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

[testmon112]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What do you mean, "will have"? IMAX is, as of now, a de facto digital format for both capture and projection. The 15/70 film version is all but dead for projection (only wheeled out now for IMAX museum venues that lack any kind of digital projector) and for capture it doesn't fare much better. Even the 1.44 ratio - which isn't "exclusive" to 15-perf per se - is rarely used any more.

Yeah, this shift makes me sad tho Geoff. But haling out 15/70 just for a Nolan film every few years (and a few others) was always gonna fail as a sales pitch.

[ITDEFX101]

Saw Aquaman in Digital IMAX last night. Holy shit the IMAX sequences which pretty much covered any time they were in Atlantis (which was a good part of the movie and underwater) was amazing. The special effects minus a few scenes were absolutely amazing. Colors and textures stood out. The Audio Mix was aggressive for this movie. I might see it again at Udvar!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Yes. That'll be that, next. 1080p IMAX has already happened with Avatar (arguably the most successful IMAX feature), Tron: Legacy and now Alita: Battle Angel.

Heck, I myself have entertained such a thought . I can't afford anything better than a DSLR at the moment.

It's already done, they sent a bunch of Canon 4K DSLRs into space when making A Beautiful Planet: https://www.fdtimes.com/2016/08/15/a...et-canon-imax/

Don't forget the sticker, IT'S NOT IMAX WITHOUT THE STICKER!!!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's already done, they sent a bunch of Canon 4K DSLRs into space when making A Beautiful Planet: https://www.fdtimes.com/2016/08/15/a...et-canon-imax/

Don't forget the sticker, IT'S NOT IMAX WITHOUT THE STICKER!!!

"NASA told us we couldn’t make the film…on film. 'You’re not going to be able to fly actual motion picture film,' they said. 'No more IMAX film because we don’t have a Space Shuttle to fly up and back.'

So, end of IMAX film for space documentaries!

But, couldn't they at least pick the Alexa 65 or Alexa LF? Wouldn't they capture more IMAX-worthy images? Apparently a DSLR is better than those -

"Canon C500 because it looked best overall. It had uncompressed 4K output and I felt that we needed every bit of data we could get from the camera to try to match IMAX."

The choice was determined by IMAX aspect ratio as well. Yay -

"We also picked the Canon EOS-1D C to use as a full frame still camera, with 5K resolution (5208 x 3477 effective pixels). Its full frame 1.5:1 aspect ratio came fairly close to the 1.44:1 IMAX aspect ratio, and has 16-bit color space. The 1D C was used to take multiple exposure image sequences that we converted to real time, 24 fps motion with secret sauces in post production."

Also they retained the shifting aspect ratio - 1.43:1 for exterior space and 16:9 for interiors. An interesting read. Thanks @Geoff!

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

"NASA told us we couldn’t make the film…on film. 'You’re not going to be able to fly actual motion picture film,' they said. 'No more IMAX film because we don’t have a Space Shuttle to fly up and back.'

So, end of IMAX film for space documentaries!

But, couldn't they at least pick the Alexa 65 or Alexa LF? Wouldn't they capture more IMAX-worthy images? Apparently a DSLR is better than those -

"Canon C500 because it looked best overall. It had uncompressed 4K output and I felt that we needed every bit of data we could get from the camera to try to match IMAX."

The choice was determined by IMAX aspect ratio as well. Yay -

"We also picked the Canon EOS-1D C to use as a full frame still camera, with 5K resolution (5208 x 3477 effective pixels). Its full frame 1.5:1 aspect ratio came fairly close to the 1.44:1 IMAX aspect ratio, and has 16-bit color space. The 1D C was used to take multiple exposure image sequences that we converted to real time, 24 fps motion with secret sauces in post production."

Also they retained the shifting aspect ratio - 1.43:1 for exterior space and 16:9 for interiors. An interesting read. Thanks @Geoff!

