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

[antovolk]

If anyone needed more info on the whole ALEXA IMAX set up:

Rihanna - The Making of Sledgehammer - YouTube

[dvdmike]

Seeing Ghostbusters at the bfi tomorrow, and then 70mm aliens same day.
DAT large screen magic

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Seeing Ghostbusters at the bfi tomorrow, and then 70mm aliens same day.
DAT large screen magic

2K Ghostbusters doe

I know you dig it there mike but I just can't bring myself to pay 20 squid for a glorified 2K presentation (with all the attendant travel costs on top, but I see you're doing what I do: two movies on the same day to make the trip worthwhile!)

[Eric The Duke]

Originally Posted by antovolk

If anyone needed more info on the whole ALEXA IMAX set up:
Rihanna - The Making of Sledgehammer - YouTube

Music video in IMAX? Where can this be seen?

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

yet with most new theater construction with screens that do vertical masking - 1.85 screens make sense to have an image that takes up the whole wall versus 2.39 film that diminishes the screen. It's the same concept why some movies are reframed for IMAX to take up more of the screen, black borders above and below the screen wastes the space.

There are more 2.39 movies than 1.85 films, so it should be presented common height, not common width, which is the proper way movies on film were presented. But the problem is that in a DCP, 2.39 AR movies take up fewer pixels, so we're generally stuck with common width and widescreen films are letterboxed - in some theaters matted and in an ever increasing number of theaters, not matted. This was an incredibly stupid mistake when these standards were established. Either 1.85 should have used fewer pixels or widescreen films should have remained anamorphic.

But having said that, the AMC Prime Dolby Vision screen at the AMC Empire 25 in NYC does project common height, so there is no letterboxing on widescreen movies. What I don't know is whether this is a function of projection or whether Dolby is expanding the image size during the mastering of Dolby Vision movies. 1.85 movies are projected at the same height, but with obviously lesser width. Unfortunately, there is no screen masking and Dolby should be ashamed for not including masking which is not that big a deal - it's just two strips of black material attached to a motor that can be triggered via automation. Although IMAX theaters don't mask either.

In a standard 2K DCP:
a 1.85 movie takes up 1998 x 1080 pixels.
a 2.39 movie takes up 2048 x 858 pixels.
full container is: 2048x1080 (1.9:1)

In a standard 4K DCP:
a 1.85 movie takes up 3996 x 2160 pixels.
a 2.39 movie takes up 4096 x 1716 pixels.
full container is: 4096x2160 (1.9:1)

In the Sony 4K projector, there is an option to expand the 1716 height to 2160 in the projector and then use a 1.25:1 anamorphic lens to expand the 4096 to the equivalent size of what 5120 pixels would have been, resulting in a 2.37:1 AR. But almost no one does this because the lens is very expensive and it takes over an hour to install each time.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

But having said that, the AMC Prime Dolby Vision screen at the AMC Empire 25 in NYC does project common height, so there is no letterboxing on widescreen movies. What I don't know is whether this is a function of projection or whether Dolby is expanding the image size during the mastering of Dolby Vision movies.

In a typical theater they'll set up the projector to 2.40 and then let the software figure out the 1.85 configuration; essentially leaving 2.40 at 4K spherical but downresing 1.85 to 2K, just leaving the center portion of the projected image, the rest cropped. It's a waste, but saves the staff from needing to reframe daily.

DV might bother with reframing, though.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There are more 2.39 movies than 1.85 films, so it should be presented common height, not common width, which is the proper way movies on film were presented. But the problem is that in a DCP, 2.39 AR movies take up fewer pixels, so we're generally stuck with common width and widescreen films are letterboxed - in some theaters matted and in an ever increasing number of theaters, not matted. This was an incredibly stupid mistake when these standards were established. Either 1.85 should have used fewer pixels or widescreen films should have remained anamorphic.

But having said that, the AMC Prime Dolby Vision screen at the AMC Empire 25 in NYC does project common height, so there is no letterboxing on widescreen movies. What I don't know is whether this is a function of projection or whether Dolby is expanding the image size during the mastering of Dolby Vision movies. 1.85 movies are projected at the same height, but with obviously lesser width. Unfortunately, there is no screen masking and Dolby should be ashamed for not including masking which is not that big a deal - it's just two strips of black material attached to a motor that can be triggered via automation. Although IMAX theaters don't mask either.

In a standard 2K DCP:
a 1.85 movie takes up 1998 x 1080 pixels.
a 2.39 movie takes up 2048 x 858 pixels.
full container is: 2048x1080 (1.9:1)

In a standard 4K DCP:
a 1.85 movie takes up 3996 x 2160 pixels.
a 2.39 movie takes up 4096 x 1716 pixels.
full container is: 4096x2160 (1.9:1)

In the Sony 4K projector, there is an option to expand the 1716 height to 2160 in the projector and then use a 1.25:1 anamorphic lens to expand the 4096 to the equivalent size of what 5120 pixels would have been, resulting in a 2.37:1 AR. But almost no one does this because the lens is very expensive and it takes over an hour to install each time.

interesting.

