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

[Riddhi2011]

I was pointing out that Star Wars has indeed gone beyond 2.39:1 in a few occasions. IMAX versions don't replace original scope versions, as far as I am aware. It remains a speciality exhibition format. None of the IMAX scenes from Star Wars or 'MI:Ghost protocol' ended up on the Blu-ray. But they were still done for an IMAX exclusive event. Even Nolan's film's are not presented in their original IMAX ratio on Blu-ray.
I wasn't talking about home video but about the cinema experience itself.

By the way, as I said earlier, my intention is not to agitate any member here, which I feel is what is happening with some, reading my comments. This was not a rant. Just the announcement that JW2 won't have an IMAX expansion created a conversation between members. By no means I was being disrespectful to anyone's opinion and definitely not to Bayona. Was just stating my different opinion on this issue in a civil manner.

I just love IMAX, having seen AVATAR, The Dark Knight Rises on 15/70. And the IMAX ratio (even 1.89:1) just makes the experience so much more intense, especially for these type of films that are made for a large audience and fan base. I wished to see this movie in such a manner, just that. The fact that they were shooting with the Alexa65 in 6K, made me hope that'd be possible. And in my opinion, JP movies would benefit a lot from a large format IMAX experience.

Anyway, moving on!

[GLaDOS]

To be fair, Jurassic World did shoot in the odd 2:1 aspect ratio for the IMAX/widescreen compromise.

And the real IMAX ratio is 1.43:1

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

To be fair, Jurassic World did shoot in the odd 2:1 aspect ratio for the IMAX/widescreen compromise.

And the real IMAX ratio is 1.43:1

Yeah, it's a shame how rare one gets true 1.43, even with IMAX cameras or formatting. Force Awakens and Dunkirk in 1.43 laser were certainly something to see, and while 1.9 basically does fill my field of view, it is a bit less impressive to look up during Infinity War and see the black bar there.

As to some other points, while I do really enjoy when films have expanded IMAX ratio, the aspect ratio should totally be a director's call, and if a director wants constant scope everywhere, I'm not gonna complain.

And I think Disney's weaker sound mixes have been known, but I will say Infinity War, while not the most impressive mix I've come across by any means, did seem to make more use of the immersive qualities of IMAX 12 Channel sound than Last Jedi, Inhumans, or Thor 3 did (first two in same laser theater, Thor in a digital IMAX with 12 Channel sound system).

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Well, Bayona has always shot in scope and he definitely favours that format. I guess he wouldn't have done the movie if he wasn't allowed to shoot scope. Which is why it is likely that even though Spielberg insisted on a flat aspect ratio to Colin Trevorrow for JW, he accepted Bayona's choice of scope.

well maybe certain director's need to think outside the box

'A Monster Calls' could have helped framed in 'flat' and include an immersive audio mix, which is oddly denoted as such on the end credits as such, but not actually released in Dolby Atmos (shame)

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

To be fair, Jurassic World did shoot in the odd 2:1 aspect ratio for the IMAX/widescreen compromise.

And the real IMAX ratio is 1.43:1

I personally was quite on board with 2.00:1 because it supports both scope and flat type of framing without compromising height or width. I had thought the JW series will maintain that through the trilogy.
Oh and don't worry, I know true IMAX is 15 perf 70mm and has a 1.43:1 aspect ratio. I have seen TDKR in that format.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I personally was quite on board with 2.00:1 because it supports both scope and flat type of framing without compromising height or width. I had thought the JW series will maintain that through the trilogy.
Oh and don't worry, I know true IMAX is 15 perf 70mm and has a 1.43:1 aspect ratio. I have seen TDKR in that format.

if the original 15/70 photography was shot as such then yes, it's 1.43:1 but a DMR'd blowup of a scope film will be retained and shown letterboxed within the 1.43 framing.

[questrider]

Is the screen size at all Dolby Cinemas the same size? And if they are, what size is it?

I wish there was an easy way to find out the screen sizes of theaters. I went to a Regal RPX recently and asked the manager working, "Do you know the size of the RPX screen?" And he replied, "Yes, but I'd have to look it up." To which I responded, "So you don't know it then." He said, flatly, "Yes, I do, but I'd have to look it up." He didn't say he would either as he was brushing me off. I could only respond with, "Then the answer is, 'No, I don't know.'" I shook my head while walking away.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by questrider

Is the screen size at all Dolby Cinemas the same size? And if they are, what size is it?

