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

[Visionist]

I saw TFA in 15/70 and the next day in IMAX Laser 3D. The laser was impressive, of course. Fantastic contrast, colours, the works. But the 15/70 was just better.

Damn, I'm avoiding Dunkirk trailers but they sound intense! I'm a huge student of WW2 so I'm not sure if Nolan will screw this up; I have to fly a thousand miles to see it at the BFI, a huge gamble.

Is anybody else who's seen the trailers, especially in 15/70, a big WW2 buff? Would you say the film seems respectful and authentic or is it sensationalistic for its own sakes?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Probably the furthest I've gone just for a movie is with Superman Returns in 15/70, and was around 100 minutes each way.

Did it have a larger aspect ratio than 2.39:1 on 15/70? The movie was shot in 1.78:1, 1080p. All the high speed shots were done on Super 35 film.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

Because it's more awesome when it's actually shot in-camera with minimal VFX instead of mostly green screen.

Also, he's Christopher f*cking Nolan.

Well in the case of those particular shots that were affected by the vibrations, they could easily be redone with a re-shoot and green screen. If the number of shots that were affected by the vibrations were small, then he could do it but if he's got like 40 shots ruined by it, then I say **** it........

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Visionist

I saw TFA in 15/70 and the next day in IMAX Laser 3D. The laser was impressive, of course. Fantastic contrast, colours, the works. But the 15/70 was just better.

Damn, I'm avoiding Dunkirk trailers but they sound intense! I'm a huge student of WW2 so I'm not sure if Nolan will screw this up; I have to fly a thousand miles to see it at the BFI, a huge gamble.

Is anybody else who's seen the trailers, especially in 15/70, a big WW2 buff? Would you say the film seems respectful and authentic or is it sensationalistic for its own sakes?

They aren't revealing much about the plot in the marketing. If you are a 1570 enthusiast, I would say this is the Holy Grail. The movie is apparently less than 2 hours long but around 80% of it was shot in 1570 IMAX.

Nolan has said silent movies influenced him along with modern suspense tales like Alien, Speed, and Unstoppable. He said there isn't much dialogue in the film. Given the fact he wants to go for a lot of suspense and a thrill ride in IMAX, I believe this will be like Gravity in WW2 instead of space.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Did it have a larger aspect ratio than 2.39:1 on 15/70? The movie was shot in 1.78:1, 1080p. All the high speed shots were done on Super 35 film.

No, the action sequences were converted into 3D (maybe 20 minutes total), but no image expansion.

Actually, according to what I see online, The Ant Bully and Happy Feet did 1.44 IMAX versions that year, but by cropping the films, rather than expanding the image.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

No, the action sequences were converted into 3D (maybe 20 minutes total), but no image expansion.

Actually, according to what I see online, The Ant Bully and Happy Feet did 1.44 IMAX versions that year, but by cropping the films, rather than expanding the image.

I remember seeing 'The Ant Bully' on the Loews Lincoln Square 13 IMAX screen - holy mother of god! that was epically huge and in your face - also saw 'Robots' there, I thought that was full screen 1.43 as well.

[ITDEFX101]

I think it's easier and cheaper to render out a movie in full frame IMAX resolution for computer animated movies because everything is done inside of the computer. Yeah it takes longer but still better than hauling that shit around on location. I wonder why not all computer animated movies are in full imax?
hmm..

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I think it's easier and cheaper to render out a movie in full frame IMAX resolution for computer animated movies because everything is done inside of the computer. Yeah it takes longer but still better than hauling that shit around on location. I wonder why not all computer animated movies are in full imax?
hmm..

