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

[Geoff D]

I saw STID in dual-strip 15/70 3D. It still looked awesome to me, just like the dual-strip 3D presentations of Titanic, Avatar, Prometheus and Dark of the Moon I also saw there. Superman Returns was a bit dim, but then that was just select sequences.

Maybe it helps that I've seen a few Nolan movies in there too, and those in 2D aren't exactly the brightest most colourful pieces of filmmaking you'll ever see.

[Visionist]

Depends I guess. The naturalistic lighting of his scenes (first 15/70 full frame stuff I saw was TDKR) seemed very bright and real to me, as did the interplay of shadows and amber lights on the Joker's face in TDK when I marathoned the trilogy there. Interstellar disappointed on that front. It mostly looked bland. Was Prometheus in 15/70 in 3D? I thought it was digital.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Visionist

I saw TFA at the science museum; pretty sure it completely filled the screen during the Falcon escape.

Was your STID BFI screening the one and only 2D showing they held? I saw it in 3D. Looked good with fantastic depth of field, but the IMAX luminosity I love was greatly reduced.

I too saw TFA on both Digital Imax and at Udvar and can confirm that the Falcon escape sequence was full framed. If you think about it, was it really worth it to shoot it in Imax? Most of the scene consisted of CG shots and just reactions, dialog between the two characters (3 if you count BB8). I think scenes like when General Hux gives his speech before firing the main gun contained several wide angle shots that really could have shown off the size of the troops he was speaking to. Yes I know that is also CG but it was done in away and had so much detail that could have befitted from Imax framing.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Visionist

Depends I guess. The naturalistic lighting of his scenes (first 15/70 full frame stuff I saw was TDKR) seemed very bright and real to me, as did the interplay of shadows and amber lights on the Joker's face in TDK when I marathoned the trilogy there. Interstellar disappointed on that front. It mostly looked bland. Was Prometheus in 15/70 in 3D? I thought it was digital.

Deffo 15/70 for Prometheus. TBH I've never thought of the BFI's IMAX film presentation to be especially bright or vivid and I've seen 15 movies there in that format. Maybe it's just my eyes.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I too saw TFA on both Digital Imax and at Udvar and can confirm that the Falcon escape sequence was full framed. If you think about it, was it really worth it to shoot it in Imax? Most of the scene consisted of CG shots and just reactions, dialog between the two characters (3 if you count BB8). I think scenes like when General Hux gives his speech before firing the main gun contained several wide angle shots that really could have shown off the size of the troops he was speaking to. Yes I know that is also CG but it was done in away and had so much detail that could have befitted from Imax framing.

I remember pointing that out to my friend 'after' we saw the movie, he was nonplussed and oblivious to it ... really? [*swoosh*]

[ITDEFX101]

See with IMAX filmed scenes I think it's best for slower moving shots so that you can take in the detail. If it's a high speed chase thru a desert and wrecked ships, the brain doesn't have time to process and enjoy it.

[xbs2034]

I wonder if IMAX is creating a different price structure for different theaters. For instance with The Mummy, I see IMAX showings at AMC Empire are $2 more than Kips Bay now that it uses 12 channel sound and enhanced seating (both use digital IMAX projection, and Kips Bay also has IMAX VR which I think is totally separate), and Lincoln Square with IMAX laser projection is another $2 more.

Lincoln Square was already a $1 more back in the 15/70 days, but for the most part IMAX tried to keep prices pretty uniform across their theaters in the same area, and I know they came under some criticism that digital theaters were as or almost the same price as 15/70 or laser. The price changes could also be a response to their stock declines and apparently disappointing IMAX ticket sales for Fate of the Furious and Guardians Vol 2 (one issue apparently seems to be that, at least in North America, regular screens and other premium formats with reclining seats might be taking away from IMAX demand).

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

I wonder if IMAX is creating a different price structure for different theaters. For instance with The Mummy, I see IMAX showings at AMC Empire are $2 more than Kips Bay now that it uses 12 channel sound and enhanced seating (both use digital IMAX projection, and Kips Bay also has IMAX VR which I think is totally separate), and Lincoln Square with IMAX laser projection is another $2 more.

Lincoln Square was already a $1 more back in the 15/70 days, but for the most part IMAX tried to keep prices pretty uniform across their theaters in the same area, and I know they came under some criticism that digital theaters were as or almost the same price as 15/70 or laser. The price changes could also be a response to their stock declines and apparently disappointing IMAX ticket sales for Fate of the Furious and Guardians Vol 2 (one issue apparently seems to be that, at least in North America, regular screens and other premium formats with reclining seats might be taking away from IMAX demand).

The theaters pick their prices. My local crappy 4 story 2K IMAX costs more than the closest 12 channel laser theater. All up to individual management.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

The theaters pick their prices. My local crappy 4 story 2K IMAX costs more than the closest 12 channel laser theater. All up to individual management.

Okay, maybe it is coming from AMC rather than IMAX, but interesting as these are all from the same chain in the same city, and is now a $4 difference between some theaters whereas it was $1 before (and that $1 could easily be justified by the tens of thousands a 15/70 print cost to create vs a $150 DCP).