I wish there was an easy way to find out the screen sizes of theaters. I went to a Regal RPX recently and asked the manager working, "Do you know the size of the RPX screen?" And he replied, "Yes, but I'd have to look it up." To which I responded, "So you don't know it then." He said, flatly, "Yes, I do, but I'd have to look it up." He didn't say he would either as he was brushing me off. I could only respond with, "Then the answer is, 'No, I don't know.'" I shook my head while walking away.

I doubt they are all the same size, particularly as some are scope and some are flat aspect ratio screens. I've only been to one, and it is smaller than the digital IMAX in the same theater (think IMAX has a contract that it has to be largest screen in a theater) as well as the RPX across the street, but don't know the actual size.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

if the original 15/70 photography was shot as such then yes, it's 1.43:1 but a DMR'd blowup of a scope film will be retained and shown letterboxed within the 1.43 framing.

I know that as well. I have seen 'The Half Blood Prince' on 15/70 and it was letterboxed to 2.39:1 for the entire running length.

Originally Posted by questrider

Is the screen size at all Dolby Cinemas the same size? And if they are, what size is it?

If you do a Google Image search, "Dolby Cinema screen size," etc, then you'll find they are in varying shapes, ranging from flat, to 2.00:1 to 2.39:1 and maybe more aspect ratios. There's no standard. Even IMAX nowadays are installing 2.39:1 and 2.00:1 screens from what I heard. Colin Trevorrow, said back in 2015 that an IMAX screen, near to where he lives, was in 2.00:1 and that JW would fill such screens. Of course the decision had a more solid reason; 2:1 having both the height and width advantage of flat and scope.

Here is one such interview where Colin talks of JW filling the whole of an IMAX digital screen -

Jurassic World IMAX® Featurette - YouTube

[xbs2034]

Yeah, there is no 100% set IMAX aspect ratio. Of the four IMAXes near me, the laser (former 15/70) is 1.43, and the digital ones are 1.9, 2.07, and 2.39.

Even further with one that used to be 15/70 (now digital but not sure I've gone since the conversion) it was definitely wider than 1.43.

[Riddhi2011]

You folks are so lucky! There's not a single existing IMAX screen near me. There was one 15/70 (1.43:1) screen that opened in 2008 and shut down in 2011 due to lack of attendance over stale content running for months. Somehow, they couldn't recuperate the costs of running expensive IMAX film prints. I saw Avatar in 70mm 3D four times there. I also saw Half Blood prince on that. Now PVR has acquired the cinema and that screen has been converted to a PXL screen with a 1.89:1 aspect ratio. They have dual projectors and claim to be 4K. I doubt it. However, the 3D is brighter than regular cinemas. But, because it is not affiliated with IMAX, no IMAX expansion happens on scope movies. They just run the regular DCP. The screen is also less wider than it used to be with IMAX. They have masked off the sides and as a result the vertical space has become much smaller as well. This is because the purported 4K projectors are not powerful enough to cover the entire horizontal length of the original IMAX screen. It definitely does not fill my field of vision.

The fact that it is 1.89:1 is very interesting. Before the screen opened, there was talk that PVR was partnering with IMAX and installing a laser projector. So, they set up the screen for the regular IMAX ratio and made the projection window larger. It's huge! However, for some reason (financial most likely) the deal fell through and the partnership did not happen.
So, PVR took this opportunity to develop their own brand of large screens and branded it as P[XL] or Premium Large format. They already had everything set up and didn't have to spend any extra money for it. With the success of this screen, they have now started to create more P[XL] screens across their chains in India.

The image size is like a digital-IMAX. But, the screen is curved because that's how it was originally designed by IMAX in 2008. The auditorium also boasts newly installed Dolby Atmos sound system. The sound is booming! However, to be fair, it always had a big soundscape even during the IMAX era. In fact, IMAX sound was more enveloping, from all sides. Atmos is just loud and bassy. Overhead activity is mild.

Another digital 2K IMAX was supposed to open last year. Then it kept getting pushed back. Last we heard it would open this April. That date is gone too. It's not looking promising. Our state science centre also had a 10/70 OMNIMAX dome that ONLY played IMAX documentary film prints. That has also been shut down to convert the projection to digital.

[ITDEFX101]

So did anyone catch IW at Udvar this weekend? I am avoiding it until next weekend....I am sure it was mega packed.

[ghornett]

Dolby screens are definitely different sizes. The Disney Springs one is in a huge, 3 story room with a balcony even. Few miles north there is a more standard size room/screen.

