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

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by imdobe

I saw Dunkirk both in Imax 70mm 1.43:1 and Imax Laser 1.43:1.

The Laser presentation was more impressive. Picture quality was slightly better, sound quality was way better.

Seen the movie is digital IMAX and then the second half in 70MM IMAX. Both looked good. I was not as impressed with the 70MM as I thought I would be. Seemed to me that there were no really sharp images, I remember some scenes in Interstellar that just looking breathtaking. I do have a IMAX laser location near me, eventually when I am in the downtown area I am going to pay a visit and take a look. It is very possible that there will never be another IMAX 70MM film, so people should take the chance to check it out.

For the record, the location I visited today was the Cineplex at Rathburn in Missisauga. I know the projectionist so he gave me a tour of the booth. It was pretty interesting to see the rail system of how the projectors are moves from digital to the SR IMAX film projector. Both film projectors were still there, but only one was used. it was also cool to find out that unlike Interstellar the entire film needed to be built from 25 or so 5 min 70MM reels. Also cool that the original IMAX were removed and the the digital amps were used for 70MM presentations. The audio is fed into the amps. Digital has far less amps than what the 70MM system originally used but they are more powerful.

[cheez avenger]

Out here in my area I just have standard 70mm and The Dome in Hollywood, IMAX laser at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood, 15/70 IMAX Universal Citywalk. Citywalk is a pain in the ass to navigate through and Chinese theater has awful parking around the area. The Dome would be my go-to choice or ArcLight Sherman Oaks -- they also have 70mm showings, but not IMAX. I still don't know what to do.

[ManBeast]

Originally Posted by 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).

Attachment 176250

As far as I know that photo shows a temporary installation for a Rogue One screening in China. I think they set-up a big marquee in a town square somewhere.

https://www.imax.com/news/rogue-one-china-pop-premiere

I'd be very surprised if IMAX started installing scope screens for the reasons you state.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Out here in my area I just have standard 70mm and The Dome in Hollywood, IMAX laser at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood, 15/70 IMAX Universal Citywalk. Citywalk is a pain in the ass to navigate through and Chinese theater has awful parking around the area. The Dome would be my go-to choice or ArcLight Sherman Oaks -- they also have 70mm showings, but not IMAX. I still don't know what to do.

Have you considered Irvine Spectrum or Ontario Palace? They have 70mm IMAX and the screens are actually quite a bit taller than CityWalk. TCL Chinese has the wrong aspect ratio (1.9:1). It's a huge LieMAX at about 95 feet wide, but still a LieMAX.

I would say TCL Chinese with the Laser projector is a great experience for most movies, but Dunkirk is unique due to the taller 1.43 aspect ratio for 75% of the movie. I've seen it in both aspect ratios and it's a very different experience. It's worth seeing in the proper 1.43 aspect ratio, so I recommend CityWalk/Irvine Spectrum/Ontario Palace.

[Riddhi2011]

You know what, they should make 'Dunkirk' available on 4K UHD in 1.43:1 VAR, with some vertical anamorphic squeeze to 1.78:1, where the image stretches back to 1.43:1 through the disc settings; especially for those that have got 4K projectors and can fill their walls with. It's not fair that in India there is not a single 1.43:1 aspect IMAX. I'm sure many other countries are also getting left out. We deserve to experience Nolan's films in the intended aspect ratio, not the cropped one. There should be a choice.

As long as Nolan keeps making large format films, 1.43:1 70mm will always be his preferred ratio. I don't see a single digital camera beating 15/70 film's 18K negative resolution in the next 50 years or more. And Nolan this time directly used the negative to cut the film. The problem as I said in my previous post, is lack of awareness among audience members about film and digital, or various film gauges. Unless they know, they'll never realise how cinemas are ripping them off for a "lesser" experience.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ManBeast

As far as I know that photo shows a temporary installation for a Rogue One screening in China. I think they set-up a big marquee in a town square somewhere.

https://www.imax.com/news/rogue-one-china-pop-premiere

I'd be very surprised if IMAX started installing scope screens for the reasons you state.

There are some scope IMAXes already when the auditorium doesn't readily allow a taller screen.

