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

[Riddhi2011]

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.

I actually do because watching 1.44:1 on a tiny TV screen is one thing and projecting it full height on your 8 foot tall wall is another. I'm going to buy a projector soon and don't have any 15/70 IMAX theatres nearby, not even LIEMAX ones!

I personally prefer the more flatter/square-ish ratios being a photographer and a student of cinematography myself. Composition wise, I prefer those formats than cinemascope. And I kind of dislike cinemascope because almost all films today are made in cinemascope. It's a personal thing, you can say.
IMAX 1.44:1 still works at home because of the quality of detail and that vertigo in the image due to the wide framing and the shallow depth of field.
I have seen a lot of IMAX documentaries on DVD in 1.33:1, which looked incredible. I don't get that immersion in the 1.78:1 versions because the framing feels "cropped" and it is cropped.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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

I thought they used IMAX cameras for Games, Panavision 35MM for the on-games part of the movie.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I personally prefer the more flatter/square-ish ratios being a photographer and a student of cinematography myself. Composition wise, I prefer those formats than cinemascope. And I kind of dislike cinemascope because almost all films today are made in cinemascope. It's a personal thing, you can say.

I'm the opposite. I've studied photograpy and cinematography and much, MUCH prefer the widescreen scope. 4x3 seems so cramped, especially when you have more than 2 subjects in frame.


Scope is used more now because TVs are at 16x9 and directors want something that seems "cinematic" and not a high budget made for TV movie.


Plus humans see more side to side than up & down.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I actually do because watching 1.44:1 on a tiny TV screen is one thing and projecting it full height on your 8 foot tall wall is another. I'm going to buy a projector soon and don't have any 15/70 IMAX theatres nearby, not even LIEMAX ones!

I personally prefer the more flatter/square-ish ratios being a photographer and a student of cinematography myself. Composition wise, I prefer those formats than cinemascope. And I kind of dislike cinemascope because almost all films today are made in cinemascope. It's a personal thing, you can say.
IMAX 1.44:1 still works at home because of the quality of detail and that vertigo in the image due to the wide framing and the shallow depth of field.
I have seen a lot of IMAX documentaries on DVD in 1.33:1, which looked incredible. I don't get that immersion in the 1.78:1 versions because the framing feels "cropped" and it is cropped.

Right, but not everyone's watching an image that's 8 foot high so the 1.78 versions are an excellent middle ground IMO. Part of the thing about IMAX 1.44 is the immersion, it fills your field of view so even if you can't take in every part of the image you're still getting that sense of being in it. But preserving those 1.44 shots on HD/UHD video means hard-encoded black bars and losing a lot of screen acreage - thus negating the entire point of the immersive IMAX experience - which will affect pretty much everyone but those people with 8-foot-tall displays like yourself.

And before people cry foul re: the cropping of such an image, the 1.90-formatted digital theatrical version is adjusted optimally and fully signed-off by the filmmakers so getting a 1.78 crop of that (or indeed just straight 1.90, see Doc Strange's 3D Blu-ray) isn't some majorly horrible violation of the original intent IMO. [edit le second] The immersive aspect by definition means that you can't take it all in at once which is why the framing of such material is often given so much headroom, e.g. Nolan's 1.44 works great in the cinema but it looks like open matte in the home, all empty space above and seeing more feet and legs below, so the 1.78 is actually a nice compromise between composition and immersiveness, although I still prefer the framing of the fixed widescreen extraction of his films. Catching Fire is the reverse, as although they shot the IMAX/4-perf spherical stuff with 2.40 frame lines they framed it up to take proper advantage of the 1.44 height, so much so that the fixed aspect version has to be tilt and scanned quite substantially to keep up with the action.

Perhaps xbs on the previous page was right, they should include fixed 'scope, 1.78 and 1.44 versions on the Blu just to keep everybody happy. Lord knows I'd love to have a fixed 2.39 HD disc of Interstellar one of these days.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I thought they used IMAX cameras for Games, Panavision 35MM for the on-games part of the movie.

Correct. But for certain action shots in the arena (like most of the stuff in or on the water) the IMAX cameras were just too big and bulky to use in that dynamic hand held kinda way so they shot spherical 4-perf instead. They talk about it in the 'making of' IIRC.

[UltraMario9]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Perhaps xbs on the previous page was right, they should include fixed 'scope, 1.78 and 1.44 versions on the Blu just to keep everybody happy. Lord knows I'd love to have a fixed 2.39 HD disc of Interstellar one of these days.

You and me both. Only reason I own the DVD's of TDKR and Interstellar is for fixed AR.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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.

Shallow depth of field and blistering detail aren't bedfellows. The cut off between standard depth of field and "abnormally" shallow depth of field is usually at around T2.0 - T2.5, much below that and you become a focus puller's nightmare since the focus is so specific that you even need to choose the foreground elements you want to be in focus (coughFinchercough). I love the sub-2.0 aesthetic and always shoot it in my short films, but that's not what's happening in this trailer. It seems like standard T-stop usage to me, with some telephoto background compression giving off the illusion of "shallower" depth of field. It looks to have the standard grain pattern for 4-perf 35mm, too. I'd say it's even less detailed and clean and more grainy than most any of Deakins 4-perf work, which doesn't look like large format to me, either.

