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

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

70mm non-IMAX still has better resolution than 35mm, and in fact the image density may be better than in IMAX since the screen won't be as large. However, 70mm non-IMAX might be in fixed 2.20:1 (slightly different from scope 2.40:1). Only IMAX (both 15/70 and Digital) is getting the shifting aspect ratios.

I don't understand why anyone would want to watch 70mm over IMAX 70MM. 70MM will have blow ups and reductions to the native image quality.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

I don't understand why anyone would want to watch 70mm over IMAX 70MM. 70MM will have blow ups and reductions to the native image quality.

And 15/70 IMAX won't?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

And 15/70 IMAX won't?

Exactly, the 35mm will still need to be blown up to large format whether it's regular 70mm or 15/70.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

And 15/70 IMAX won't?

The IMAX sequences are why you go to IMAX. No reductions.

[blonde_devil]

I find that the movie really decides if it should be large format or not. Not everything needs to be seen on the IMAX screen. I saw Tron Legacy in IMAX and liked it since it was in 3D and with that huge screen, you actually felt like you were on the grid where as in the regular theatre you could see the edges of the screen. But even with Dark Knight Rises I didn't feel that the bigger screen size really helped. I know the attitude for a lot is bigger is better but do you really need to see a huge 70mm image of someone's face in a drama? I think in some cases it is a great thing but I think it a lot of cases it is just marketing again like 3D and really doesn't make the experience any better.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

The IMAX sequences are why you go to IMAX. No reductions.

We already know that. However, the 35mm stuff will be blown up even larger than 70mm in a normal theater.

[pappy97]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

I don't understand why anyone would want to watch 70mm over IMAX 70MM. 70MM will have blow ups and reductions to the native image quality.

Nobody would, I just thought it was odd that the trailer mentioned 70MM non-imax, in addition to 70MM Imax. I don't know that I've ever seen 70MM non-imax, how that works, and if anyone has a 70MM non-imax projector in a regular commercial theater. I don't think the megachains have it.

Note: The teaser trailer for Tarantino's Hateful Eights says it will be in "Cinemascope 70MM", so I assume that's 70MM non-imax too and will have the same issue (assuming you want to see it in 70MM).

[theprestige85]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I find that the movie really decides if it should be large format or not. Not everything needs to be seen on the IMAX screen. I saw Tron Legacy in IMAX and liked it since it was in 3D and with that huge screen, you actually felt like you were on the grid where as in the regular theatre you could see the edges of the screen. But even with Dark Knight Rises I didn't feel that the bigger screen size really helped. I know the attitude for a lot is bigger is better but do you really need to see a huge 70mm image of someone's face in a drama? I think in some cases it is a great thing but I think it a lot of cases it is just marketing again like 3D and really doesn't make the experience any better.

Completely disagree. The thing is, as we reach a certain age, the cinematic experience becomes less larger than life. It becomes that much harder to immerse us in the film world and I honestly believe that the only way to combat that is by watch a film on a much bigger, brighter screen, speciall one in which the resolution and depth of field is greater than what you are used to. This is what the IMAX format offers.

In my opinion, both Dark Knight films are lesser films once watched elsewhere other than an IMAX because their sense of scale is trimmed down significantly. I can't imagine anybody watching the opening sequence of The Dark Knight at the IMAX and then watching it on blu ray and having the same sort of reaction. When you see The Joker's face in full IMAX resolution, screen filled up and everything, it's immense. It's genuinely frightening and you can almost smell his breath.

Same with The Dark Knight Rises. The scene where Bane 'breaks the bat' isn't half the scene the was on the IMAX. The fact that the aspect ratio changes once the underground lair door closes in and locks Batman in with Bane is just another example of how the format heightens scenes. Shit has gotten well and truly real and you're going to feel like you there, and with IMAX, unless you are on drugs or something, theres simply no way you could not be there. The screen is right there in your face, taking up your entire field of vision. It's THE next level of immersion and if I had it my way, most films would be shot on that format.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by pappy97

Nobody would, I just thought it was odd that the trailer mentioned 70MM non-imax, in addition to 70MM Imax. I don't know that I've ever seen 70MM non-imax, how that works, and if anyone has a 70MM non-imax projector in a regular commercial theater. I don't think the megachains have it.

The use of 70mm predates IMAX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by theprestige85

Completely disagree. The thing is, as we reach a certain age, the cinematic experience becomes less larger than life. It becomes that much harder to immerse us in the film world and I honestly believe that the only way to combat that is by watch a film on a much bigger, brighter screen, speciall one in which the resolution and depth of field is greater than what you are used to. This is what the IMAX format offers.

In my opinion, both Dark Knight films are lesser films once watched elsewhere other than an IMAX because their sense of scale is trimmed down significantly. I can't imagine anybody watching the opening sequence of The Dark Knight at the IMAX and then watching it on blu ray and having the same sort of reaction. When you see The Joker's face in full IMAX resolution, screen filled up and everything, it's immense. It's genuinely frightening and you can almost smell his breath.

Same with The Dark Knight Rises. The scene where Bane 'breaks the bat' isn't half the scene the was on the IMAX. The fact that the aspect ratio changes once the underground lair door closes in and locks Batman in with Bane is just another example of how the format heightens scenes. Shit has gotten well and truly real and you're going to feel like you there, and with IMAX, unless you are on drugs or something, theres simply no way you could not be there. The screen is right there in your face, taking up your entire field of vision. It's THE next level of immersion and if I had it my way, most films would be shot on that format.

The Dark Night Rises in IMAX was pretty amazing in IMAX. Even the bluray is pretty amazing.