For instance Kips Bay in NYC does this. With Riddick they did use pillarboxing on the sides to get the correct 1.9 aspect ratio, but I'm guessing people complained or they decided to just always fill the screen later, as they just use scope now. The last two Transformers films indeed used no image expansion (though given all the aspect ratio complaints on the Last Knight, a constant scope presentation may be preferable), and they also presented flat titles Alice Through the Looking Glass, The Secret Life of Pets, and Inferno in scope (Alice in particular had plenty of shots where the framing was totally thrown off because of this).

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

Have you considered Irvine Spectrum or Ontario Palace? They have 70mm IMAX and the screens are actually quite a bit taller than CityWalk. TCL Chinese has the wrong aspect ratio (1.9:1). It's a huge LieMAX at about 95 feet wide, but still a LieMAX.

I would say TCL Chinese with the Laser projector is a great experience for most movies, but Dunkirk is unique due to the taller 1.43 aspect ratio for 75% of the movie. I've seen it in both aspect ratios and it's a very different experience. It's worth seeing in the proper 1.43 aspect ratio, so I recommend CityWalk/Irvine Spectrum/Ontario Palace.

The Ontario/Irvine one is not an option, because they're far. I may have to bite the bullet and brave through the cluster**** that is Universal.

[ghornett]

I've heard great things about the redesign there at Citywalk. Is parking free after 6pm like here in Orlando?

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

You know what, they should make 'Dunkirk' available on 4K UHD in 1.43:1 VAR, with some vertical anamorphic squeeze to 1.78:1, where the image stretches back to 1.43:1 through the disc settings; especially for those that have got 4K projectors and can fill their walls with. It's not fair that in India there is not a single 1.43:1 aspect IMAX. I'm sure many other countries are also getting left out. We deserve to experience Nolan's films in the intended aspect ratio, not the cropped one. There should be a choice.

As long as Nolan keeps making large format films, 1.43:1 70mm will always be his preferred ratio. I don't see a single digital camera beating 15/70 film's 18K negative resolution in the next 50 years or more. And Nolan this time directly used the negative to cut the film. The problem as I said in my previous post, is lack of awareness among audience members about film and digital, or various film gauges. Unless they know, they'll never realise how cinemas are ripping them off for a "lesser" experience.

Ignorance can be bliss though. I drove a very long distance and paid out the wazoo for two nights at a hotel so I could see this movie three times in 1.43:1 Laser IMAX.

It was an incredible experience, worth every dollar and hour of my time spent on this little excursion. But I probably would have saved about $500 and 660 miles on my car if I was unaware of the proper IMAX version.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

You know what, they should make 'Dunkirk' available on 4K UHD in 1.43:1 VAR, with some vertical anamorphic squeeze to 1.78:1, where the image stretches back to 1.43:1 through the disc settings; especially for those that have got 4K projectors and can fill their walls with. It's not fair that in India there is not a single 1.43:1 aspect IMAX. I'm sure many other countries are also getting left out. We deserve to experience Nolan's films in the intended aspect ratio, not the cropped one. There should be a choice.

As long as Nolan keeps making large format films, 1.43:1 70mm will always be his preferred ratio. I don't see a single digital camera beating 15/70 film's 18K negative resolution in the next 50 years or more. And Nolan this time directly used the negative to cut the film. The problem as I said in my previous post, is lack of awareness among audience members about film and digital, or various film gauges. Unless they know, they'll never realise how cinemas are ripping them off for a "lesser" experience.

https://theasc.com/articles/a-clear-...-of-resolution

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I don't see a single digital camera beating 15/70 film's 18K negative resolution in the next 50 years or more.

The "18K" thing is a myth.


In any case, digital camera resolution is increasing at a high rate.
10 years most likely. Perhaps less.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by ghornett

I've heard great things about the redesign there at Citywalk. Is parking free after 6pm like here in Orlando?

I don't remember, but I do know that they validate if you see a movie there. It's been years since I've been to the Citywalk.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The "18K" thing is a myth.


In any case, digital camera resolution is increasing at a high rate.
10 years most likely. Perhaps less.

Yeah. It's only a matter of time before they stitch some Alexa 65 sensors together to match the size of an IMAX frame. They've already got the resolution matched/surpassed, so I'm betting we have maybe another... five years (?) until a digital sensor matches the film back size of IMAX 70mm and we get all those other IMAXy aesthetic properties people love so much.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The "18K" thing is a myth.


