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

[Geoff D]

PS

Even Titanic had some 2-perf stuff for the real-life shots of the wreck, they opted for 2-perf to extend the length of the mag (as mentioned) to give them as much time as possible when on the ocean floor. And it cuts seamlessly with the Super 35 2.40 extraction of the main feature.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I need to go back to AMC Tyson's and rewatch a movie in Dolby.

The only movie I've seen Dolby was The Commuter over in Georgetown.
It was a nice setup and looking to experience Dolby again.

Would've been to see Titanic 3D in Dolby but my work schedule at the time was hectic so I couldn't go.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You talk about 2-perf like it's 16mm, it's nothing of the sort, and they'd still be using the same lenses as with any other 35mm flick shot flat because of the need to cover the wider image circle (same width as 1.85 with the sound offset). As for reframing that's fine, but we're talking about how the images are being composed first and foremost, not whether they can fudge it later. But then again 5-perf 65mm also gives you very little room to manoeuvre, the frames being edge to edge (which is why most of those pictures were cut to A & B rolls) and you certainly can't reframe that as you can a 4-perf S35 show.

You only need to watch any of Leone's Dollars trilogy to see that Techniscope can do glorious widescreen vistas, amazing close-ups and everything else in-between, and it's still capable of capturing very sharp detail. It increasingly fell out of favour when the faster stocks rode into town in the late '70s/early '80s because of how the grain got jacked up (Leone was probably shooting on 50 speed stock, maybe even 25), but by the time the grain had been tamed on those faster stocks in the very late '80s Super 35 had become the flavour of the month for shooting "poor man's widescreen". Thanks to how the modern DI works directly from the negative Techniscope has enjoyed a bit of a renaissance in recent years. Jesus, even Super 16 plumbed straight into a DI looks far better than it has any right to, like most of Darren Aronofsky's recent flicks.

Good Times was shot on 2 Perf 35mm and it looked pretty good.
2 Perf is essentially Super 35 but uses less film.

[Geoff D]

Yes, which is why I called 2-perf the slightly smaller brother of a 2.40 S35 extraction on the previous page. The S35 will have a little more width and height for the 2.40 extraction because it uses the full silent width of the film (call it 2-and-a-half perf ) and of course it has more room to vertically reframe, even when shot 3-perf, but essentially their ultimate output is going to look very, very similar and won't present any major compositional differences.

You can add The Fighter, Sllver Linings Playbook and American Hustle to the modern Techniscope list, the DI toolbox also being very handy to paint out hairs in the gate which can be a particular problem on edge to edge formats like this.

[Creed]

In IMAX, Dolby Cinema (IMDB has Atmos and Vision), and PLF.
Trailer tomorrow.

[Dubstar]

^ 'The Conjuring' had/has such a great Dolby Atmos mix!

~~

in other news, Smithsonian kicks 'Solo' off the IMAX screen over at Udvar Hazy on Wednesday, has the Incredibles double feature on Thursday, and begins 'Incredibles 2' for a week before 'Jurassic World 2' - this is big news since the Smithsonian has never booked any of the prior Pixar IMAX theatrical releases on their screens (outside of the one-off screening of 'Wall-E' at the intown Lockheed Martin screen).

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Look at the rounded black corners on the widescreen frame. It's a cheaper alternative to anamorphic and you can use a lot more film stock per minute.
Attachment 201967

Ooooooops! Read the spoil to reveal me being a dumby wrong-wrong:

[Show spoiler]For the record, that's not Techniscope at all. Techniscope produces a full-frame negative aspect ratio of 2.33:1. If that were a real uncropped film scan from Techniscope the aspect ratio would be around there. But the ratio of this image is about 2.62:1. That's pretty close to the original CinemaScope 2.66:1 ratio (before the film was cropped for printing down with the soundtrack). If you look at the trailer from Universal's YouTube page, which is framed at the standard 2.39:1, it's missing horizontal information from that scan. So that scan is the full width, much wider than what Techniscope can achieve. It looks like Chazelle is once more emulating old-school CinemaScope like he did for La La Land, perhaps shooting Super 35 with 2x anamorphics.

