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

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by agoofykindasuperman

And it's like the only one we don't have on Blu-ray with switching aspect ratios.

Nah, there's a couple of them (and a ton of you include the specially formatted for IMAX pictures).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Alexa 65 is considered Large Format.

I've read a few bits and bobs here and there and I've seen a few DPs refer to it as "medium format". Splitting hairs for sure but I guess that some take more of a still photography slant towards gauging the size - where 8-perf 35mm is already the 'standard' format - as opposed to solely the motion picture world where anything bigger than 4-perf 35mm could realistically be deemed large format.

Originally Posted by Scorpion Soldier

Two that I know of, ironically both in Nolan films. The first one was destroyed during the truck sequence in The Dark Knight and they crashed into one during the filming of The Dark Knight Rises.

One got dunked into the ocean during the making of Dunkirk too, but both the camera and the film inside it were successfully rescued.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've read a few bits and bobs here and there and I've seen a few DPs refer to it as "medium format". Splitting hairs for sure but I guess that some take more of a still photography slant towards gauging the size - where 8-perf 35mm is already the 'standard' format - as opposed to solely the motion picture world where anything bigger than 4-perf 35mm could realistically be deemed large format.


One got dunked into the ocean during the making of Dunkirk too, but both the camera and the film inside it were successfully rescued.

ARRI themselves refer to it as a large format solution and say large format, so it probably comes down to person to person then.

http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

[Geoff D]

They do for sure, just as with their upcoming Alexa LF.

[GLaDOS]

So is IMAX still going to stick with Alexa 65 cameras for their technology or you think they might migrate to the LFs?

[GLaDOS]

Also, Panavision Millennium DXL cameras were used for the helicopter sequence in MI:6. I wonder if they'll open up the framing for IMAX since it uses an 8K VV sensor.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've read a few bits and bobs here and there and I've seen a few DPs refer to it as "medium format". Splitting hairs for sure but I guess that some take more of a still photography slant towards gauging the size - where 8-perf 35mm is already the 'standard' format - as opposed to solely the motion picture world where anything bigger than 4-perf 35mm could realistically be deemed large format.

On that note, perhaps one day we'll see a Super IMAX format that utilizes 8x10 inch sheet films to really get large format photography. Oh my.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yup, VistaVision's negative ratio is 1.50 so it's no wonder Nolan used that format to fill in so much on his IMAX features, that size is perfect for such work. Be interesting to see how and where the regular Alexa goes from here. As long as people want to shoot with 2x anamorphics then there'll always be a place for the Super 35 Alexas (as well as that 'film' stuff) because you don't need a LF sensor for that.

Nolan used the film format Vistavision cameras, not the newer digital ones, by the way. You might know this. They are I think called the Beaumont VistaVision cameras and record on 8 perf horizontal 35mm film. The first three Jurassic Park films used them for the VFX plates, among other films.

As for the Alexa LF, it's strange that it has a 1.43:1 open gate sensor, yet it records only up to 4K. It's even stranger that it has the same height as the Alexa 65 sensor and is much smaller horizontally, making it a cropped, pan & scan version of the Alexa 65. if anything, the LF should have had the same width as the Alexa 65 and be taller to get that 1.43:1 aspect ratio. So, Arri actually made a downgrade, with a large format camera, but a resolution significantly lower than the Alexa 65.

In any case I've seen tons of movies shot on digital and film and to me nothing beats the beautiful colour-richness, contrast and texture of film shot images and probably never will.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Nolan used the film format Vistavision cameras, not the newer digital ones, by the way. You might know this. They are I think called the Beaumont VistaVision cameras and record on 8 perf horizontal 35mm film. The first three Jurassic Park films used them for the VFX plates, among other films.

As for the Alexa LF, it's strange that it has a 1.43:1 open gate sensor, yet it records only up to 4K. It's even stranger that it has the same height as the Alexa 65 sensor and is much smaller horizontally, making it a cropped, pan & scan version of the Alexa 65. if anything, the LF should have had the same width as the Alexa 65 and be taller to get that 1.43:1 aspect ratio. So, Arri actually made a downgrade, with a large format camera, but a resolution significantly lower than the Alexa 65.