Does suggest someone is starting to acknowledge there is a value difference between different IMAX screens, which I know was something IMAX was hesitant about recognizing for a long time.

[PeterTHX]

Arclight is advertising (via e-mail) Wonder Woman in 70MM...and Dolby Atmos.


Interesting!

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

The price changes could also be a response to their stock declines and apparently disappointing IMAX ticket sales for Fate of the Furious and Guardians Vol 2 (one issue apparently seems to be that, at least in North America, regular screens and other premium formats with reclining seats might be taking away from IMAX demand).

In my opinion, IMAX needs to stop forcing 3D down the public's throat. When you have 2D large format options available, a lot of people will choose that. There are many of us out there who want to see these movies on a giant screen, just not in 3D. Maybe one day IMAX will begin offering more 2D shows.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

In my opinion, IMAX needs to stop forcing 3D down the public's throat. When you have 2D large format options available, a lot of people will choose that. There are many of us out there who want to see these movies on a giant screen, just not in 3D. Maybe one day IMAX will begin offering more 2D shows.

IMAX has done limited 2D showings of certain titles for years, but they already increased that a lot in the last year or so.

In addition to IMAX 2D showings for some films as usual, Fantastic Beasts and Beauty and the Beast definitely had more 2D showings than 3D (I would've liked to have seen Beauty in IMAX for the expanded image, but didn't as all theaters only did IMAX 3D showings after 10 pm near me), and Lego Batman and apparently Cars 3 are IMAX 2D only, at least domestically.

[ITDEFX101]

So anyone get a chance to see WW at Udvar for it's 420(?) last showing before that Mummy movie took over?

[Visionist]

Saw Batman Begins again; it's interesting imagining which scenes would work in 15/70. I figured that around 28 minutes of it would probably have been shot that way if Nolan had started using the format in 2005. Like its sequels, establishing shots present a "back & forth" problem which could be fixed with some judicious editing. A lot of this film's action is shot far too close and is generally incomprehensible, with the notable exception of the Tumbler chase which is well edited and presents a fluid, visceral sense of movement.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Visionist

Saw Batman Begins again; it's interesting imagining which scenes would work in 15/70. I figured that around 28 minutes of it would probably have been shot that way if Nolan had started using the format in 2005. Like its sequels, establishing shots present a "back & forth" problem which could be fixed with some judicious editing. A lot of this film's action is shot far too close and is generally incomprehensible, with the notable exception of the Tumbler chase which is well edited and presents a fluid, visceral sense of movement.

Yeah I don't know if I dig the decision, but he's going for an effect with staging some of the action that way. Batman being kind of a violent ghost that you don't have a spacial awareness of and can't see where he's going to hit you is a pretty big part of the theatrics of the character and it makes a ton of tonal and aesthetic sense for his coming out fight to be staged that was especially considering the build up to it.

But there's a ton of Nolan fight scenes that are similarly sketchy for way less valid reasons, so whatever, lol.

[Poya]

I think it has less to do with Nolan staging fights as it is him choosing what Batman's fighting style is, which is more self-defensive and slow than using more variations of martial arts, like DCEU/Comics/Arkham Batman does. I guess it's an effort to make it more realistic but I can understand why they wouldn't be appealing.

[Visionist]

I can understand the beatdown at the docks being shot that way, but his fights with Ras- even before he becomes Batman- are also completely incomprehensible.

Even the final fight on the monorail, is shot in an utterly confusing way, whilst being frequently intercut with the monorail's exterior tracking shots which give a great sense of direction and this continues right to the final shot of Batman escaping out the top whilst the camera focuses on the end of the track.

Inception's action also sucks.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Visionist

I can understand the beatdown at the docks being shot that way, but his fights with Ras- even before he becomes Batman- are also completely incomprehensible.

Even the final fight on the monorail, is shot in an utterly confusing way, whilst being frequently intercut with the monorail's exterior tracking shots which give a great sense of direction and this continues right to the final shot of Batman escaping out the top whilst the camera focuses on the end of the track.

Inception's action also sucks.

Almost all of Nolan's hand-to-hand action scenes suck. He's pretty good at larger sequences, but his fight scenes are terrible. I'm glad he stopped doing the shaky-cam stuff after Begins, but TDK and TDKR have terrible choreography. You know it's bad when several people fall down without being hit.

The one fight scene in any of his movies that works is the fight between Matt Damon and Matthew McConaughey in Interstellar. It's still stiff and awkward, but it actually makes sense for two scientists in bulky spacesuits to not be world-class martial artists. If anything, the choreography and staging are better than they are in the Batman movies, which is just ridiculous.

[Riddhi2011]

This was a TFA IMAX still released back then.

cG7ld_Full copy.jpg

Well, it turns out that it's actually a composit of 2 different shots. -

1.
TFA_Theatrical Comp 1 copy.jpg

2.
TFA_Theatrical Comp 2 copy.jpg

Here's a rough comp -

TFA_Still Photo Comp copy.jpg

If you look at the image titled "1" there's more image at the right side than the IMAX still. Which indeed means that the IMAX version was cropped from 1.66:1 and the scope version has more image at the sides in some scenes at least.

[chkni4me]

thanks