As to the tight framing - the difference in field of view between Super 35 and Techniscope is very small at equivalent lens focal lengths. For example, a 35mm lens gets you a roughly 35 degree horizontal field of view on Techniscope and about 39 degrees on Super 35. Obviously you can compensate for this by just placing the camera further from the subject. So the framing isn't evidence of anything.

[Geoff D]

Didn't spot any anamorphic bokeh in the trailer tho, will rewatch it again later.

[Geoff D]

Try as I might (it's quite a skittish trailer) I can only see round bokeh throughout, so yeah, I think First Man's main taking format is Techniscope for reals.

One thing to bear in mind is that Techniscope is indeed roughly 2.33 when using wiki specs (22mm/9.47mm) but that's with the sound aperture offset taken into account. If one extends the transfer into the full width of the 35mm negative, soundtrack area and all (24.89mm/9.47mm), then it becomes....the exact 2.62 which you've quoted UFA

So the image that Riddhiman has provided (where did you get that, BTW?) appears to be a full-ap scan of a Techniscope shot, edge to edge. About the only thing missing is the perfs themselves! Note also the schmutz in the bottom right corner, as I previously mentioned re: hairs in the gate. The final extraction will be 21.87/9.15mm, which equals the 2.39 aspect exactly.

[edit] Comparison of 2-perf widescreen to S35 widescreen extraction, the latter has 30% more real estate (as I said, bigger brother) but they're not leagues apart and don't necessitate a major alteration in framing/lighting at all. Techniscope really is a rather neat way of doing widescreen 35mm on a budget, and having now seen the 1080p trailer the switches to 16mm are all the more obvious.

[UFAlien]

Well there we go then, that makes sense! I wasn't even looking at the bokeh. But yeah, full-aperture-width 2-perf makes sense... in the era of virtually universal digital sound I suppose the offset is a waste. So not exactly "Techniscope," quite, but a modernized 2-perf approach. A pretty clever one, too.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

^ 'The Conjuring' had/has such a great Dolby Atmos mix!

~~

in other news, Smithsonian kicks 'Solo' off the IMAX screen over at Udvar Hazy on Wednesday, has the Incredibles double feature on Thursday, and begins 'Incredibles 2' for a week before 'Jurassic World 2' - this is big news since the Smithsonian has never booked any of the prior Pixar IMAX theatrical releases on their screens (outside of the one-off screening of 'Wall-E' at the intown Lockheed Martin screen).

Even though I have seen I2 in IMAX, I really think CG films are a waste of the format as they are not rendering the film itself at the IMAX resolution available for them to do so.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Even though I have seen I2 in IMAX, I really think CG films are a waste of the format as they are not rendering the film itself at the IMAX resolution available for them to do so.

IMAX resolution is, at a maximum, still the standard 4096x2160. Granted CG animation is almost always 2K, but of course that's the resolution of the overwhelming majority of IMAX screens anyway.

The issue with CG animation in 4K is that you're rendering four times as many pixels from scratch in every frame. Render time goes up with every little boost in resolution. So rendering a CG film in 4K would take far, far more time, money, and processing power than 2K. There's a much more significant cost and technological hurdle than there is for live action.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

IMAX resolution is, at a maximum, still the standard 4096x2160. Granted CG animation is almost always 2K, but of course that's the resolution of the overwhelming majority of IMAX screens anyway.

The issue with CG animation in 4K is that you're rendering four times as many pixels from scratch in every frame. Render time goes up with every little boost in resolution. So rendering a CG film in 4K would take far, far more time, money, and processing power than 2K. There's a much more significant cost and technological hurdle than there is for live action.

but aren't there are a few video games being rendered in 4K? I'd think the industry is really slow and combative to the idea of change and being stuck in the 2K realm - are, and will, Hollywood SFX studios ever change that technical aspect?