I really though have to applaud Arclight Bethesda for the way they constructed their specialty "widescreen" screen. Dolby Atmos with five channels of sound which creates a very wide wall of sound and motorized vertical masking; obviously you're going to see the whole screen for 1.85 'flat' movies, but for the screen to adjust to eliminate black borders on scope films is a huge difference and benefit.

[Geoff D]

+1 about the lack of anamorphic for 2.40 DCPs, it really hurts 2K 'scope movies on a 'scope screen IMO. When I watched Force Awakens it looked far too processed and 'digital'. The trailer package beforehand was shown in the centre of the 'scope screen (as Spike mentioned) and looked fine, but as soon as the movie itself was embiggened to fit the screen, yowch.

If you've got two 2K projectors slightly overlapped you can get away with it (indeed, IMAX have made something of a habit out of it), as will a 4K 'scope DCP, but dat 2K 'scope is painful to watch.

[dvdmike]

Let's see how this looks on "Britain's biggest screen" then

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by Eric The Duke

Music video in IMAX? Where can this be seen?

It's not the first one, actually. They filmed Adele's music video for Hello in 70mm IMAX.

[dvdmike]

See Ghostbusters in IMAX.


This is all

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

See Ghostbusters in IMAX.


This is all

weren't you also seeing 'Aliens' in 70mm ? how was that?

~

'Ghostbusters' was in IMAX 15/70 right?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

weren't you also seeing 'Aliens' in 70mm ? how was that?

~

'Ghostbusters' was in IMAX 15/70 right?

In the queue right now!
GB was digital 3D but had an imax formatted scene

Edit

To answer your question, not ****ing teal

[Scarriere]

What is "Barco Escape"?
I'm looking at tickets for Star Trek Beyond and want to find out if there's a version that has Atmos.

[Scarriere]

I googled it and found this:

https://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...in-canada.html

One of three in Canada. This seems like it'll be kick ass.
Hmmm.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Scarriere

What is "Barco Escape"?
I'm looking at tickets for Star Trek Beyond and want to find out if there's a version that has Atmos.

Since it's Barco they would use their Auro3D system for the audio, *if* it's immersive mixed in that format.


AFAIK Paramount is only doing Atmos theatrically.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

weren't you also seeing 'Aliens' in 70mm ? how was that?

~

'Ghostbusters' was in IMAX 15/70 right?

15/70's pretty much dead for new releases at this point mate, especially for 'IMAX' movies which weren't actually shot in 65mm IMAX. Heck, BvS had half the prints than TFA did, even though it has far more meaty IMAX goodness. I think Nolan's Dunkirk will get a few 15/70 prints out of courtesy to the man (especially if the BFI still haven't got an upgrade to laser ) but that's all, folks.

[Zhorik]

Originally Posted by Scarriere

I googled it and found this:

https://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...in-canada.html

One of three in Canada. This seems like it'll be kick ass.
Hmmm.

Wouldn't light from the main screen reflect off the side screen when they are not in use and reduce contrast?

That link says 20 minutes of material in Barco Escape, which would be distracting if it was in multiple installments rather than single session.

Plus as Peter mentioned, it would be only 6ch if it isn't in Auro 12ch.

If you attend, do tell about the experience.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Zhorik

Wouldn't light from the main screen reflect off the side screen when they are not in use and reduce contrast?

That link says 20 minutes of material in Barco Escape, which would be distracting if it was in multiple installments rather than single session.

Plus as Peter mentioned, it would be only 6ch if it isn't in Auro 12ch.

If you attend, do tell about the experience.

I forget whether it was here or somewhere else, but someone saw a demo of Barco Escape and claimed it was terrible. They said the side panels did not match well with the front screen in terms of brightness, color and contrast and as with 3-projector Cinerama of the 1950s and early 60's, nothing could cross over from the main screen to the sides.

With most U.S. theaters having side exits and EXIT signs, I don't see how Barco Escape could work.

Having said that, I do think there are some films that might benefit from that type of immersive experience. I think a film like Avatar could work. But nothing of significance can take place in the side panels because you're never supposed to take one's attention away from the (main) screen. And then you get into issues: let's say someone comes into an outdoor expansive scene from the right. Presumably, you should have seen them in the right side panel first. But you won't. This could be disconcerting.

But I do believe that Barco Escape does include the 12 channel sound.

[Scarriere]

I can go to Star Trek Beyond at AVX in 3D w/Atmos or IMAX 3D.
If you wanted to see this movie, which showing would you pick?
I saw Deadpool at AVX in Atmos and thought it was wicked!