I wonder if batteries and storage were a consideration. The mentioned Alexa’s most likely eat up data super fast and go through the batteries really fast. The Canon cards and batteries are smaller.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I wonder if batteries and storage were a consideration. The mentioned Alexa’s most likely eat up data super fast and go through the batteries really fast. The Canon cards and batteries are smaller.

Hmm. But then, what about the Hasselblad H6D? It's the best Medium format DSLR. So, they could've used that. It has a full frame still photo aspect ratio of 1.33:1 at 8K resolution. Also, it records 4K raw video at 1.78:1. So, rather than take two DSLRs, they could've accomplished the job with a single camera. They also would'nt have needed to crop horizontal resolution from the Canon 5K stills.

It's Hasselblad who should be making an 8K 1.43:1 IMAX digital movie camera. The images are really good, if not totally film-like. Point to be noted is that Hasselblad has been making IMAX 70mm film lenses all along. Here's an excerpt from a cinema5d.com article - "So what’s special about the ALPA PLATON using the Hasselblad H6D-100c back? Well in regards to sensor area it even out-measures the Alexa 65’s huge ARRI A3X sensor by over 30% and it shoots 16bit RAW video." THIS is the perfect IMAX digital camera, not Alexa65, not AlexaLF!

Take a look at the 8K raw(and Jpeg) stills here -

https://www.hasselblad.com/learn/sample-images/

[UFAlien]

In the article they mention A Beautiful Planet's pre-production and camera choices started in 2012. Neither the Hasselblad H6D, nor the Alexa 65 or LF, existed at the time.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

In the article they mention A Beautiful Planet's pre-production and camera choices started in 2012. Neither the Hasselblad H6D, nor the Alexa 65 or LF, existed at the time.

What I was suggesting is that they should go with the Hasselblad now, because it has a sensor larger than Alexa 65, is lightweight and has that 1.33:1 sensor which is perfect for IMAX 1.43:1.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Hmm. But then, what about the Hasselblad H6D? It's the best Medium format DSLR. So, they could've used that. It has a full frame still photo aspect ratio of 1.33:1 at 8K resolution. Also, it records 4K raw video at 1.78:1. So, rather than take two DSLRs, they could've accomplished the job with a single camera. They also would'nt have needed to crop horizontal resolution from the Canon 5K stills.

It's Hasselblad who should be making an 8K 1.43:1 IMAX digital movie camera. The images are really good, if not totally film-like. Point to be noted is that Hasselblad has been making IMAX 70mm film lenses all along. Here's an excerpt from a cinema5d.com article - "So what’s special about the ALPA PLATON using the Hasselblad H6D-100c back? Well in regards to sensor area it even out-measures the Alexa 65’s huge ARRI A3X sensor by over 30% and it shoots 16bit RAW video." THIS is the perfect IMAX digital camera, not Alexa65, not AlexaLF!

Take a look at the 8K raw(and Jpeg) stills here -

https://www.hasselblad.com/learn/sample-images/

There’s more to good picture than resolution.

[testmon112]

The reason the Sony A7S works so well in low light, is due to having a lower megapixel count so the photosites are bigger so the sensor can absorb more light information.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

What I was suggesting is that they should go with the Hasselblad now, because it has a sensor larger than Alexa 65, is lightweight and has that 1.33:1 sensor which is perfect for IMAX 1.43:1.

But what if IMAX don't give a toss about 1.44 any more? That's the key point here (which I tried and failed to impart on certain people in the Aquadude thread).

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Poya

There’s more to good picture than resolution.

I know that. I studied cinematography and have shot a documentary short. But, I also know that having a high resolution means your image remains strong when you blow it up; especially on IMAX GT screens.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But what if IMAX don't give a toss about 1.44 any more? That's the key point here (which I tried and failed to impart on certain people in the Aquadude thread).

Somebody has to ask that to David Keighley.

By the way, IMAX Enhanced content will likely include 1.43:1 for home releases as well. This is great news for those who love full frame IMAX!
https://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1159077.html

[Geoff D]

Pity there aren't any full frame IMAX TVs, and certainly none big enough to impart anything like the majesty that 1.44 deserves...unless someone dusts off the old CRT projection set in the garage.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Pity there aren't any full frame IMAX TVs, and certainly none big enough to impart anything like the majesty that 1.44 deserves...unless someone dusts off the old CRT projection set in the garage.

