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

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

IMAX and Arri needs to stop lazing around and give us a true 1.43:1 digital IMAX camera already.

So they slap a sticker on the Alexa LF. Problem solved.

[Geoff D]

Except that's got a smaller sensor than the Alexa 65.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I remember hearing that they chose the Alexa 65 but it wasn't the "IMAX" version, for whatever difference that makes, and it kinda got fudged into "Shot in IMAX" as they were shooting, which is now the official history. Could've made that up in my head, mind you.


Alas, as people have said the data output from that would be MONSTROUS. Not all that practical unfortunately. But while people are swallowing this "Shot in IMAX™©®" marketing sizzle hook line and sinker what difference does it make? Even 1.44 itself seems to be a dying format when it comes to brand new IMAX cinema installs.

It sounds like indeed they used the IMAX software updated cameras on set of Sully.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/be...astwood-925205

"With an Imax release in mind, Stern — an Oscar nominee for Eastwood's Changling — chose to use a model of the new large-format Arri Alexa 65 digital cinematography camera that was developed with additional software from Imax, via an Arri/Imax partnership"

Also, the decision was made on the second day of shooting to primarily focus on 1.9 framing vs scope according to the editor (after two weeks of framing discussions). So seems like the IMAX thoughts came in sometime late in pre-production
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zpLmzykL5lI

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Except that's got a smaller sensor than the Alexa 65.

I know, I was making fun of them

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by sentinel-fine

So, the problem I found is that the trailer is so full of CGI that it's basically useless for this kind of info.
But, anyway, a 30% anamorphosis is not as easily discernible as a 2x like in 35 mm film.
In theory the bokeh should look like in an Ultra Panavision 70 movie (The Hateful Eight).

I've seen IW and the bokeh is just like that seen in Hateful 8 or Rogue One.

[UFAlien]

Also, haven't seen this mentioned and it's a bit off-topic, but since we spend so much time talking cameras here anyway...

Sony is jumping into the large-format digital cine camera market now too. They've introduced the Sony Venice CineAlta 6K camera which is essentially a direct competitor to the Arri Alexa LF and Red Weapon Monstro. Like the LF its sensor size is very close to a frame of VistaVision film, albeit slightly smaller overall (36.2mm x 24.1mm for the Venice, versus 36.7mm x 25.54mm for the LF and 37.97mm x 25.17mm for actual VistaVision).

Shooting open-gate full-frame (which apparently requires the purchase of an add-on license) its max pixel resolution is 6048 x 4032, versus 4448 x 3096 for the LF or 8192 x 4320 for the Weapon Monstro.

For whatever it's worth, shooting Ultra Panavision anamorphics on the Venice or the LF would yield a native ratio pretty close to 1.90:1 in both cases, but presumably these big blockbusters like using those lenses on the Alexa 65 for IMAX because the maximum extraction size from the sensor is still virtually identical to what they'd get on the narrower-sensor cameras and gives them extra wiggle room for re-framing, VFX, 3D conversion, et cetera.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I remember hearing that they chose the Alexa 65 but it wasn't the "IMAX" version, for whatever difference that makes, and it kinda got fudged into "Shot in IMAX" as they were shooting, which is now the official history. Could've made that up in my head, mind you.


Alas, as people have said the data output from that would be MONSTROUS. Not all that practical unfortunately. But while people are swallowing this "Shot in IMAX™©®" marketing sizzle hook line and sinker what difference does it make? Even 1.44 itself seems to be a dying format when it comes to brand new IMAX cinema installs.

If anyone is interested, I’m going to CineGear in June and will try and ask the ARRI representative about the difference between ARRI 65 and ARRI IMAX. I will also ask about the anamorphic and how they get the different aspect ratios with the anamorphic lenses.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

For whatever it's worth, shooting Ultra Panavision anamorphics on the Venice or the LF would yield a native ratio pretty close to 1.90:1 in both cases, but presumably these big blockbusters like using those lenses on the Alexa 65 for IMAX because the maximum extraction size from the sensor is still virtually identical to what they'd get on the narrower-sensor cameras and gives them extra wiggle room for re-framing, VFX, 3D conversion, et cetera.

Good call on the VV-sized sensors with the 1.3x anamorphics, although given the quality of the glass and the sensors then that would still give them plenty of overshoot to be able to punch in on it and reframe etc.

As for the Alexa 65, in a couple of articles Trent Opaloch said he got Panavision to completely rework the Ultra Panatars for IW and make them a lot more consistent in terms of flare and rolloff so that they would be more even from lens to lens and ultimately shot to shot, anamorphic being (in)famous for that 'egg' of central acuity while the periphery of the frame falls off.

But even with those advancements, if you're capturing 2.65 (once desqueezed) on the rejigged lenses and centre cropping that down to 1.90 then you're extracting the sharpest portion of the image anyway, whereas with the UP glass on the VV-sized sensors you'd be compressing those foibles of the lenses into your entire frame (which even the aforementioned punch-in couldn't completely overcome). So yeah, I think anyone opting for the UP glass will still be using it with a 65mm-sized sensor.

[testmon112]

Usually if you crop in on 2.39, to get 1.85/1.78 you get a unique effect which is slightly different from normal anamorphic framing, but the A3X sensor is so damn big you are able to get a 'natural' 2.39 frame even though in practice you're cropping the centre of the sensor.

