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

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by antovolk

Here's a cut down version of the trailer presented in 1:1 - again, lends to how they're rendering the FX and keeping the frame safe for 4:3
https://twitter.com/WarnerBros_ph/st...60357142102016

EDIT: also
https://twitter.com/Die_Wil_Wheaton/...67791612997633

Ugh. Same grimdark color grading. Why do the DC films have to be so friggin' UGLY?

[GLaDOS]

I'd be more than happy if they specially formatted Justice League for the classic IMAX venues... it's kind of a bummer Snyder moved away from using actual IMAX cameras and opted for Super 35 instead, but at least we're getting a constant AR suitably formatted for IMAX.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Visionist

I seriously doubt they'd release any full length 1:44 prints. It's never been done before.

Would love to be wrong.

It's not a question of print logistics though. They've never released any full-length prints in the fixed 1.44 aspect because no full-length feature has been entirely shot and/or finished in 1.44. The issue of full-length 1.44 acquisition is what it is, as the IMAX 15-perf camera bodies simply can't be used for dialogue scenes because of the racket that they make, and so many movies are shot anamorphic or flat on a wide sensor that a 1.44 finish just isn't feasible. Heck, even T2 got a fullap scan of the 4-perf Super 35 original for the recent restoration but the theatrical 3D release is resolutely 2.40 because that's what it was framed for first and foremost.

This is not to say that a full 1.44 feature is impossible, it's just that the stars have never aligned to make it happen. The Ghostbusters reboot got an exclusive 1.44 version of sorts, the movie was still letterboxed BUT the frame breaking effects were extended further than the 1.90 frame and into the 1.44. And yet with Snyder shooting JL in 4-perf S35 and deciding to frame for 1.85, a 1.44 finish isn't a radical departure so this could well be the first all-1.44 IMAX feature. Or maybe just the trailer was finished with more height to allow for the social media clips, we'll find out in a few months anyways.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

as the IMAX 15-perf camera bodies simply can't be used for dialogue scenes because of the racket that they make, and so many movies are shot anamorphic or flat on a wide sensor that a 1.44 finish just isn't feasible.

Totally irrelevant. A great percentage of dialog in almost every movie, especially effects movies, are looped anyway.

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Totally irrelevant. A great percentage of dialog in almost every movie, especially effects movies, are looped anyway.

then why are directors like Nolan are using it as an 'excuse' as to why they don't shoot full films in IMAX?

In any case the loudness of the cameras make it very difficult for actors to work in dialogue scenes...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Totally irrelevant. A great percentage of dialog in almost every movie, especially effects movies, are looped anyway.

Of course. But when you're doing dialogue scenes in the studio, away from the sort of 'dirty' recordings you end up with on location shoots, you'd want to use, y'know, the actual performances as much as possible and not have to ADR the entire damned movie from start to finish.

FYI they used 5-perf 65mm for certain 'IMAX' interiors in BvS because the IMAX 65mm process was just too loud for the actors. Quotes can be provided upon request.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of course. But when you're doing dialogue scenes in the studio, away from the sort of 'dirty' recordings you end up with on location shoots, you'd want to use, y'know, the actual performances as much as possible and not have to ADR the entire damned movie from start to finish.

FYI they used 5-perf 65mm for certain 'IMAX' interiors in BvS because the IMAX 65mm process was just too loud for the actors. Quotes can be provided upon request.

Please post quotes.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Poya

Please post quotes.

Ask and ye shall receive. Okay, it's not "quotes" plural but I don't think any more needs to be said.

From American Cinematographer April 2016, p.75:

Shooting the Imax sequences posed certain challenges. Actors sometimes found the cameras’ size and noise levels intimidating when filming closeups, prompting [Director of Photography Larry] Fong to swap in the quieter and more compact System 65 camera bodies, fitted with System 65 prime lenses.

System 65 = 5-perf 65mm. See here: http://uk.panavision.com/products/uk...rmat-system-65

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by antovolk

Just a thought about how this film will be presented in IMAX, for the 1.9:1 screens it won't matters since the regular 1.85 version will fill these screens anyway like with Avengers 1, Pacific Rim, GITS and so on. But what if for 1.43:1 venues they end up showing it open matte i.e 'specially formatting' to fill the screen the way they've done with 2.40:1 releases for 1.9:1 screens?