In any case I've seen tons of movies shot on digital and film and to me nothing beats the beautiful colour-richness, contrast and texture of film shot images and probably never will.

I didn't say that Nolan used a digital system, note that I referenced the "negative ratio" of VistaVision, you don't get a negative with digital. There's only one VistaVision, baby!!!

The Alexa LF is what it is: an 8-perf-sized sensor (more on which in a second) which is designed to fill a hole in the market for a minimum 4K acquisition camera from ARRI, it's not intended to be some sort of Alexa 65 killer because you still can't buy the latter, only rent it (unless you're paying ARRI to make up a 'special sauce' version e.g. IMAX). ARRI have done things like in-camera upscaling to 4K for the regular Alexa to try and satisfy certain content providers but it doesn't wash, they want a true 4K source and the LF provides a means for people to get on board with a 'large format' ARRI that they can buy outright while the 65 remains the 'prestige' large format option.

As for the Alexa 65, its sensor is so named the A3X because it is literally three regular Alexa sensors (3414x2198) turned through 90 degrees and stitched together, there's a reason why it's 6.5K (2198x3=6594, which becomes 6560 in actual operating use). From looking at the resolution and the physical size of the Alexa LF's sensor it's pretty obvious that they've done the same thing except with two Alexa sensors rather than three, e.g. 2198x2=4396 which they've uptickled slightly to become 4448 in the LF's Open Gate mode.

I've said this before but I'd love to see if IMAX or ARRI could take three of the A3X chips (6560x3102) and stitch them together with another 90-degree turn to make a true 15-perf-sized digital sensor. 9306x6560, have a bang on that

[Riddhi2011]

^ Ok. But it's better to support film because very few people are using it nowadays. The format should survive so that people like us can use it in the future. It feels great when young directors like Xavier Dolan is pro-film and has even used the IMAX film camera on a music video with Adele. Digital, with all its post manipulations, still look synthetic and less organic than film shot projects, to me. It's just too clean, too perfect and stable and feels clinical almost. I find it easier to emotionally engage with a celluloid image than a spick-and-span looking digital image.

There's simply no better large format camera in the market today, than IMAX film ones, especially due to that unusually large aspect ratio. It's a novelty that should not be forced into becoming obsolete, in my opinion.

For example, Murder on the Orient Express is shot on 5 perf 65mm film, while Rogue One is shot on 65mm digital equivalent. However, 'Orient Express' looks far more detailed, textured and gorgeous than 'Rogue One.' I also noticed that both 'Orient Express' and 'Hateful Eight' look almost the same in terms of image quality and detail, texture and colour, with the Tarantino film looking slightly more gorgeous because of that photochemical finish. 'Rogue One' looks very good but fades away in comparison to the image quality of 'Express.' Both are digitally finished.

[Geoff D]

I'm not gonna get into film vs digital, that's your thing not mine. For me it depends FAR more on the people wielding the tools than the tools themselves.

[Riddhi2011]

The tools matter my friend, no matter how you wield it. Each tool will yield a different result. A perfect 3D printed object cannot recreate the magic and raw creativity of a hand-sculpted one.

[Geoff D]

Whatever, I'm not gonna get into it.

[Riddhi2011]

^ Not asking you to. Relax.

[GLaDOS]

[ITDEFX101]

Yep I say at least 10 full frame IMAX scenes in last night's digital imax viewing. The theater FINALLY dropped down the volume level of the trailers to normalize to acceptable hearing levels instead of being blasted for 20 minutes.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Yep I say at least 10 full frame IMAX scenes in last night's digital imax viewing. The theater FINALLY dropped down the volume level of the trailers to normalize to acceptable hearing levels instead of being blasted for 20 minutes.

Would you say it is worth going to IMAX for a second viewing?