[Geoff D]

Thanks for those images testy, they're clearly framing up the 1.90 within the wider image as captured, with frame lines for the 2.39 extraction inset within the 1.90, just as I thought.

As for the cropping of anamorphic, it goes back to that article I posted about an episode of Electric Dreams that was shot 2x anamorphic on some quite ratty glass for a 1.78 extraction: give it enough resolution at the point of capture (using an 8K RED Helium in that case) and you can get away with embiggening the image like that after the fact. In IW's case you've got overhauled UP lenses for a more uniform look plus the real estate of the Alexa's 6.5K sensor so even with a fairly significant crop (and then a crop within a crop! ) it still looks incredible.

[Weaves]

Did a search and couldn't find Super Emax, so here is a new one by me:

http://www.emagine-entertainment.com...-emax-emagine/

92 feet wide by 48 feet tall.

I will see DP2 there.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thanks for those images testy, they're clearly framing up the 1.90 within the wider image as captured, with frame lines for the 2.39 extraction inset within the 1.90, just as I thought.

As for the cropping of anamorphic, it goes back to that article I posted about an episode of Electric Dreams that was shot 2x anamorphic on some quite ratty glass for a 1.78 extraction: give it enough resolution at the point of capture (using an 8K RED Helium in that case) and you can get away with embiggening the image like that after the fact. In IW's case you've got overhauled UP lenses for a more uniform look plus the real estate of the Alexa's 6.5K sensor so even with a fairly significant crop (and then a crop within a crop! ) it still looks incredible.

Arri should've ditched the A3X codename for the A65's sensor and called it BAS = Big Ass Sensor.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Weaves

Did a search and couldn't find Super Emax, so here is a new one by me:

http://www.emagine-entertainment.com...-emax-emagine/

92 feet wide by 48 feet tall.

I will see DP2 there.

'cuddle chairs' sound kinda naughty ...

[xbs2034]

The original Incredibles is getting an IMAX release, but as far as I see, just as part of a double feature with the sequel for now. Would like to see them also do some standalone showings like they did for Blade Runner: The Final Cut as well.

[ITDEFX101]

Looks like this is the final weekend for Avengers in IMAX as Udvar is gonna show Deadpool 2 in IMAX..whoa...wait I thought they had a policy of not allowing R rated films at their screen?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

The original Incredibles is getting an IMAX release, but as far as I see, just as part of a double feature with the sequel for now.

What does IMAX even mean nowadays, seeing as most movies shown on IMAX screens are 2.39:1? IMAX was a phenomenon owing to the unusually tall aspect ratio that separated it from normal scope or flat screens. And the experience of that is unparalleled!

Then the Liemax came, with digital projection and a smaller, flat 1.89:1 ratio. And of late, it has become a trend to put any and every which studio movie up on IMAX; movies that were never designed for taking advantage of the IMAX height. As a result, it looks like a blown-up TV, with letterbox black bars throughout.

Even Imax CEOs now say that it's not just about the aspect ratio, it's about the friggin sound! Hello, IMAX is short for "Image Maximum." Did you guys not get the memo while joining the corporation? It's obvious that it is all about the money now, not quality anymore.

It's sad that they are phasing out the true 15/70 1.43:1 experience, which I was lucky to be a part of, as an audience.
However, the worse thing is definitely 2.39:1 scope screens that they are now calling IMAX.

IMAX therefore is reduced to just a brand name, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[GLaDOS]

I will be devastated if they completely phase out the golden 1.43:1 ratio and exhibitions.

Press F to pay respects to IMAX 70mm film.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

What does IMAX even mean nowadays, seeing as most movies shown on IMAX screens are 2.39:1. IMAX was a phenomenon owing to the unusually tall aspect ratio that separated it from normal scope or flat screens. And the experience of that is unparalelled!

Then the Liemax came, with digital projection and a smaller, flat 1.89:1 ratio. And of late, it has become a trend to put any and every which studio movie up on IMAX; movies that were never designed for taking advantage of the IMAX height. As a result, it looks like a blown-up TV, with letterbox black bars throughout.

Even Imax CEOs now say that it's not just about the aspect ratio, it's about the friggin sound! Hello, IMAX is short for "Image Maximum." Did you guys not get the memo while joining the corporation? It's obvious that it is all about the money now, not quality anymore.

It's sad that they are phasing out the true 15/70 1.43:1 experience, which I was lucky to be a part of, as an audience.
However, the worse thing is definitely 2.39:1 scope screens that they are now calling IMAX.

IMAX therefore is reduced to just a brand name, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Agreed. Whatever special somethin' somethin' IMAX had, it quickly sold its soul to Hollywood. Alas, plenty of people still fall for the hype which is why there's so much "IMAX" stuff around now, one will continue to beget the other until 15/70 is but a distant memory.

As for them bigging up the audio, perhaps they should rename it to AMAX instead?

[GLaDOS]

[ITDEFX101]

DUDE!!!! After months of promoting how this movie was filmed in IMAX and the whole IMAX vs standard viewing...and seeing it in both Regal LieMAX which actually fit the entire screen and not letterboxed....saw it today at Udvar in Chantilly, VA........Guess what? LETTERBOXED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FILM!!!! What the **** Udvar!!!?!?!?!?!?!?! Did the projectionist **** up??!??!