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

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Just read in the Washington Post that the Smithsonian plans on gutting the IMAX theater at Natural History for the reasoning of low attendance and wanting to expand the cafeteria, feeding the masses and not educating through large format 'nature' movies became a priority -- I'm livid ...apparently there's an attempt to get public petition at SaveOurIMAX (Twitter and Facebook)

Screw that, we need a 15/70 theater for the DC area. Where are we gonna watch Interstellar and Dunkirk in its intended format for Sci-Fi Sundays!?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

Screw that, we need a 15/70 theater for the DC area. Where are we gonna watch Interstellar and Dunkirk in its intended format for Sci-Fi Sundays!?

Honestly I think the Smithsonian doesn't have the funds to do a third laser theater upgrade and are using this excuse in having something that is a guaranteed money maker - stuffing tourists in the mouth with food though will. I get the sense the Sci-fi series has been a hit but with out a DCP drive or digital projector Natural History doesn't have that option.

[Riddhi2011]

The Science city at Kolkata had an Omnimax dome that projected on 10/70mm format film and I saw the last print in December or January, I think. They shut it down for digital and I have no interest in visiting it anymore.

I feel sad to say it, but cinema as we know it, is being killed. And there's almost nothing we can do about it. Signing petitions, are all we can do. What else, protests with placards? The insanely rich people can buy off their beloved cinemas but that's not an option for most of us.

I just signed the petition by the way, even though I have never been to the US.

https://www.change.org/p/stop-natura...max-demolition

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Just read in the Washington Post that the Smithsonian plans on gutting the IMAX theater at Natural History for the reasoning of low attendance and wanting to expand the cafeteria, feeding the masses and not educating through large format 'nature' movies became a priority -- I'm livid ...apparently there's an attempt to get public petition at SaveOurIMAX (Twitter and Facebook)

WOW

Here is the link
http://www.saveourimax.org/#about

I like Udvar, but hate their staff. Just some of the rudest people when trying to sell you a ticket lol.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The Science city at Kolkata had an Omnimax dome that projected on 10/70mm format film and I saw the last print in December or January, I think. They shut it down for digital and I have no interest in visiting it anymore.

I feel sad to say it, but cinema as we know it, is being killed. And there's almost nothing we can do about it. Signing petitions, are all we can do. What else, protests with placards? The insanely rich people can buy off their beloved cinemas but that's not an option for most of us.

I just signed the petition by the way, even though I have never been to the US.

https://www.change.org/p/stop-natura...max-demolition

Just signed it. It pains me to see another IMAX 15/70 exhibition go away. I'd rather they host it to show legacy movies shot with IMAX cameras for its Sci-Fi Sundays program (i.e. The Dark Knight, Catching Fire, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol), or use it for special IMAX 15/70 limited runs for movies like Dunkirk.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by singhcr

How is it fair to compare the two from 4K stills? Of course there's not going to be much of a difference at such a low resolution.

If the 15/70 film captured more detail in the first place, it would still have more or at least the same amount of detail as the Alexa 65 when both are downsampled to 4K. Instead it has visibly less.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

If the 15/70 film captured more detail in the first place, it would still have more or at least the same amount of detail as the Alexa 65 when both are downsampled to 4K. Instead it has visibly less.

You know what, forget the tests. I have seen movies shot on the Alexa65 (Rogue One, War for...the Apes) and I have seen films shot on IMAX 15/70 and in motion (which is what really matters in the end), the perceived detail and resolution of 70mm celluloid far outmatches any digitally shot and graded footage whatsoever, even on regular 2K projection.
Just look at the Harry Potter films and Fantastic Beasts. The latter looks flat compared to the more dynamic, robust and grainy earlier movies.

The detail of the IMAX footage in Interstellar or the 70mm footage in 'The Hateful Eight' is just too delicious, visually. Taking a STILL photograph cannot be the right way of judging MOTION picture formats.

[UFAlien]

And again - that's really the crux of Yedlin's video. There's actually a bit where he adds artificial grain to a digital image and notes that, to him personally, it creates an illusion of added perceived detail. The entire point is that obsessing over the pixel resolution (or estimated equivalent, for film) is silly.

Neither he nor myself think there's anything wrong with IMAX film or film in general, or that they're overall "worse" than any other format. It's about intent and artistic choice. Some people just prefer the way film looks, and that's absolutely fine. To use another music analogy, it's akin to vinyl versus CD. As said before the highest possible actual resolution is not always the best choice or even what will appear the most detail in the end product.

It's just a bit of schadenfreude from exposing how exaggerated/irrelevant these resolution numbers are. For the record, IMAX film still beat all the other cameras in the comparison in terms of true detail, and the pixel count had very little if any bearing on actual detail/spatial resolution among the digital cameras. It's not just IMAX. No one is attacking anyone for preferring the look of film in general or IMAX film specifically.

[Riddhi2011]

Not just grain, photochemically timed colour looks richer and more natural than a digitally graded image. Even film shot movies can look fake due to digital grading, like Sam Mendes's 'Spectre,' and to some extent, 'Jurassic World.'

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Poya

My favorite lens are the Zeiss Master Anamorphics. They're anamorphics with the benefits of spherical. Their ability to handle light at T 1.9 is absolutely amazing.