~~



looks like Alamo Drafthouse is getting into the "'premium' experience" with 'The Big Show' (in Woodbridge, VA and Denton, TX), with preliminary plans also for Crystal City - Arlington, VA (late 2019 opening) and Rhode Island Ave. Washington DC (summer 2020).

Alamo Drafthouse - The Big Show

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

but aren't there are a few video games being rendered in 4K? I'd think the industry is really slow and combative to the idea of change and being stuck in the 2K realm - are, and will, Hollywood SFX studios ever change that technical aspect?

Video game engines are optimized specifically for real-time rendering and do not approach the level of flexibility, visual complexity and detail of professionally rendered CG animation. It took 29 hours to render a single frame of Monsters University.

In screenshots a game like Kingdom Hearts 3 can look pretty close to a Disney animated film, but the engines can't maintain that level of quality at a usable framerate with the sheer amount of models, high-resolution textures, and complex lighting and shaders used for movies. There's a reason those "this game looks as good as this movie" comparison shots are usually close-ups of a few characters in a small/indoor setting.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Video game engines are optimized specifically for real-time rendering and do not approach the level of flexibility, visual complexity and detail of professionally rendered CG animation. It took 29 hours to render a single frame of Monsters University.

In screenshots a game like Kingdom Hearts 3 can look pretty close to a Disney animated film, but the engines can't maintain that level of quality at a usable framerate with the sheer amount of models, high-resolution textures, and complex lighting and shaders used for movies. There's a reason those "this game looks as good as this movie" comparison shots are usually close-ups of a few characters in a small/indoor setting.

so besides stop motion animation, professionally rendered CG animation is and will always be 2K - there are no tools or software that ultizies 4K tech specifications? 'that' I find shocking.

[Geoff D]

Of course there are! 4K and/or >2K VFX was done for Tomorrowland and Last Jedi and Blade Runner 2049, with 5.6K, 6K and even 8K used on Chris Nolan's IMAX pictures.

It just takes TIME, and when you're shooting a gargantuan effects-driven movie that has 3000 shots and need to turn it around inside 12-18 months - vying for VFX render time at a dozen different houses around the world with all the OTHER gargantuan effects-driven movies that are also being turned around in the same time frame, often from the same studio - then you're right up against it from the moment the first camera starts rolling. It's not a question of technology, it's a question of pragmatism.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of course there are! 4K and/or >2K VFX was done for Tomorrowland and Last Jedi and Blade Runner 2049, with 5.6K, 6K and even 8K used on Chris Nolan's IMAX pictures.

It just takes TIME, and when you're shooting a gargantuan effects-driven movie that has 3000 shots and need to turn it around inside 12-18 months - vying for VFX render time at a dozen different houses around the world with all the OTHER gargantuan effects-driven movies that are also being turned around in the same time frame, often from the same studio - then you're right up against it from the moment the first camera starts rolling. It's not a question of technology, it's a question of pragmatism.

the dreaded 'P' word but wouldn't if all the tools made for these VFX 'studios' were 4K make it easier - why are effects rendering still at 2K when the shift toward's exhibition, distribution (DCP/home video: UHD) is opting for higher 'resolution'. It seems that every aspect of production + post derails a number of movies from going out as 4K, whether it's the effects, the DI process, adding stereo 3D imagery.

[Geoff D]

The vast majority of cinemas in the world today are 2K, which wasn't helped by the massive push for 3D as that's limited to 2K in the main DCI spec. Again: the tools are already capable of 4K rendering (and higher) but the means to fully deploy them balls-out on EVERY movie is just not practical. As for UHD, it's a very rare thing that a movie is finished (or even re-finished) to a certain spec just for a niche of a niche home video market! And the studios don't own the VFX houses, so it's not like they can just drop millions of dollars into upgrading their server racks to the absolute bestest bestest ones or whatever.