In any case, digital camera resolution is increasing at a high rate.
10 years most likely. Perhaps less.

Plus, film loses most of its resolution when it's being processed for prints. 5/70's supposed 11-12K resolution would be from an ideal and near-pristine negative, which is rarely, if not never the case. That means's the Alexa 65's 6.5K resolution isn't too far off from 5/70's final print resolution.

Arri might as well say "f*ck it" and stitch three Alexa 65 sensors together, rotate it sideways and get an near-equivalent 1.43:1 digital sensor for their IMAX cameras.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by ManBeast

As far as I know that photo shows a temporary installation for a Rogue One screening in China. I think they set-up a big marquee in a town square somewhere.

https://www.imax.com/news/rogue-one-china-pop-premiere

I'd be very surprised if IMAX started installing scope screens for the reasons you state.

Yes, even just from the picture that's pretty obviously a temporary setup. That said there are some IMAX-branded screens even in North America with aspect ratios pretty close to 'scope. The aspect ratio of the TCL Chinese Theatre is actually 2.04:1. The IMAX Digital at the Cinema De Luxe in White Plains, New York is 2.16:1. There's no standardization of screen shapes for IMAX conversions. 1.90:1 is the max-height aspect ratio of IMAX digital DCPs, not necessarily the shape of the screen.

The IMAX Digital at the AMC Loews in Boston has a 2.06:1 screen. When I used to go there they would actually crop off the sides of scope movies to fill the screen. Flat movies were pillarboxed.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Yes, even just from the picture that's pretty obviously a temporary setup. That said there are some IMAX-branded screens even in North America with aspect ratios pretty close to 'scope. The aspect ratio of the TCL Chinese Theatre is actually 2.04:1. The IMAX Digital at the Cinema De Luxe in White Plains, New York is 2.16:1. There's no standardization of screen shapes for IMAX conversions. 1.90:1 is the max-height aspect ratio of IMAX digital DCPs, not necessarily the shape of the screen.

The IMAX Digital at the AMC Loews in Boston has a 2.06:1 screen. When I used to go there they would actually crop off the sides of scope movies to fill the screen. Flat movies were pillarboxed.

Yeah, as I mentioned, IMAX will go wider than 1.9 when it is what the auditorium offers. Interesting that White Plains is so wide as that used to be a 15/70 screen (I saw Harry Potter 5 and I Am Legend there which predated IMAX Digital), but maybe they also changed the screen dimensions when they went digital. I've only been to the Boston Common IMAX once (Final Destination 5) and don't remember how that presentation was handled.

But going back to Kips Bay, I think even in the 35mm days, their large screen there would show flat titles cropped to scope (it's way back when they had recently opened and I was too young to notice the difference in aspect ratios, but I remember my brother telling me about the irony of the projection cutting off some of the heads with Sleepy Hollow) and IMAX just followed suit.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Yeah, as I mentioned, IMAX will go wider than 1.9 when it is what the auditorium offers. Interesting that White Plains is so wide as that used to be a 15/70 screen (I saw Harry Potter 5 and I Am Legend there which predated IMAX Digital), but maybe they also changed the screen dimensions when they went digital. I've only been to the Boston Common IMAX once (Final Destination 5) and don't remember how that presentation was handled.

What you are probably describing is MPX, which is the film version of LieMAX before the digital version. Smaller screen with a wider aspect ratio than 15/70 purpose built auditoriums, but the MPX system was able to play a cropped version of 15/70 film.

Santikos had a couple of these in Texas (San Antonio Palladium IMAX and Tomball Silverado IMAX). They are good size screens and they were able to play TDK on 15/70 film in 2008, but they aren't real IMAX in my opinion. Wrong aspect ratio, wrong seating arrangement, and simply not big enough.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

Yeah. It's only a matter of time before they stitch some Alexa 65 sensors together to match the size of an IMAX frame. They've already got the resolution matched/surpassed, so I'm betting we have maybe another... five years (?) until a digital sensor matches the film back size of IMAX 70mm and we get all those other IMAXy aesthetic properties people love so much.

You guys just want FILM to die , don't you? So that filmmakers like me don't get the chance, ever, to shoot in the real Imax format or other film. I've read Steve Yedlin's article before but when I saw The Magificent Seven remake, The Hateful Eight and Dunkirk in 2K, the texture and richness of the image, the colour, the fine-grains and the dimensional quality of the images beat anything I saw photographed digitally, even Rogue One.