Today, with 4K-6K scans available for 35mm film, holding up on IMAX isn't a big deal as there is no generation loss in digital, neither is it being optically blown up, if I understand it correctly. The high res scan is graded and then digitally printed on film.

If presented in full 1.44:1, it will be awesome. When the first trailer dropped, the shallow depth of field and the colour grading made me feel as if this was shot on 15/70 film. The image is incredibly detailed and does not look like 35mm in many shots.

If they do decide to go 1.44:1, I hope they also release that version on home video. However, seeing as they didn't do so for BVS, it's highly unlikely for JL to break that practice.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

I'll have to give a proper 4K DI movie a chance in Dolby Cinema but I'll have to wait for now. I noticed an odd buzzing sound coming from the front in the Dolby room. When I spoke with a manager they said the Dolby Cinema rooms have motors that vibrate the screen!?!?! Apparently one of them is overly buzzy. They said it was because the green color emitted from the laser projector refracts differently. I dunno...

I've never heard of such a thing...does anyone really know why the Dolby Cinema room would have a vibrating screen?

I forgot to mention that noise. I did not notice such a thing when I saw a Dolby Cinema showing in LA.

Edit: Thanks for the info, everyone. I did not know such a screen arrangement existed. In that case the motor system in MN is screwed up because the LA one was dead silent.

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Today, with 4K-6K scans available for 35mm film, holding up on IMAX isn't a big deal as there is no generation loss in digital, neither is it being optically blown up, if I understand it correctly. The high res scan is graded and then digitally printed on film.

If presented in full 1.44:1, it will be awesome. When the first trailer dropped, the shallow depth of field and the colour grading made me feel as if this was shot on 15/70 film. The image is incredibly detailed and does not look like 35mm in many shots.

If they do decide to go 1.44:1, I hope they also release that version on home video. However, seeing as they didn't do so for BVS, it's highly unlikely for JL to break that practice.

There won't be added benefit though as the film would be presented full screen on home video anyway as the regular AR for this is 1.85.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by antovolk

There won't be added benefit though as the film would be presented full screen on home video anyway as the regular AR for this is 1.85.

Yes, but Riddhi's got a thing for seeing the 1.44 versions on home video, black bars be damned! I agree with you BTW, we're already going to get a natively "full screen" 1.78 version for home video so there's no reason whatsoever to release a 1.44 edition and have people complaining about the bars on the sides.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Today, with 4K-6K scans available for 35mm film, holding up on IMAX isn't a big deal as there is no generation loss in digital, neither is it being optically blown up, if I understand it correctly. The high res scan is graded and then digitally printed on film.

If presented in full 1.44:1, it will be awesome. When the first trailer dropped, the shallow depth of field and the colour grading made me feel as if this was shot on 15/70 film. The image is incredibly detailed and does not look like 35mm in many shots.

If they do decide to go 1.44:1, I hope they also release that version on home video. However, seeing as they didn't do so for BVS, it's highly unlikely for JL to break that practice.

I am curious about something. Compression codecs. I am sure these movies when filmed are compressed using the codecs, then when it is encoded for theater it's another codec then when it's in home media release it's another codec. Is what we are seeing in the theater exactly the same compression used for home media release because of the media format limitation? Awhile back some of you mentioned that you worked as a projectionist and the movies are downloaded then played back on the screen. How big are the file sizes? Several hundred gigabytes or TB?

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yes, but Riddhi's got a thing for seeing the 1.44 versions on home video, black bars be damned! I agree with you BTW, we're already going to get a natively "full screen" 1.78 version for home video so there's no reason whatsoever to release a 1.44 edition and have people complaining about the bars on the sides.

Well, to be fair to him, ideally I would like to get three versions of any partially 15/70 shot film included in the same package: straight scope, scope to 1.78, and scope to 1.44.

But since studios aren't going to go through the effort and create multiple discs without raising a title's cost, I think scope to 1.78 works best for home viewing and is close to the digital IMAX experience.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I am curious about something. Compression codecs. I am sure these movies when filmed are compressed using the codecs, then when it is encoded for theater it's another codec then when it's in home media release it's another codec. Is what we are seeing in the theater exactly the same compression used for home media release because of the media format limitation? Awhile back some of you mentioned that you worked as a projectionist and the movies are downloaded then played back on the screen. How big are the file sizes? Several hundred gigabytes or TB?

