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

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

There's a separate thread on it now but just to reiterate for those who check this one; IMAX has apparently finished developing that smaller, cheaper version of their 4K laser system. AMC signed a deal to convert 87 of its IMAX locations to the format, while Cineworld (which also owns Regal) is converting 29 existing IMAX locations and adding 26 brand-new ones. They'll all have "luxury seating" and the 12-channel sound system.

Good. Their Xenon projectors are ass, especially in the bigger venues.

[FAShaffi]

saw Infinity War at Cineworld Leicester Sq. IMAX laser here in London last night, looked pretty great, even in 3D (although that didn't do much for me like most post conversions) and it was definitely 1.90 throughout.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by FAShaffi

saw Infinity War at Cineworld Leicester Sq. IMAX laser here in London last night, looked pretty great, even in 3D (although that didn't do much for me like most post conversions) and it was definitely 1.90 throughout.

Yep confirmed 1.9 all the way just like Death Cure.

[Riddhi2011]

No expanded IMAX aspect ratio for 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom'

Peter Sciretta:"You talked about the filming in scope, and all these movies, or I think the last two, were in IMAX. So I assume this is going to be in IMAX. Are you gonna expand or is that like you want it to just be that scope?

Bayona: I think there’s been some conversation about it. The idea would be to keep the aspect ratio. I mean, this is what they’ve been doing with the Star Wars movies. I think when you design a film, when you design a shot, it’s kind of like going against the film if you change the aspect ratio."

http://www.slashfilm.com/j-a-bayona-interview/3/

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

No expanded IMAX aspect ratio for 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom'

Peter Sciretta:"You talked about the filming in scope, and all these movies, or I think the last two, were in IMAX. So I assume this is going to be in IMAX. Are you gonna expand or is that like you want it to just be that scope?

Bayona: I think there’s been some conversation about it. The idea would be to keep the aspect ratio. I mean, this is what they’ve been doing with the Star Wars movies. I think when you design a film, when you design a shot, it’s kind of like going against the film if you change the aspect ratio."

http://www.slashfilm.com/j-a-bayona-interview/3/

God damn it?! Why **** up that opportunity?!?!?!?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

God damn it?! Why **** up that opportunity?!?!?!?

Read his explanation: He doesn't want to change his composition for 2.39:1.
Of course he could've framed a few shots specifically for IMAX. But, Oh, well.

Rogue One, The Last Jedi, Pacific Rim 2 and now JW2; no IMAX expansion.

I think the best way to watch this movie without having to buy those expensive Imax tickets, is to watch it on a large scope screen, where it'd fill the screen. Like Cinerama or whatever you guys in the Western world have.
In India, we are stuck with small to medium sized scope screens mostly.
No IMAX or Dolby cinema in my state anyway.
There's only one PLF screen with Atmos. But that's 1.89:1.

[ITDEFX101]

Did anyone notice that the IMAX sound mix for IW wasn't as aggressive as RP1? I mean it was good but not as loud.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Did anyone notice that the IMAX sound mix for IW wasn't as aggressive as RP1? I mean it was good but not as loud.

That's a GOOD thing.
I hate going to IMAX because they turn the sound up to painful levels.
I like my movies loud but gawd damn.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

That's a GOOD thing.
I hate going to IMAX because they turn the sound up to painful levels.
I like my movies loud but gawd damn.

The problem is with my local IMAX theater is that they crank the audio to the max during the previews but when the main movie starts, it mostly sounds like a regular theater audio system where most of the audio comes from the front and weak surround.


RP1...that racing scene audio mix was perfect....kind of reminded me of how well the Pod race sequence was in TPM. You know they gave a lot of time and attention to that and nearly 20 years later I remember how good it was.

[ghornett]

I think I'm okay with keeping one AR. Less confusion about how it will be shown where and what's on the disc. More director intent is never a bad thing.