What doesn't help is that VFX is a cutthroat business, now more than ever. Even in the olden days there were competing VFX houses and lots of smaller ones to which you'd farm out the 'bread and butter' opticals but now it's truly global, and with the reach of the interwebs you don't even have to be in the same hemisphere as the VFX house in order for them to handle hundreds or even thousands of shots and pipe them back to you in real time. There are so many companies vying for this work, buoyed by tax breaks now that you can farm out stuff overseas, and it's all about undercutting the other guys. Sure, there are some 'names' to which you have to pay the big bucks (ILM, Weta) but pretty much everyone else? They're fighting for the scraps and they're just trying to get things done rather than worry about whether the end product is 4K, 8K, 16K blah blah.

[xbs2034]

Saw Jurassic World tonight in IMAX laser at Leicester square. Seemed to me like it wasn't quite as large as the other IMAX lasers I've been to (in NYC, San Fran, and Reading, MA) but a nice fairly large and comfortable size from my seat (row G) and of course great picture and sound as you would expect from the system.

In addition to the normal IMAX countdown right before the movie there was an extended IMAX intro in the middle of the trailers which was a more impressive display (had some obvious sound effects to show off the range and overhead speakers), but was long enough that I imagine it would get a bit tiring seeing repeatedly.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

IMAX resolution is, at a maximum, still the standard 4096x2160. Granted CG animation is almost always 2K, but of course that's the resolution of the overwhelming majority of IMAX screens anyway.

The issue with CG animation in 4K is that you're rendering four times as many pixels from scratch in every frame. Render time goes up with every little boost in resolution. So rendering a CG film in 4K would take far, far more time, money, and processing power than 2K. There's a much more significant cost and technological hurdle than there is for live action.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Video game engines are optimized specifically for real-time rendering and do not approach the level of flexibility, visual complexity and detail of professionally rendered CG animation. It took 29 hours to render a single frame of Monsters University.

In screenshots a game like Kingdom Hearts 3 can look pretty close to a Disney animated film, but the engines can't maintain that level of quality at a usable framerate with the sheer amount of models, high-resolution textures, and complex lighting and shaders used for movies. There's a reason those "this game looks as good as this movie" comparison shots are usually close-ups of a few characters in a small/indoor setting.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

so besides stop motion animation, professionally rendered CG animation is and will always be 2K - there are no tools or software that ultizies 4K tech specifications? 'that' I find shocking.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of course there are! 4K and/or >2K VFX was done for Tomorrowland and Last Jedi and Blade Runner 2049, with 5.6K, 6K and even 8K used on Chris Nolan's IMAX pictures.

It just takes TIME, and when you're shooting a gargantuan effects-driven movie that has 3000 shots and need to turn it around inside 12-18 months - vying for VFX render time at a dozen different houses around the world with all the OTHER gargantuan effects-driven movies that are also being turned around in the same time frame, often from the same studio - then you're right up against it from the moment the first camera starts rolling. It's not a question of technology, it's a question of pragmatism.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

the dreaded 'P' word but wouldn't if all the tools made for these VFX 'studios' were 4K make it easier - why are effects rendering still at 2K when the shift toward's exhibition, distribution (DCP/home video: UHD) is opting for higher 'resolution'. It seems that every aspect of production + post derails a number of movies from going out as 4K, whether it's the effects, the DI process, adding stereo 3D imagery.

All of you have your points and agree that it takes more time to render out the frames....but to be honest what is the audience more waiting to have a sequel to ? A live action movie or a CG movie from more than 10 years ago? I personally wasn't excited about Incredibles 2 IMAX compared to that of Infinity War in IMAX. With the surcharge added to the ticket for an IMAX/IMAX 3d/3d feature surely some of that money can go to the production costs of the CG movie.

That's stupid crazy that it takes nearly 30 hours to render one frame with the advancement of computer processing power. We are still getting CG films every year but I don't think we are getting sequels to CG films every 2-5 years like an average movie that made a lot of money the first time around.
Pixar doesn't have pressure to release a sequel to a mega hit..other wise we would have seen Toy Story 8 by now :\

Yeah it takes time and money to do this but when there is a like a 14 year gap between the first movie and the second movie and the technology is available to present it in IMAX at full frame full resolution.