[pappy97]

https://interstellar.withgoogle.com/ways-to-see

This lists all theaters showing the film in IMAX 15/70.

[pappy97]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

The use of 70mm predates IMAX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film

I'm aware of this, but I'm not aware of any theaters today that show 70MM non-imax films.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by pappy97

I'm aware of this, but I'm not aware of any theaters today that show 70MM non-imax films.

When I was living in Boston for a few years there was at least one theatre really close to downtown that did. I had friends who specifically sought it out to see a 70mm print of The Master. You're right about the megachains not doing it, but they don't really do film IMAX, either, with possibly a very few exceptions.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

I don't understand why anyone would want to watch 70mm over IMAX 70MM. 70MM will have blow ups and reductions to the native image quality.

It depends on the movie. Personally, I'd rather have an entire movie filmed in standard 70mm/5-perf at 2.20:1 like 2001 or Lawrence than a movie that's partially in IMAX but has the majority of the film letterboxed for the IMAX screen.

On a related note, I wonder why Nolan doesn't shoot 70mm/5-perf for the non-IMAX sequences. Given the massive size of the budgets of his movies, how much could it add to the cost?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by singhcr

It depends on the movie. Personally, I'd rather have an entire movie filmed in standard 70mm/5-perf at 2.20:1 like 2001 or Lawrence than a movie that's partially in IMAX but has the majority of the film letterboxed for the IMAX screen.

On a related note, I wonder why Nolan doesn't shoot 70mm/5-perf for the non-IMAX sequences. Given the massive size of the budgets of his movies, how much could it add to the cost?

I agree. The quality disparity between the 15/70 footage and 35mm footage is huge, especially when we go see his movies in Giant IMAX.

[Geoff D]

Nolan does it like that because A) he's too big of a fan of 35mm anamorphic to just bin it, and B) if the non-IMAX shots were on regular 70mm then the 15/70 IMAX scenes wouldn't seem to be so startlingly clear and sharp in comparison, thereby reducing their impact.

I understand where youse guys are coming from - his 35mm shots really do look extremely soft on the biggest IMAX screens - but personally I like that contrast between the two formats. If only Nolan would then frame his 1.43 IMAX shots to use the full height instead of always keeping the 2.35 extraction in mind...

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I understand where youse guys are coming from

You're from New Jersey?

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nolan does it like that because A) he's too big of a fan of 35mm anamorphic to just bin it, and B) if the non-IMAX shots were on regular 70mm then the 15/70 IMAX scenes wouldn't seem to be so startlingly clear and sharp in comparison, thereby reducing their impact.

I understand where youse guys are coming from - his 35mm shots really do look extremely soft on the biggest IMAX screens - but personally I like that contrast between the two formats. If only Nolan would then frame his 1.43 IMAX shots to use the full height instead of always keeping the 2.35 extraction in mind...

I understand his love for anamorphic 35mm, but it seems that I'm compromising one thing for another. The IMAX scenes are incredible, no doubt, but the rest of the film looks quite soft compared to what I'd see even on a bog standard 2K DCP, let alone 4K or a 35mm print. Do I want to see most of the movie in a higher quality and sacrifice the IMAX shots, or the other way around?

I would like to see him frame the IMAX shots properly as well. I did not get a chance to see the last Hunger Games film but from what you described, the IMAX scenes were very nicely framed for a change.

[singhcr]

Well, well.. looks like Interstellar will look quite awesome in IMAX, even for the 35mm based material.

INTERSTELLAR was shot using a combination of 35mm anamorphic film and 65mm 15 perf IMAX FILM. When presented on 70mm IMAX, the sequences shot on IMAX are printed full quality in their native format- the highest quality imaging format ever devised, offering almost ten times the resolution of standard formats, and filling the giant IMAX screens from top to bottom. The 35mm anamorphic sequences have been blown up to fill the IMAX screen side-to-side using a 6k digital DMR process, the highest resolution processing ever used in a feature film presentation. The finished picture switches between the 2.40:1 and 1.43:1 aspect ratios at key dramatic moments in the film. This is combined with a specially made IMAX uncompressed sound mix for the most immersive presentation of the film.

http://www.slashfilm.com/interstella...ocations-imax/

The last IMAX 15/70 film I saw was TDK:R. The 35mm sequences there looked notably better than TDK's did, and I've heard that Catching Fire had its 35mm sequences derived from a 4K DI. If Interstellar will go with a 6K scan, it should look pretty sweet.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I understand his love for anamorphic 35mm, but it seems that I'm compromising one thing for another. The IMAX scenes are incredible, no doubt, but the rest of the film looks quite soft compared to what I'd see even on a bog standard 2K DCP, let alone 4K or a 35mm print. Do I want to see most of the movie in a higher quality and sacrifice the IMAX shots, or the other way around?

I would like to see him frame the IMAX shots properly as well. I did not get a chance to see the last Hunger Games film but from what you described, the IMAX scenes were very nicely framed for a change.

Again, you're absolutely right about the softness of Nolan's 35mm compared to other shows, but that's just the way that the guy works (in terms of the photography itself and the film finish) so there's not really a compromise there IMO because he wouldn't have done it any other way.

Originally Posted by singhcr

Well, well.. looks like Interstellar will look quite awesome in IMAX, even for the 35mm based material.

http://www.slashfilm.com/interstella...ocations-imax/

The last IMAX 15/70 film I saw was TDK:R. The 35mm sequences there looked notably better than TDK's did, and I've heard that Catching Fire had its 35mm sequences derived from a 4K DI. If Interstellar will go with a 6K scan, it should look pretty sweet.

They used the same 6K mastering for the 35mm bits in TDKR (TDK was 4K) and they looked soft as **** in 15/70, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.