In my home (actually my parents') we only watch our old trusted CRT - Sony Trinitron 21 Inch with 3D Basso. We bought it in 2000. Almost 20 years and still going strong! Our 16:9 Samsung LCD (also 21 inch) is gathering dust . The colours and contrast of that is nowhere near our beloved Sony crt. I don't think I'll be buying an HDR set, because it will also be widescreen. I am interested in a projector though, or an IMAX 1.43:1 TV, if they ever decide on making one.

[Geoff D]

that really does explain a hell of a lot, lol

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

that really does explain a hell of a lot, lol

Actually, I watch very little TV myself, nowadays. That's because the content today is just...uninspiring. I mostly use my PC, whose monitor is 16:9. So, no, I am not a fan of 1.43:1 IMAX because of my TV. But because I find the more square-like aspect ratio to feel "natural" "soothing" to the eye than widescreen. Our vision is roughly 1.6:1, which is the shape of the Golden ratio. So, vertical ARs look nicer to me. I grew up watching more television in the 1990s and rarely ever went to the cinema (it wasn't encouraged in our family). I saw a lot of Satyajit Ray films, which were all shot and projected 1.33:1, right from his first film 'Pather Panchali' (Song of the Little Road) in 1955 till his last film "Agantuk' (The Stranger) in 1991. So, his cinema influenced me a lot.
Then of course there was Steven Spielberg. I also grew up watching his films. In the 1990s, he was mostly shooting 1.85:1; all of which were broadcast 1.33:1 open matte on Cable.

[benji888578]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Saw Aquaman in Digital IMAX last night. Holy shit the IMAX sequences which pretty much covered any time they were in Atlantis (which was a good part of the movie and underwater) was amazing. The special effects minus a few scenes were absolutely amazing. Colors and textures stood out. The Audio Mix was aggressive for this movie. I might see it again at Udvar!

I just saw Aquaman in digital IMAX 3D, I have to agree...this fits in my top 5 IMAX 3D experiences! I kind of want to go again, just for the experience, not my favorite film, but a better DC film.

(I don’t live anywhere near a laser or film IMAX, however my local digital IMAX is four stories high, seven stories wide with 350 leather seats.)

[benji888578]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

IMAX mostly dropping 3D really sucks.

I don’t want to watch 3D on some small, dark screen with crappy sound in some crappy room. IMAX and very few other premium rooms actually have enough brightness to make theatrical 3D awesome.

Most 3D-Whiners haven’t see 3D IMAX glory.

Aquamam isn’t getting 3D IMAX and Bumblebee isn’t getting premium screens at all. I’ve barely went to the theater this year because of this nonsense.

I am so with you on 3D, IMAX 3D and realD 3D are vastly different, very disappointing IMAX cutting back on 3D showings. I also think most people have seen crappy 3D and think that’s all there is to it...if only they tried IMAX 3D.

Check your local listings, my IMAX is alternating 2D/3D showings for aquaman, and if it is showing in 3D, go for it, it’s a great IMAX 3D experience!

Only 2 previews were in 3D tonight: Avengers Endgame and Alita.

As far as bumblebee goes, I have zero interest in any more transformers, especially a reboot, or whatever this is.

[benji888578]

EDIT: the following is incorrect. I recall IMAX saying 92 mins., (out of 143 mins.), of opened footage, (although it seemed like more to me), and, it's 1:90 AR as noted below by xbs2034.





FYI: according to IMDb Aquaman aspect ratios:

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by benji888578

FYI: according to IMDb Aquaman aspect ratios:



I saw it in digital IMAX and I would say 90% was opened up.

IMDB's info is wrong (not unusual this early into release). I saw it in 1.43 laser, and the film never expanded beyond 1.9, plus I'm pretty sure no 70mm IMAX prints were made.