's 70mm presentation.

2.39:1 to 1.90:1 is pretty extreme a crop and too much information will be lost, framing will be compromised unless they shot it 1.90:1 safe within the anamorphic frame; which is also never done.

[xbs2034]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of scope movies keep 1.9 or so framing somewhat safe due to many TV or airline broadcasts showing films in 16x9. For instance, saw both Doctor Strange and Black Panther in 1.85 (due to incorrect masking setting, you could actually make out a bit of the image behind masking in brighter shots), but very little of it didn't seem to work framing wise.

Still doubt that info about Ready Player One is correct. Either the vast majority of the film can be expanded to IMAX (I think they said with Blade Runner 2049 just 3 shots were cropped, and everything in The Death Cure was expanded), or it will be presented in scope/use expansion only in select sequences (haven't seen "specially formatted in IMAX" marketing yet, though that often is last minute, and IMDB was also listing Pacific Rim Uprising as 1.9 in IMAX until recently).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

2.39:1 to 1.90:1 is pretty extreme a crop and too much information will be lost, framing will be compromised unless they shot it 1.90:1 safe within the anamorphic frame; which is also never done.

Never done for a 2.39 film but for 1.85 movies like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World which had some sequences shot anamorphic, or 1.78 TV shows like Fear The Walking Dead or True Detective.

[Riddhi2011]

For 'Scott Pilgrim,' they used anamorphic to get that particular look, not the aspect ratio, I presume?
But in the '80s, 2.35:1 anamorphic lensed films were indeed cropped and blown up to 2.20:1 aspect ratio for 70mm exhibitions.
This, if true, seems like an extreme example of that.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

For 'Scott Pilgrim,' they used anamorphic to get that particular look, not the aspect ratio, I presume?
But in the '80s, 2.35:1 anamorphic lensed films were indeed cropped and blown up to 2.20:1 aspect ratio for 70mm exhibitions.
This, if true, seems like an extreme example of that.

Yes, for the look.

They've been doing 70MM blowups since the 60s, cropping 35MM anamorphic photography a bit for the narrower ratio.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

They've been doing 70MM blowups since the 60s....

Didn't know that.

[Geoff D]

Some cameras even have a "16:9 anamorphic" sensor setting for using 2x anamorphic glass, so you can frame/capture for 1.78. The BBC's recent adaptation of War and Peace is another production shot with anamorphic lenses for a final 1.78 output. Starting to see it used quite a bit on TV dramas and whatnot.

Alexa mini:

[Geoff D]

Another example is the 'Electric Dreams' series, when I saw this ep I knew instantly it had been shot on anamorphic (dat depth of field! dat bokeh!) but naturally it was 1.78 for broadcast. What I didn't know is that it had been shot in 8K in order to give them the 1.78 'punch in' that they wanted when using these idiosyncratic old anamorphic lenses without the image being degraded too much in terms of resolution. Awesome.

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/jo...lectric-dreams

[testmon112]

Yeah, True Detective (Season 2) and I think Focus (Will Smith) both cropped the center image from 2x anamorphic squeeze. The Russos are doing something similar (whilst different) for Infinity War due to the massive A3X Sensor.

It's an interesting creative choice, and the extra real estate on both the Helium and Alexa65 can accommodate the detail cropped out.

[Geoff D]

I'm still not clear on exactly what they're doing with Infinity War. Shirley they didn't shoot it anamorphic using the Ultra Panatars but actually frame up a 1.90 extraction within that 2.65 frame (2.11 x 1.25) and then crop the regular 2.40 version out of the 1.90 extraction?

The numbers would be something like 6560x3100 open gate without the desqueeze applied, so that would become something like 6560x2476 with the 1.25x desqueeze. Cropping the 1.90 out of that would give you roughly 4702x2476 to play with, allowing them plenty of room to punch in even tighter for the 'official' 4096x2160 1.90 extraction and even the 2.40 'scope version would still be 4096x1716. Clearly they'd have done tests to make sure that the UP glass could stand up to that kind of closer scrutiny (as per the Electric Dreams article above, albeit with 2x 35mm glass) so that looks like it'd work.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm still not clear on exactly what they're doing with Infinity War. Shirley they didn't shoot it anamorphic using the Ultra Panatars but actually frame up a 1.90 extraction within that 2.65 frame (2.11 x 1.25) and then crop the regular 2.40 version out of the 1.90 extraction?

The numbers would be something like 6560x3100 open gate without the desqueeze applied, so that would become something like 6560x2476 with the 1.25x desqueeze. Cropping the 1.90 out of that would give you roughly 4702x2476 to play with, allowing them plenty of room to punch in even tighter for the 'official' 4096x2160 1.90 extraction and even the 2.40 'scope version would still be 4096x1716. Clearly they'd have done tests to make sure that the UP glass could stand up to that kind of closer scrutiny (as per the Electric Dreams article above, albeit with 2x 35mm glass) so that looks like it'd work.

UGHHHHHHHHH

See why is it that the trailer for TF: The Last Knight gave us a pretty good indication of how the final product would be presented visually in IMAX? I am just like, "why am I even bothering to see a movie in an D-IMAX screen these days?" My local Regal D-IMAX screen still opens up with the bottom 2 or 3 feet blocked off. Felt so ripped off when TLJ ended up being letterboxed through the film.

[ITDEFX101]

btw...does anyone know what's going on with Tomb Raider and Pacific Rim? Are they going to open scenes up or just keep it letterboxed the entire time in IMAX?

[testmon112]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm still not clear on exactly what they're doing with Infinity War. Shirley they didn't shoot it anamorphic using the Ultra Panatars but actually frame up a 1.90 extraction within that 2.65 frame (2.11 x 1.25) and then crop the regular 2.40 version out of the 1.90 extraction?

The numbers would be something like 6560x3100 open gate without the desqueeze applied, so that would become something like 6560x2476 with the 1.25x desqueeze. Cropping the 1.90 out of that would give you roughly 4702x2476 to play with, allowing them plenty of room to punch in even tighter for the 'official' 4096x2160 1.90 extraction and even the 2.40 'scope version would still be 4096x1716. Clearly they'd have done tests to make sure that the UP glass could stand up to that kind of closer scrutiny (as per the Electric Dreams article above, albeit with 2x 35mm glass) so that looks like it'd work.

4712 x 3100 is what 1.90:1 framing (maybe even more to give themselves some leeway) would cover and they would crop the 2.40 from there .For the VFX shots there's clearly some more real estate considering they've creating most of the shot from scratch and keying in the performance by the actor.




I'm surprised the APO Pantars hold up, because I remember Greig Fraser said when he received them for Rogue One he noted they were not in good condition but since being used on Hateful Eight, Rogue One and now Infinity War and other productions they've been run out properly.

[PeterTHX]

^ That particular shot is flat and not anamorphic.

[testmon112]

Probably a better example.