All IMAX showings around here are 2D, so saw it in regular 3D first. But as I imagine neither 3D nor expanded ratio will be part of the home release (at least in the US), would also be interested in checking that out. Also, like they did with Dr Strange, AMC even cropped it further beyond the regular wide release cropping, as they set the masking to 1.85 (you could see a bit of the missing image behind the masking in brighter scenes).

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Yep I say at least 10 full frame IMAX scenes in last night's digital imax viewing. The theater FINALLY dropped down the volume level of the trailers to normalize to acceptable hearing levels instead of being blasted for 20 minutes.

We missing a post? What movie are you talking about? Black Panther?

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The tools matter my friend, no matter how you wield it. Each tool will yield a different result. A perfect 3D printed object cannot recreate the magic and raw creativity of a hand-sculpted one.

I'm a die hard film fan. I shoot it almost exclusively and just developed another roll of 120 format Tri-X at home this evening.

I love the look of it, especially in movies when finished photochemically. From gritty 16mm to 35mm to Lawrence and 2001 in 70mm (damn) and Dunkirk in ****ing 15/70, I can't get enough. I even got to see an IB Tech print of the Wizard of Oz and it was a genuinely moving experience. I hope film will be around for a long time for those who want to shoot on it and despite the advances in digital technology, it still has a unique look and a lot to offer. It's also the best archival medium for motion pictures.

That being said, I'm a huge fan of the Alexa series of digital cameras, especially the 65. Just breathtaking. When combined with Dolby Cinema, for example, I can honestly say that I enjoy seeing digitally sourced and projected movies for the first time.

If we get 8K or higher digital laser projection we may even have a worthy digital substitute for the holy grail that is 15/70 IMAX. Isn't that something to celebrate and look forward to? I love my vinyl records, but I also love what SACD can bring to the table in terms of fidelity. Whether it's digital or film, I say reach for the stars in terms of quality and we as the audience will be transported to ever more immersive worlds that tell us stories that stay with us for a lifetime. That's why I love movies and why I am such a big proponent of presentation quality. The better it is, the more lifelike it feels and the more impactful the story and overall experience.

Digital technology is getting better on the capture and presentation side. That is undoubtedly a good thing, especially considering that it's here to stay.

[testmon112]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The Alexa LF is what it is: an 8-perf-sized sensor (more on which in a second) which is designed to fill a hole in the market for a minimum 4K acquisition camera from ARRI, it's not intended to be some sort of Alexa 65 killer because you still can't buy the latter, only rent it (unless you're paying ARRI to make up a 'special sauce' version e.g. IMAX). ARRI have done things like in-camera upscaling to 4K for the regular Alexa to try and satisfy certain content providers but it doesn't wash, they want a true 4K source and the LF provides a means for people to get on board with a 'large format' ARRI that they can buy outright while the 65 remains the 'prestige' large format option.

As for the Alexa 65, its sensor is so named the A3X because it is literally three regular Alexa sensors (3414x2198) turned through 90 degrees and stitched together, there's a reason why it's 6.5K (2198x3=6594, which becomes 6560 in actual operating use). From looking at the resolution and the physical size of the Alexa LF's sensor it's pretty obvious that they've done the same thing except with two Alexa sensors rather than three, e.g. 2198x2=4396 which they've uptickled slightly to become 4448 in the LF's Open Gate mode.

I've said this before but I'd love to see if IMAX or ARRI could take three of the A3X chips (6560x3102) and stitch them together with another 90-degree turn to make a true 15-perf-sized digital sensor. 9306x6560, have a bang on that

Alexa may do it, but the data rates, overheating issues will be ones to look out for. When shooting open gate on the 65 you can get around 21 mins at 1 terabyte amount of data (which is already ridiculous amount of data). So when storage continues to get cheaper and faster Alexa might have a crack it.

The 65 already matches closely the IMAX MSM 9802 in fidelity and detail resolution. I mean Deakins even said when he was testing the Alexa 65 for BR2049 it was too damn sharp for him lol!

Deakins: I’ve shot tests on the 65, but Denis and I were really quite happy with the feel of Sicario, so we decided to go with (the Alexa XT again). The 65 is great, but it’s almost too sharp and it’s so much data.