[Riddhi2011]

Yes but still it'd have been awesome to see those huge dinosaurs fill the entire IMAX frame and tower over both the characters and the audience. That'd have been an incredible experience. The thing with dinosaurs is psychologically you always associate them with height; with the vertical space. When somebody asks you to pretend you're seeing dinosaurs what do you do? You slowly raise your eyes and your head up. You don't scan left and right. Only IMAX provides that vertical opportunity. Because, in anyway, scope screens aren't that tall. Unless you were to sit at the very front rows and see pixels, ruining the movie experience.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Yes but still it'd have been awesome to see those huge dinosaurs fill the entire IMAX frame and tower over both the characters and the audience. That'd have been an incredible experience. The thing with dinosaurs is psychologically you always associate them with height; with the vertical space. When somebody asks you to pretend you're seeing dinosaurs what do you do? You slowly raise your eyes and your head up. You don't scan left and right. Only IMAX provides that vertical opportunity. Because, in anyway, scope screens aren't that tall. Unless you were to sit at the very front rows and see pixels, ruining the movie experience.

that was one of the key aspects I remember reading why Spielberg shot 'Jurassic Park' in flat - height cannot be conveyed through a wide aspect ratio. For the upcoming Jurassic World sequel to be filmed/framed in 'scope' seemed like a really really stupid decision.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Yes but still it'd have been awesome to see those huge dinosaurs fill the entire IMAX frame and tower over both the characters and the audience. That'd have been an incredible experience. The thing with dinosaurs is psychologically you always associate them with height; with the vertical space. When somebody asks you to pretend you're seeing dinosaurs what do you do? You slowly raise your eyes and your head up. You don't scan left and right. Only IMAX provides that vertical opportunity. Because, in anyway, scope screens aren't that tall. Unless you were to sit at the very front rows and see pixels, ruining the movie experience.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

that was one of the key aspects I remember reading why Spielberg shot 'Jurassic Park' in flat - height cannot be conveyed through a wide aspect ratio. For the upcoming Jurassic World sequel to be filmed/framed in 'scope' seemed like a really really stupid decision.

Not in the least.

Godzilla and King Kong (all versions since 1976, earlier if you count the Japanese version) have been in 2.35 and seemed "tall" just fine.

Also dinosaurs are LONG. Wide from head to tail. Tyrannosaurus didn't stand tall (he could but he didn't). They had long tails as a counterbalance.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Not in the least.


Godzilla and King Kong (all versions since 1976, earlier if you count the Japanese version) have been in 2.35 and seemed "tall" just fine.


Also dinosaurs are LONG. Wide. Tyrannosaurus didn't stand tall (he could but he didn't). They had long tails as a counterbalance.

yet when all those Godzilla movies where being released, most cinemas horizontally masked for 'flat' movies, the height was constant. Nowadays, most theater screens are set 1.85 screens that result in movies being letterboxed or vertical masking that diminishes the screen and reduces the image from being tall.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

that was one of the key aspects I remember reading why Spielberg shot 'Jurassic Park' in flat - height cannot be conveyed through a wide aspect ratio. For the upcoming Jurassic World sequel to be filmed/framed in 'scope' seemed like a really really stupid decision.

Well, Bayona has always shot in scope and he definitely favours that format. I guess he wouldn't have done the movie if he wasn't allowed to shoot scope. Which is why it is likely that even though Spielberg insisted on a flat aspect ratio to Colin Trevorrow for JW, he accepted Bayona's choice of scope.

I am not questioning Bayona's compositions, which are really solid and beautiful at times.
I personally think tall characters are better presented in taller aspect ratios.
This is also what the Russo Brothers said about framing Thanos in Infinity War IMAX.

I think seeing Kong/Godzilla almost as tall as a 98 feet high IMAX screen would be a tremendous experience over seeing Kong in a 25 feet high scope screen, with a very wide composition where Kong is pushed far back into the screen, to fit his height.
Same with the T-Rex and the Brachiosaur in Jurassic Park franchise!

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Not in the least.

Godzilla and King Kong (all versions since 1976, earlier if you count the Japanese version) have been in 2.35 and seemed "tall" just fine.

Also dinosaurs are LONG. Wide from head to tail. Tyrannosaurus didn't stand tall (he could but he didn't). They had long tails as a counterbalance.

Well, yes. But look at the framing of the photo below.
T-Rex Natural History.jpg
The narrow/tall framing creates the feeling that it will pounce on you from above. That feels more scarier than eating you horizontally. If one were to crop the dinosaur photos you provided in your previous post to correspond to their scale, then they'd get this type of framing -

Dino dimensions 1.jpg

Dino dimensions 2.jpg
These are all closer to flat ratios than scope.

Just look at Spielberg's Jurassic Park and you'd understand why he decide on a tall aspect ratio. It's a focused composition and it gives enough height to psychologically convey the height difference between man and dinosaurs. Plus, it looks fantastic in IMAX; the best movie-watching experience there is.

Interesting article on the aspect ratios of the Jurassic franchise -

https://filmschoolrejects.com/aspect...ark-franchise/

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Well, yes. But look at the framing of the photo below.


