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

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The screen may still be 70 feet wide and 50 feet high, but that doesn't mean they're projecting onto the entire screen. And 70 x 50 is 2.34:1

Huh? The aspect ratio of the IMAX negative is around 1.34. For theatrical viewings, that image is cropped to about 1.43.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

About an hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hun...g_Fire#Filming

Thank's.

I hope Lionsgate doesn't follow the trend of not bringing it over to bluray.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by saprano

Thank's.

I hope Lionsgate doesn't follow the trend of not bringing it over to bluray.

I really don't understand why studios do this. It's a huge slap in the face to those of us who support variable-ratio movies when they play in theaters.

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by saprano

Thank's.

I hope Lionsgate doesn't follow the trend of not bringing it over to bluray.

What trend?

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

What trend?

Not offering the variable ratio/open-matte versions of movies on BD.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

I really don't understand why studios do this. It's a huge slap in the face to those of us who support variable-ratio movies when they play in theaters.

Brad Bird's excuse for MI:GP was our home theaters are not like IMAX. Well duh, but the effect still works at home when the movie is 2.35:1 then it opens up to fill your screen. Not to mention better PQ and using the full resolution of bluray.

I trust Lionsgate to do the right thing. But it seems WB is the only studio who cares about keeping the theatrical experience intact for bluray.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by saprano

Brad Bird's excuse for MI:GP was our home theaters are not like IMAX. Well duh, but the effect still works at home when the movie is 2.35:1 then it opens up to fill your screen. Not to mention better PQ and using the full resolution of bluray.

I trust Lionsgate to do the right thing. But it seems WB is the only studio who cares about keeping the theatrical experience intact for bluray.

We've discussed this in other threads before. WB has released only two movies with variable ratios, TDK and TDKR. They aren't much better than the other studios.

[DaFees]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but unfortunately there are no REAL IMAX theaters within a reasonable distance that will be showing Catching Fire. There was possibly a theater 2 hours away, but see the recently (couple years ago) added a digital projector to their setup and even though they could show the movie on film they won't be doing so. So my question is if I give up the search and just go with a digital IMAX viewing, will the frame open up at all or it will be some fixed ratio the whole time? I know even if does open up it won't be as dramatic as it would at a real IMAX but not much I can do about that.

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by DaFees

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but unfortunately there are no REAL IMAX theaters within a reasonable distance that will be showing Catching Fire. There was possibly a theater 2 hours away, but see the recently (couple years ago) added a digital projector to their setup and even though they could show the movie on film they won't be doing so. So my question is if I give up the search and just go with a digital IMAX viewing, will the frame open up at all or it will be some fixed ratio the whole time? I know even if does open up it won't be as dramatic as it would at a real IMAX but not much I can do about that.

1.44 scenes will be cropped to 1.78, filling the screen. The 35mm sequences will be shown in 2.39.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Wow, Catching Fire IMAX tickets are still available for Thursday, November 21st.

[antovolk]

BFI IMAX just confirmed on their Facebook that they will be showing Catching Fire in 70mm instead of Digital, only theatre in the UK so far to do this.

[Dubstar]

while this comment could easily be included in the 'Gravity' thread - I thought I'd add it here. What I saw (and heard) on the RPX screen (Regal Kingstowne - Alexandria Virginia) was truly amazing. The placement of voices/dialogue around the viewer on a constant basis was just astounding. The 'fire' sequence literally at one point sounded like it was going descend and collapse the ceiling itself. 'Oblivion' was my first choice as best Atmos mix of the year, but this has easily trumped that. AMC Tyson's Atmos setup is simply too loud and highly obnoxious, possibly due to the fact that's it's a larger auditorium, but here and maybe because the mix itself is very different to 'Oblivion's - it was highly nuanced and the volume wasn't trying to give you a migraine.

On a negative note, I am not pleased with Regal's stance on how they are (and not) installing Atmos systems on their RPX screens. With a new RPX screen and new theater 'Regal Virginia Gateway Stadium 14 & RPX' in Gainesville Virginia, you'd think that they would install and advertise the Atmos experience there - but no, no dice. I hope by the time the Dulles Town Center complex opens next year, maybe Corporates lazy attitude will change and that RPX screen will be Atmos equipped no questions asked. That location has three other movie theaters in direct competition - one with D-Box seating - it would behoove Regal to make the Dulles RPX screen an incentive and push towards state of the art sound.

[Dubstar]

so AMC Tyson's ETX screen for once - during 'Thor: The Dark World' didn't display the hideous double imaging as I have seen at prior 3D screenings on this screen, however the Dolby Atmos was just as uninspiring and mediocre as 'Iron Man 3' - guess you can't win with both attributes here...

[Geoff D]

Saw the 15/70 version of Catching Fire at the BFI IMAX earlier, and I was impressed. The 35mm segments had none of the haloing which can plague these uprezzed flicks, nor did it have the blatant DNR of Star Trek Into Darkness. I soon realised that they shot it anamorphic (a change-up from the Super 35 origination on the first movie), which looked far better than the anamorphic scenes in TDKR.

The anamorphic stuff looked so good, that when the proper IMAX footage kicked in it didn't seem as sharp and as clean as it did on other movies, but it was still mightily impressive. And after having been caught out with the 1.66 scenes in STID, I can safely say that the IMAX scenes in Catching Fire were true 1.44, from floor to ceiling.