Niche audience, mostly. Why render out 30+% more image for a presentation most people will never see? The vast majority of screenings will be on standard 2K projections in 1.85 or 2.39, depending on the film. The amount of money that rendering in 1.43 for IMAX screenings would require is too high for the amount of money it would bring in. Especially since most IMAX screens are now 1.90, and it would require comparatively less money to expand the film to fill that screen size.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Niche audience, mostly. Why render out 30+% more image for a presentation most people will never see? The vast majority of screenings will be on standard 2K projections in 1.85 or 2.39, depending on the film. The amount of money that rendering in 1.43 for IMAX screenings would require is too high for the amount of money it would bring in. Especially since most IMAX screens are now 1.90, and it would require comparatively less money to expand the film to fill that screen size.

Yeah, and even when they do actually do that we get the 2.39 presentation on BD and UHD anyways. I know this isn't exactly the same situation as a CG movie but Clint Eastwood's Sully was fully finished in 4K, VFX and all, and the 1.90 ratio IMAX version was considered to be the "primary creative intent" so it's a heck of a shame that the only time the "primary" version of the movie is even seen is in an IMAX theater for a for weeks/days during the original run.

The 2.39 presentation even looks quite cramped for headroom in plenty of shots. Normally I'm the dude crying foul re: too much headroom/dead space/legs and feet with these opened-up versions but here it was very noticeable at times, I can recall a two shot of Sully and his co-pilot where Aaron Eckhart's eyes were getting close to drifting out of frame.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Niche audience, mostly. Why render out 30+% more image for a presentation most people will never see? The vast majority of screenings will be on standard 2K projections in 1.85 or 2.39, depending on the film. The amount of money that rendering in 1.43 for IMAX screenings would require is too high for the amount of money it would bring in. Especially since most IMAX screens are now 1.90, and it would require comparatively less money to expand the film to fill that screen size.

Then they should stop showing some animated movies in IMAX. Whenever I see a CG movie playing on an IMAX screen, I am like did they render it at that resolution to justify playing it on an IMAX Screen? Would it really cost the CG company more movie to set it at that resolution? There is no extra equipment involved just more render time.

I am just getting so annoyed with these "Enhanced for Imax" DRM crap. They either film it in real IMAX or stop this shit altogether. The average movie goer keeps on saying a movie (that is DRM) looks amazing in IMAX but honestly it doesn't. I think movies like TDK/TDKR(Some of it), Interstellar, that ONE scene in TFA looked really good in full frame IMAX.

[Geoff D]

Time is money bro.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Time is money bro.

and with the returns that these movies make....it's money well spent for them.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Then they should stop showing some animated movies in IMAX. Whenever I see a CG movie playing on an IMAX screen, I am like did they render it at that resolution to justify playing it on an IMAX Screen? Would it really cost the CG company more movie to set it at that resolution? There is no extra equipment involved just more render time.

I am just getting so annoyed with these "Enhanced for Imax" DRM crap. They either film it in real IMAX or stop this shit altogether. The average movie goer keeps on saying a movie (that is DRM) looks amazing in IMAX but honestly it doesn't. I think movies like TDK/TDKR(Some of it), Interstellar, that ONE scene in TFA looked really good in full frame IMAX.

That's why we have Dolby Cinema, dude. You have the option, take it.

[Riddhi2011]

IMAX has more or less been shortchanged for it's cheaper brother LIEMAX, despite the brand name being the same. Because 1.89:1 is the maximum height that those projectors can cover. It's basically a glorified flat screen nowadays, nothing much more. The worst thing is very few people know or care about this. As long as they see the "IMAX" name and are sipping their Cola, eating their popcorn, they are ok with it. Sad.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

and with the returns that these movies make....it's money well spent for them.

But the IMAX take is miniscule compared to what the overall grosses are. I can see the rationale behind the 1.90 embiggened versions as that can also be re-used for 1.78 TV/Blu-ray usage etc but 1.44 finishing is such a niche that unless something is specifically shot for that frame (paging Mr Nolan, Christopher Nolan to the front desk please) then it's not worth it. Even nuGhostbuster's IMAX formatting was just about extending the intermittent frame-breaking effects into the 1.44 height, not making the whole thing into 1.44.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

IMAX has more or less been shortchanged for it's cheaper brother LIEMAX, despite the brand name being the same. Because 1.89:1 is the maximum height that those projectors can cover. It's basically a glorified flat screen nowadays, nothing much more. The worst thing is very few people know or care about this. As long as they see the "IMAX" name and are sipping their Cola, eating their popcorn, they are ok with it. Sad.