The narrow/tall framing creates the feeling that it will pounce on you from above. That feels more scarier than eating you horizontally. If one were to crop the dinosaur photos you provided in your previous post to correspond to their scale, then they'd get this type of framing -


These are all closer to flat ratios than scope.

Just look at Spielberg's Jurassic Park and you'd understand why he decide on a tall aspect ratio. It's a focused composition and it gives enough height to psychologically convey the height difference between man and dinosaurs. Plus, it looks fantastic in IMAX; the best movie-watching experience there is.

Interesting article on the aspect ratios of the Jurassic franchise -

https://filmschoolrejects.com/aspect...ark-franchise/

Well those pictures are horrifically composed in a film setting.

Now how about a properly composed image:



Chris Pratt sure looks tiny doesn't he?

Gareth Edwards somehow made Godzilla and the MUTOs *huge* in 2.40, so did Jordan Vogt-Roberts *and* Peter Jackson for Kong. Spielberg's one of the greatest but fact is that JP was made during his "1.85 everything but Indiana Jones" period.

And you misspelled Dolby Cinema if you're talking about the best movie-watching experience.


In any case, IMAX theaters are a limited venue, they shouldn't limit a movie's composition to something 10% of the audience will see.

[Riddhi2011]

Bayona's composition of that Rexy shot is indeed beautiful, but it lacks the sense of height; of a fierce animal lumbering over you, that similar shots in Jurassic Park trilogy and JW have. It feels as if Rexy is confined within the letterbox 2.39:1 frame and she cannot raise her upper body much for fear of going out of the frame edge.

Plus, unlike similar shots in JP, here she feels pushed farther back inside the frame, rather than being in close proximity (which creates fear in the audience).

In JW2, when Rexy is in close proximity, her upper jaw is almost completely cut-off because the 2.39:1 frame cannot accommodate more height while framing a close-up -

JW2 Rexy crop 2 lowrez.jpg

It'd have been far more immersive and scary if I could see her upper jaws within the frame. Because, in real-life your eyes, at that distance, would be able to see much more vertical information than the 2.39:1 frame allows.
Seeing the lower jaw coming out of the frame feels really scary but then you look up and the upper jaw isn't there. So, the immersive quality of the composition is gone. Now Bayona could've gone wider. But in that case the Rex would've looked much smaller.

Another example is this. It's an incredibly well-lit shot. But again, in order to fit her full frame, she has been pushed far back inside the composition, which now leaves a lot of negative space at the sides. But that also makes Rexy look smaller within the frame; smaller in a common width cinema and in IMAX.

JW2 T-Rex roar in rain lowrez.jpg

I did a custom crop to 2.00:1 (see below). To my eyes at least, Rexy appears more looming a threat because she's occupying much more vertical space and is closer to the screen.

JW2 T-Rex roar in rain 2-00-1 lowrez.jpg

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

In any case, IMAX theaters are a limited venue, they shouldn't limit a movie's composition to something 10% of the audience will see.

They could've expanded those scenes exclusively for IMAX and kept the regular wide release as 2.39:1. Problem solved! But, of course Bayona didn't want to compose that way. He says Star Wars has always maintained the scope ratio. But the reality is all the OT films were expanded vertically to 2.20:1 for 70mm. The 1996 special edition re-release of Star Wars had the opening scene re-created in full 1.43:1 ratio.

Star Wars IMAX (1996) - YouTube

And then J.J. Abrams shot the Falcon escape from 'The Force Awakens' in 1.43:1.

By the way, certain shots in the movie, during nighttime, have been graded to have that classic black and white look (with the proper gray levels) and they are truly beautiful! The fact that they decided to go art-house for those shots demand full praise, like the shot above and these two -

JW2 Mosasaurs dinner lowrez.jpg

finaltrailer5917s9y lowrez.jpg

Awesome!

[Geoff D]

The reality is that you can't "vertically expand" something shot in 35mm anamorphic. The 70mm Star Wars releases were cropped to 2.20.

[Riddhi2011]

I think if you count the rounded edges of the film frame and safe area that is cropped out during projection, you're not losing much. On 35mm anamorphic, the full height of the film frame isn't projected either. However, I believe on 70mm, due to the taller film gate, slightly more information would be shown vertically. I may be wrong.

[Geoff D]

You're talking fractions pretty much either way. So referencing the OT in that manner regarding Bayona's comments is a bit disingenuous, as is going back to that recomposited opening shot which was never intended to replace the original and was only done as a sop to IMAX.