I really noticed the IMAX composition in IW. I saw it on a scope screen and lots of scalps and chins were chopped off.

[Riddhi2011]

This is the largest screen (originally a 15/70 IMAX) there is, in my state, in India (Not my video) -

PVR XL. Mani Square Mall, - YouTube

The one below explains the technology of the P[XL] branded screens -

PVR’s Large Screen Format – P[XL] - YouTube

The Barco Laser Projectors are a lie though, as Barco website does not mention the theatre. I think it's safe to say that it just has regular 4K/2K xenon ones.


By the way, the doc below is a very well researched dissertation on IMAX, its history and technology -

https://www.slideshare.net/DarshilKapadiya2/imaxdocx

[Geoff D]

Well, the June issue of American Cinematographer is out and I'm still no clearer as to how they shot this movie with a 1.90 aspect and 1.3x anamorphic lenses. It simply says that they shot using the Alexa's Open Gate 6560x3100 mode (2.11 aspect on the sensor itself) and lined it up for 1.90 with a centre extraction from that for 2.39...and then go on to talk about the Ultra Panatar 1.3x anamorphic lenses which were newly refurbished for this show, as well as using Sphero 65's for the VFX plates. But 1.3 x 2.11 is still a 2.64 aspect when desqueezed to the correct dimensions, so...

Oh, and given how I love to shit on all the marketing waffle about Infinity War having been shot on "IMAX" cameras, note that the camera is referred to as the Alexa 65 throughout the article, with a small nod to IMAX "optimising the camera image for presentation on IMAx's projection systems". Alllllllrighty then. They also used the 8K RED Helium and Dragon for certain shots in the Edinburgh sequences, so it wasn't all 100% "IMAX" after all that waffle anyway. "But but but...how can it be in 1.90 aspect throughout if it wasn't all shot on IMAX?". Because IMAX doesn't own aspect ratios. You can frame up whatever AR you please on any of today's cameras, and the last few Marvel movies shot on the Alexa 65 or the RED Dragon VV could've just as easily been opened up to 1.90 for the whole duration if they wanted to.

[xbs2034]

Sully also stayed in 1.9 throughout (unless you count the little documentary scene in the credits, but I don't really) despite not being 100% shot in Alexa IMAX. In there it was the scenes shot in the flight simulators which used different cameras.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Sully also stayed in 1.9 throughout (unless you count the little documentary scene in the credits, but I don't really) despite not being 100% shot in Alexa IMAX. In there it was the scenes shot in the flight simulators which used different cameras.

Ah, but I thought Sully wasn't officially "shot" in Alexa IMAX anyway, they used Alexa 65's without the sticker on them so it doesn't qualify in the same way IW does, despite that flick not being entirely lensed on Alexa 65, sorry, "IMAX" either. So much marketing bullshit

Originally Posted by sentinel-fine

Unless the anamorphic lens was rotated 90°; then the captured image would be 1.63:1.

But then wouldn't the anamorphic element be rotated 90 degrees as well, thus making the elliptical bokeh look horizontally flattened rather than vertically stretched? No sign of that in IW.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, but I thought Sully wasn't officially "shot" in Alexa IMAX anyway, they used Alexa 65's without the sticker on them so it doesn't qualify in the same way IW does, despite that flick not being entirely lensed on Alexa 65, sorry, "IMAX" either. So much marketing bullshit

Posters for the film were labelled with "Filmed with IMAX cameras.", so it did have the Alexa IMAX branding, just not for everything as stated.

[GLaDOS]

IMAX and Arri needs to stop lazing around and give us a true 1.43:1 digital IMAX camera already.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scorpion Soldier

Posters for the film were labelled with "Filmed with IMAX cameras.", so it did have the Alexa IMAX branding, just not for everything as stated.

I remember hearing that they chose the Alexa 65 but it wasn't the "IMAX" version, for whatever difference that makes, and it kinda got fudged into "Shot in IMAX" as they were shooting, which is now the official history. Could've made that up in my head, mind you.

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

IMAX and Arri needs to stop lazing around and give us a true 1.43:1 digital IMAX camera already.

Alas, as people have said the data output from that would be MONSTROUS. Not all that practical unfortunately. But while people are swallowing this "Shot in IMAX™©®" marketing sizzle hook line and sinker what difference does it make? Even 1.44 itself seems to be a dying format when it comes to brand new IMAX cinema installs.