The 4K Laser projectors have the same native ratio, they achieve the full height with a specially formatted DCP that squashes the 1.44 down into 1.90 which is then unsquished with a special adaptor at the projector end. I think. But although I agree that IMAX is mostly just a glorified term for upscaling (mostly), that's pretty much always been the case. Some of the first 'IMAX' movie releases were Apollo 13 (shot Super 35) and Attack of the Clones (shot 1080p!).

[ITDEFX101]

But see I think Nolan is currently the only director who knows how to properly utilize that camera (even though I question SOME scenes filmed in IMAX). Bay...if someone would teach him how to use it properly, could be another director who knows how to work that thing. If he does, I will respect him again.

[Geoff D]

Transformers 5 should still look phenomenal thanks to the Alexa though, even if the aspect ratio is bouncing around like a frog on a hot plate.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Transformers 5 should still look phenomenal thanks to the Alexa though, even if the aspect ratio is bouncing around like a frog on a hot plate.

The question is........why do such thing for your final product? It must be a headache for the post production vfx team AND the 3d conversion team. Argh..I wish I had access to the bouncing AR from AOE to see it again. I know it's only available in the IMAX 3d BR, which I don't have a 3d BR.

I guess for everyone else that is not showing it in IMAX, I am assuming it's going to be scoped across the entire film. That's going to be really interesting for close ups of everyone's faces. I am sure the home release, all the reviews will tear this shit up comparing both versions.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But the IMAX take is miniscule compared to what the overall grosses are.

Ok, so let me use an example. Regal in my digital imax theater charges 13.05 base price for a night time showing of a non 3-d/imax movie. For an IMAX (regardless of 3d), it is 20.55. I believe 4 dollars goes to REAL 3d and 3.5 goes to IMAX. As for the base 13.05 that's between Regal and the studio. So how does REAL 3d and IMAX stay in business?

I am also curious about when museums show IMAX movies. They charge what 15 dollars (Udvar) for movie presented in a REAL Imax theater. How does that work and why doesn't the museum charge more for an authentic presentation?

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Ok, so let me use an example. Regal in my digital imax theater charges 13.05 base price for a night time showing of a non 3-d/imax movie. For an IMAX (regardless of 3d), it is 20.55. I believe 4 dollars goes to REAL 3d and 3.5 goes to IMAX. As for the base 13.05 that's between Regal and the studio. So how does REAL 3d and IMAX stay in business?

I am also curious about when museums show IMAX movies. They charge what 15 dollars (Udvar) for movie presented in a REAL Imax theater. How does that work and why doesn't the museum charge more for an authentic presentation?

I'm pretty sure Real D gets no money from IMAX 3D screenings, as IMAX uses its own 3D tech (and while the majority of non-IMAX 3D screenings are Real D at least domestically, not all of them are, for instance I saw Lego Batman and Legend of Tarzan in Dolby Digital 3D which a theater near me uses). Now, there is a three way split between the studio, Regal, and IMAX for those showings, though I'm not sure exactly what % goes to whom.

As for museums, the big reason why a lot of them are cheaper is those films are often just barely feature length (40-45 minutes), and similarly I think the digital IMAX in an AMC multiplex charged 2/3 the regular IMAX price for A Beautiful Planet.

I do know some museums also play Hollywood films, if those are cheaper as well, I'm not sure the exact reason other than maybe an incentive to get people to come to the museum also (in the New York area, the Natural History museum never plays traditional Hollywood features, and the Liberty Science Center I think only does it for things like Nolan films, plus its an Omnimax which I don't think works well for Hollywood movies anyway).