Good stuff.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Saw the 15/70 version of Catching Fire at the BFI IMAX earlier, and I was impressed. The 35mm segments had none of the haloing which can plague these uprezzed flicks, nor did it have the blatant DNR of Star Trek Into Darkness. I soon realised that they shot it anamorphic (a change-up from the Super 35 origination on the first movie), which looked far better than the anamorphic scenes in TDKR.

The anamorphic stuff looked so good, that when the proper IMAX footage kicked in it didn't seem as sharp and as clean as it did on other movies, but it was still mightily impressive. And after having been caught out with the 1.66 scenes in STID, I can safely say that the IMAX scenes in Catching Fire were true 1.44, from floor to ceiling.

Good stuff.

They probably just did optical enlarging, which is far superior to DMR. But what was wrong with the TDKR anamorphic scenes?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Saw the 15/70 version of Catching Fire at the BFI IMAX earlier, and I was impressed. The 35mm segments had none of the haloing which can plague these uprezzed flicks, nor did it have the blatant DNR of Star Trek Into Darkness. I soon realised that they shot it anamorphic (a change-up from the Super 35 origination on the first movie), which looked far better than the anamorphic scenes in TDKR.

The anamorphic stuff looked so good, that when the proper IMAX footage kicked in it didn't seem as sharp and as clean as it did on other movies, but it was still mightily impressive. And after having been caught out with the 1.66 scenes in STID, I can safely say that the IMAX scenes in Catching Fire were true 1.44, from floor to ceiling.

Good stuff.

in terms of 15/70 material shot versus 35mm how many minutes of the former was shot as such?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Poya

They probably just did optical enlarging, which is far superior to DMR. But what was wrong with the TDKR anamorphic scenes?

Well, they're so very, very soft, and the lack of detail when blown up to that sort of size was glaringly apparent. We all know that anamorphic can do better than that, but Chris Nolan's insistence upon a film finish combined with the use of an IP for scanning into the IMAX edit robs it of a certain amount of detail. Maybe not a huge amount, given that Nolan and Wally Pfister seem to prefer a softer, glossier 35mm look anyway, but just enough to be obvious on an IMAX-sized screen. Catching Fire was finished on a 4K DI and it shows, because the 35mm bits looked terrific.

Pretty much every other anamorphic 35/IMAX combo I've seen had much better looking 35mm scenes than TDKR, including Transformers 2, Mission Impossible 4 and Hunger Games 2. Star Trek 2 also had plenty of detail too, but it looked more processed and 'digital', for want of a better word. (That said, the slight digital sheen is also apparent on the Blu-ray so maybe it's a source issue.)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

in terms of 15/70 material shot versus 35mm how many minutes of the former was shot as such?

Everything in the arena is in proper IMAX, I didn't time it though. I actually get chills whenever I see the 2.35 borders slowly receding (it happens when Katniss is raised into the arena) because it seems like such a 'big movie event' kinda deal.

One other thing I forgot to mention is how the height of the IMAX frame was used in Catching Fire. Nolan's IMAX shots tend to keep the inevitable 2.35 extraction in mind and look a teensy bit unimaginative as a result. But CF's arena scenes have characters camping out right at the bottom of the frame, or have a three-shot with one character at one 'level' on the screen and the other two quite a bit below, and there are several shots where you're simply looking right at a gigantic version of Jennifer Lawrence's head, filling the screen from top to bottom. I might catch it again in regular 4K just to see how the IMAX shots are handled in the fixed 2.35 ratio.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, they're so very, very soft, and the lack of detail when blown up to that sort of size was glaringly apparent. We all know that anamorphic can do better than that, but Chris Nolan's insistence upon a film finish combined with the use of an IP for scanning into the IMAX edit robs it of a certain amount of detail. Maybe not a huge amount, given that Nolan and Wally Pfister seem to prefer a softer, glossier 35mm look anyway, but just enough to be obvious on an IMAX-sized screen. Catching Fire was finished on a 4K DI and it shows, because the 35mm bits looked terrific.

Pretty much every other anamorphic 35/IMAX combo I've seen had much better looking 35mm scenes than TDKR, including Transformers 2, Mission Impossible 4 and Hunger Games 2. Star Trek 2 also had plenty of detail too, but it looked more processed and 'digital', for want of a better word. (That said, the slight digital sheen is also apparent on the Blu-ray so maybe it's a source issue.)

To be fair, I get why he doesn't use a digital intermediate. He's a staunch defender of the old days of how to present motion pictures. Even PTA doesn't do them. DI usually manipulates the image and makes it artificial.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Everything in the arena is in proper IMAX, I didn't time it though. I actually get chills whenever I see the 2.35 borders slowly receding (it happens when Katniss is raised into the arena) because it seems like such a 'big movie event' kinda deal.

One other thing I forgot to mention is how the height of the IMAX frame was used in Catching Fire. Nolan's IMAX shots tend to keep the inevitable 2.35 extraction in mind and look a teensy bit unimaginative as a result. But CF's arena scenes have characters camping out right at the bottom of the frame, or have a three-shot with one character at one 'level' on the screen and the other two quite a bit below, and there are several shots where you're simply looking right at a gigantic version of Jennifer Lawrence's head, filling the screen from top to bottom. I might catch it again in regular 4K just to see how the IMAX shots are handled in the fixed 2.35 ratio.

I assumed most of the 'Games' section is 4:3 because some of the shots looked a little too cramped to 2.35

I'll see this again, but this time in 15/70 IMAX.

did anyone hear this in Atmos? how was it?