Oh yeah, they're gorgeous. John Wick 2 used the Master Anamorphics and despite it having a 2K finish vs the 4K of John Wick 1 (shot on a mix of spherical and Hawk Vintage '74 anamorphics) it looks 10x better.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh yeah, they're gorgeous. John Wick 2 used the Master Anamorphics and despite it having a 2K finish vs the 4K of John Wick 1 (shot on a mix of spherical and Hawk Vintage '74 anamorphics) it looks 10x better.

Agreed. Silence also used these lens and I thought it was done in Super 35 to take advantage of the natural light. Then I did the research and it was done in anamorphic! These lens are a miracle, for both film and digital.

[Geoff D]

Yep, and they didn't use anything else for low-light or VFX capture in John Wick 2 either, it was the Zeiss anas all the way through which shows how fast they are. They even dirtied them down just a lil' bit with new coatings to add the kinds of lens flares that Chad Stahelski wanted.

[Geoff D]

ASC article on Dunkirk's post workflow: https://ascmag.com/articles/dunkirk-...-large-formats

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

ASC article on Dunkirk's post workflow: https://ascmag.com/articles/dunkirk-...-large-formats

Keighley out there selling snake oil with no shame.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Honestly I think the Smithsonian doesn't have the funds to do a third laser theater upgrade and are using this excuse in having something that is a guaranteed money maker - stuffing tourists in the mouth with food though will. I get the sense the Sci-fi series has been a hit but with out a DCP drive or digital projector Natural History doesn't have that option.

Yeah, IMAX film is amazing, but having only that projector limits options, and if the Smithsonian has two other theaters, it may make sense to close the third rather than pay for another multimillion dollar laser system.

Speaking of which, I saw the IMAX/NWave film Galapagos yesterday at the film only New England Aquarium location, and it was great as it's now less than once a year I've been seeing 15/70 (and hadn't seen a 15/70 3D presentation since Pacific Rim), but that film is from 2014 and I think the print may be as well as there was at least scratches in almost every frame, but with limited product options and large print costs, these locations rely on long runs of films.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Yeah, IMAX film is amazing, but having only that projector limits options, and if the Smithsonian has two other theaters, it may make sense to close the third rather than pay for another multimillion dollar laser system.

Speaking of which, I saw the IMAX/NWave film Galapagos yesterday at the film only New England Aquarium location, and it was great as it's now less than once a year I've been seeing 15/70 (and hadn't seen a 15/70 3D presentation since Pacific Rim), but that film is from 2014 and I think the print may be as well as there was at least scratches in almost every frame, but with limited product options and large print costs, these locations rely on long runs of films.

Which is a major shame since its the largest auditorium and screen of the three, and the most comfortable seats.

[GLaDOS]

At least I lived to see all three IMAX theaters in the Smithsonian before the Johnson's inevitable demise.

The Johnson was probably my favorite of the three, not only for its size but also the nice seats. Plus, I saw Interstellar there twice in IMAX 15/70, with one of the showings including the Christopher Nolan prologues.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Which is a major shame since its the largest auditorium and screen of the three, and the most comfortable seats.

The IMAX at the Natural History Smithsonian I've only been there twice.
One was for The Polar Express 3D and The Dark Knight.
Don't remember much about the theater itself but I do remember that it was massive in size.
I'm not too sure if Polar 3D was 15/70 or digital. This one came out pre-Avatar.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

The IMAX at the Natural History Smithsonian I've only been there twice.
One was for The Polar Express 3D and The Dark Knight.
Don't remember much about the theater itself but I do remember that it was massive in size.
I'm not too sure if Polar 3D was 15/70 or digital. This one came out pre-Avatar.

The Natural History screen is exclusively 15/70. The screen is not only the largest 66 X 90 ft but unlike the other two screens the throw and distance of the projection wall to the screen itself is indeed "massive" in image size

[Riddhi2011]

Yesterday I asked a cinema chain manager here about an upcoming IMAX retrofit in one of their chain multiplexes. When asked if the size of the cinemascope screen would be embiggened, they said no. Why? Because there is apparently no space for enlargement.

So, what is basically happening is you see movies in the same ****ing cinemascope and they just slap the "IMAX" brand on it and charge you double ticket prices. It will not be able to show movies with shifting aspect ratio without seriously compromising the size of the screen or the experience.

This happened in China as well (image below).

Chinese LieMax.jpg

I was also shocked to know that moviegoers don't understand the difference between IMAX, 3D, film and digital. During my first viewing of Dunkirk on the premium screen I mentioned, one man entered and asked for confirmation from the theater staff that Dunkirk was in 3D. When they said "no," the man was visibly distressed; "I was told this'll be in 3D IMAX," he said.

I explained to him Nolan shoots on IMAX film, not in digital or 3D, etc. "Are you sure?" he asked twice. After a few minutes he calmed and took his seat.

When the regular moviegoers don't even understand formats, it's very easy to fool them with brand marketing. Because the general consensus among the well-to-do is "Brand means good." So these fools will go to the cinema and believe what they are watching is an IMAX version, while I will probably be the only one, or one among the few, to know it's just a cinemascope screen with dual projectors. Shame on IMAX for ripping people like that.

This is perhaps why they say "Ignorance is a bliss."