[Geoff D]

Thanks Spike, I often have trouble distinguishing between using a long lens and a regulation stop and wider lenses shot wide open (which was done on Arrival and was indeed a focus puller's nightmare according to Bradford Young). But it still carries the aesthetic effect of isolating the subject in that large format-esque way, if only very superficially, and I don't think the increase in detail can be denied vs anamorphic and in particular the baffling modern trend for uber-grungy anamorphic. It's still plenty dark and Snydery to be sure, but there's so much more sharpness there than any of the anamorphic stuff seen in BvS or MoS, say. Maybe it's because I've been so starved of what 35mm sharpness can look like (even Deakins loves his digital these days) that I'm so taken with the trailer?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Perhaps xbs on the previous page was right, they should include fixed 'scope, 1.78 and 1.44 versions on the Blu just to keep everybody happy.

That'd make a lot of IMAX fans like me happy too, giving us the choice of watching the theatrical IMAX version.

[Wing Wang17]

Warner Bros. and IMAX partner for ‘Justice League’ and ‘Aquaman’ VR experiences

IMAX Corporation and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment today announced a new virtual reality co-financing and production agreement to develop and release three premium, interactive VR experiences based on some of Warner Bros. Pictures’ most highly anticipated upcoming blockbuster films, including Justice League, Aquaman and a third experience that has yet to be announced. The companies plan to launch one experience each year – beginning with Justice League VR in late 2017 – with all to receive an exclusive window in IMAX VR centres before being made available to other VR platforms, including in-home and mobile offerings.

http://batman-news.com/2017/03/28/ju...uaman-imax-vr/

[GLaDOS]

Mission Impossible 6 is filming with IMAX 3D cameras.

https://twitter.com/colliderfrosty/s...77186539765760

[Geoff D]

Bah. 65mm or Alexa 65 or GTFO. Aren't the "IMAX 3D" cameras just a couple of Phantom 65's smooshed together?

[testmon1182]

Agree, Dunkirks trailer is so fuken clear compared to 35mm in past releases. Did Hateful Eight convince Nolan to move to 65mm?

The Hateful Eight DGA Q&A with Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan - YouTube

[Geoff D]

It certainly didn't hurt, that's for sure. And the rollout of refurbished 70mm projectors - even though not as widespread as first intended - for H8 clearly seems to have contributed to Warners putting out 70mm blow-ups for BvS, Fantastic Beasts and Kong, as well as what Nolan did with Interstellar.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Bah. 65mm or Alexa 65 or GTFO. Aren't the "IMAX 3D" cameras just a couple of Phantom 65's smooshed together?

Would've been more preferable to shot with dual Alexa 65 if you want the best kind. Phantom 65 is an outdated camera. Nothing can beat IMAX 65mm but if digital's where they're heading, dual Alexa 65 is the answer. I think Transformers is using that, too? Even so, I won't go see that.

[Geoff D]

Maybe that's what they meant? I hope so.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Bah. 65mm or Alexa 65 or GTFO. Aren't the "IMAX 3D" cameras just a couple of Phantom 65's smooshed together?

Originally Posted by Poya

Would've been more preferable to shot with dual Alexa 65 if you want the best kind. Phantom 65 is an outdated camera. Nothing can beat IMAX 65mm but if digital's where they're heading, dual Alexa 65 is the answer. I think Transformers is using that, too? Even so, I won't go see that.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Maybe that's what they meant? I hope so.

They didn't elaborate which IMAX 3D format they're going to use.

There is Dual Strip 1570mm, but I highly doubt they'll use that.

Phantom 65 Gold was a camera with two 65mm sensors for each eye, producing 4K resolution each. And I thought it looked great with Transformers: Age of Extinction.

Most of the IMAX 3D Hollywood features out there are either shot with the Alexa 65 or Alexa IMAX and then converted, or just another camera. (Eg. Guardians of the Galaxy)

Transformers: The Last Knight will be the first to use two Alexa 65, using a special camera rig.

MI6 will most likely use a single Alexa 65 and then converted to 3D. But that's just my guess.

[blackwidowavenger1964]

Going to see Ghost in the Shell at Regal RPX in real D 3D. This will be my first time. Any tips? Any reviews of RPX?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by blackwidowavenger1964

Going to see Ghost in the Shell at Regal RPX in real D 3D. This will be my first time. Any tips? Any reviews of RPX?

I have a beef with Regal in how they choose which RPX auditoriums get the Dolby Atmos systems, predominantly they are 7.1, but a few nationwide have the full blown immersive Atmos systems. From a personal experience, I don't have any negative things to say about Regal's Kingstowne (Alexandria, Virginia) Atmos/3D/RPX system.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by UltraMario9

You and me both. Only reason I own the DVD's of TDKR and Interstellar is for fixed AR.

Pretty sure the HD digital copies that come with those Blu-rays are cropped.

I have a 2.35:1 screen and my new projector lets me crop (masking) all that AR shift right out.