I don't need too much mathematical experimentation to make me convince which looks better or worse. I trust my eyes to tell me that. And to me, there's nothing as visceral as a movie shot on film, especially if it's photochemically timed. I prefer that look over the smooth featureless and synthetic looking digital any day.

I saw 'War for the...Apes' recently and while it looked good, the image was too smooth and synthetic looking like almost all digitally shot movies. It was shot on digital 65mm but did not even look as good as 'The Magnificent Seven' (2016) which was shot on 35mm (extraordinarily sharp and detailed image). If a 65mm sensor can't even match the perceivable detail of 35mm film in motion, then it's a failure!

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

You guys just want FILM to die , don't you? So that filmmakers like me don't get the chance, ever, to shoot in the real Imax format or other film. I've read Steve Yedlin's article before but when I saw The Magificent Seven remake, The Hateful Eight and Dunkirk in 2K, the texture and richness of the image, the colour, the fine-grains and the dimensional quality of the images beat anything I saw photographed digitally, even Rogue One.

I don't need too much mathematical experimentation to make me convince which looks better or worse. I trust my eyes to tell me that. And to me, there's nothing as visceral as a movie shot on film, especially if it's photochemically timed. I prefer that look over the smooth featureless and synthetic looking digital any day.

I saw 'War for the...Apes' recently and while it looked good, the image was too smooth and synthetic looking like almost all digitally shot movies. It was shot on digital 65mm but did not even look as good as 'The Magnificent Seven' (2016) which was shot on 35mm (extraordinarily sharp and detailed image). If a 65mm sensor can't even match the perceivable detail of 35mm film in motion, then it's a failure!

Alrighty then.

I look forward to seeing if you can distinguish between the Alexa captured images and the 35mm captured image in The Last Jedi.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

You guys just want FILM to die , don't you? So that filmmakers like me don't get the chance, ever, to shoot in the real Imax format or other film. I've read Steve Yedlin's article before but when I saw The Magificent Seven remake, The Hateful Eight and Dunkirk in 2K, the texture and richness of the image, the colour, the fine-grains and the dimensional quality of the images beat anything I saw photographed digitally, even Rogue One.

I don't need too much mathematical experimentation to make me convince which looks better or worse. I trust my eyes to tell me that. And to me, there's nothing as visceral as a movie shot on film, especially if it's photochemically timed. I prefer that look over the smooth featureless and synthetic looking digital any day.

I saw 'War for the...Apes' recently and while it looked good, the image was too smooth and synthetic looking like almost all digitally shot movies. It was shot on digital 65mm but did not even look as good as 'The Magnificent Seven' (2016) which was shot on 35mm (extraordinarily sharp and detailed image). If a 65mm sensor can't even match the perceivable detail of 35mm film in motion, then it's a failure!

As much as I love film and I think it should still be a relevant format for shooting and projecting, I'm very open to the prospects and potential of digital photography. The Alexa cameras (particularly the 65) can produce stunningly realized images, provided they're in the right hands (remember, it's not just cameras that DPs and directors pay attention to; lens choices and color gradients are still a thing). And David Fincher's last few outings still look amazing, and they were shot with Red cameras (Epic and Dragon).

I'll admit, even if I can distinguish whether a movie was shot digitally or on film, it's getting a bit more difficult to tell nowadays thanks to how much companies like Red, Arri, and even Panavision are doing to push the forefronts of digital photography. At this point, if I see a movie that looks stunning and was shot digitally, I'm very curious to see the artistic and technical choices the DP made on making the movie look fantastic. I'm also excited to see how DPs experiment with state-of-the-art digital cameras; I've yet to see the Alexa 65 capture intimate close-ups the way Mihai Malamaire Jr used 65mm cameras to achieve the same goals in The Master.

Still, I'm glad filmmakers like Chris Nolan and Quentin Tarantino are still advocating film as a choice; movies like Dunkirk and The Hateful Eight prove that film shouldn't be a dying breed, and that it can still produce some of the most breathtaking images out there. However, whether or not you shoot film or digitally shouldn't matter; it's ultimately down to the artistic choices that go into the movie's aesthetic. Still, screw the logistics in justifying digital's practical superiority over film nowadays.