For the last few years, digitally shot movies on this scale have primarily been shot in a RAW format. Meaning, tons of data, no compression. I think the math works out to something like 47 GBs per minute of footage on the Alexa 65, and 25 or so for the standard Alexa.

There are compression codecs of varying quality for every step of the process after that, though. Theaters use DCP's which are an arrangement of JPEG-2000 still images played sequentially. These'll range anywhere from 100 GBs on the low end to 400 GBs on the high end. Blu-ray is kind of in its own realm of compression, though. Forget the capture format, it's so far removed from the theatrical one's tech specs that it needs to have an entirely new color grade to make up for the color space compression.

EDIT: Side note about JL: Super 35mm at 1.44 on a proper sized IMAX screen sounds like a very suspect proposition just in 4K laser with zero quality loss, much less printed on film (not in general because of it's limitations as a format, but because of how Snyder lights his movies). And that's BEFORE Snyder slaps on his patented "how to kill 35mm films resolution by one click of a button" grain filters that plagued Batman v Superman.

[Geoff D]

RED uses its own bespoke REDCODE compression system though, movies usually shoot at 5:1 or 3:1 using that format. It's still many, many GB's worth of data coming down the pipe but it's worth pointing out. The colour itself is also 'compressed' in a fashion due to the Bayer arrays used on most digital camera sensors which prioritises the green channel (that's what our eyes are most sensitive to IIRC) and lets the blue and red fight it out amongst themselves for the remaining photo sites. Even this 'raw' footage then needs to be "debayered" to rebuild the full RGB colour by using an algorithm to interpolate the remaining blue and red pixels that are needed.

As for S35, I've seen full-frame S35 blown up from a 4K DI right onto 15/70 1.44 and it held up brilliantly. Admittedly this was the bright, colourful arena scene in Catching Fire and not something shot in dark, grainy SnyderScope™ BUT the use of spherical for JL rather than deliberately soft, streaky anamorphic will impart a LOT more resolvable sharpness. As Riddhi mentions above some shots in the trailer really do have the kind of blistering detail and shallow depth of field you only usually see on large format, probably having been shot wide open to get such a look which also has the benefit of soaking up as much light as possible and thus reducing the grain.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

For the last few years, digitally shot movies on this scale have primarily been shot in a RAW format. Meaning, tons of data, no compression. I think the math works out to something like 47 GBs per minute of footage on the Alexa 65, and 25 or so for the standard Alexa.

There are compression codecs of varying quality for every step of the process after that, though. Theaters use DCP's which are an arrangement of JPEG-2000 still images played sequentially. These'll range anywhere from 100 GBs on the low end to 400 GBs on the high end. Blu-ray is kind of in its own realm of compression, though. Forget the capture format, it's so far removed from the theatrical one's tech specs that it needs to have an entirely new color grade to make up for the color space compression.

EDIT: Side note about JL: Super 35mm at 1.44 on a proper sized IMAX screen sounds like a very suspect proposition just in 4K laser with zero quality loss, much less printed on film (not in general because of it's limitations as a format, but because of how Snyder lights his movies). And that's BEFORE Snyder slaps on his patented "how to kill 35mm films resolution by one click of a button" grain filters that plagued Batman v Superman.

Holy Crap ! 47GB (or so) a MINUTE!!! so a 90 minute movie would be around 4 TB of uncompressed video... damn. Audio must be at least 100gb.

[Visionist]

The shot of Wonder Woman fighting the guards looks like full-on IMAX film.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Holy Crap ! 47GB (or so) a MINUTE!!! so a 90 minute movie would be around 4 TB of uncompressed video... damn. Audio must be at least 100gb.

The final finished masters for the average two-hour flick usually come in at about 2TB for 2K and 8TB for 4K.

[ITDEFX101]

That's crazy....but it is necessary. I am really tempted to go give Dolby Atmos a shot at AMC Tyson's for GotG V2....but I am just considered going out there just to see/hear a movie that is below standards of advertisements for the system...in other words...High trailer volume, low main presentation volume. Did they put recliners into their Atmos screens?