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

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

Can anybody in the Seattle area give me the lowdown on the Cinerama's screen size? Site and Wiki say a smaller screen is used for shows that aren't 3-strip, but doesn't give the size of the smaller screen.... and all the pictures online from Yelp seem to be maximizing the front stages screen width potential...

Meant to go up there to see Force Awakens but didn't bother since it was a 2K presentation, but I'm looking to redeem that by going for Rogue One... unless the Boeing IMAX is going to be the bigger and better option.

The smaller screen is 68 feet wide, the full Cinerama screen is 90 feet. In terms of seeing IMAX-laser over Christie DLP-laser; it'd boil down to Dolby Atmos versus 12-channel sound, the former is my personal fave. If 3D is your thing, IMAX-laser is a guarantee; the Cinerama chooses whether or not they'll choose and showcase 3D or not.

[Creed]

Alright, so we're getting a summer movie filmed with IMAX cameras. Of course, it's Dunkirk from director Christopher Nolan.

With 70mm film, 35mm film and IMAX film, this is impressive. Just wish I could see it in the format.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by creed123

Alright, so we're getting a summer movie filmed with IMAX cameras. Of course, it's Dunkirk from director Christopher Nolan.

With 70mm film, 35mm film and IMAX film, this is impressive. Just wish I could see it in the format.

I thought 'Dunkirk' was shot in both 15/70 film stock AND 5perf 65mm

[Creed]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I thought 'Dunkirk' was shot in both 15/70 film stock AND 5perf 65mm

I don't know that. The trailer showed what I had above also with Kodak film. Wikipedia has IMAX 65 mm and 65 mm large format film stock, if that's what you mean.

[Spike M.]

That's projection, not capture.

[Dubstar]

^ a Variety article cites that 'Dunkirk' is being filmed "captured" in 65mm film resolution.

sadly there was talk that a future film from director Iain Softley ('K-Pax') would be doing a new version of 'Ivanhoe' and shot completely in 65mm - from what I can tell that project is no longer happening

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

The smaller screen is 68 feet wide, the full Cinerama screen is 90 feet. In terms of seeing IMAX-laser over Christie DLP-laser; it'd boil down to Dolby Atmos versus 12-channel sound, the former is my personal fave. If 3D is your thing, IMAX-laser is a guarantee; the Cinerama chooses whether or not they'll choose and showcase 3D or not.

Ah, I see. IMAX seems like it's more worth the travel, then. Thanks.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by creed123

I don't know that. The trailer showed what I had above also with Kodak film. Wikipedia has IMAX 65 mm and 65 mm large format film stock, if that's what you mean.

Maybe the "Filmed with IMAX Cameras" label had more to do that the majority of the film (presumably) was shot with IMAX film cameras that it overshadows much of the regular 65mm film stock used during filming.

I wonder if Nolan will do something similar to what Zack Snyder did with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, where he cropped some of the 65mm footage to the 1.43:1 ratio to maintain consistency with the last IMAX sequence of the film

[Show spoiler](in this case, the conversation between Batman and Lex in prison during the epilogue)

. Yeah, you'd lose information from the 5 perf stock, but at least the aspect ratio would remain constant throughout for people who hate switching aspect ratios.

[Creed]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

Maybe the "Filmed with IMAX Cameras" label had more to do that the majority of the film (presumably) was shot with IMAX film cameras that it overshadows much of the regular 65mm film stock used during filming.

I wonder if Nolan will do something similar to what Zack Snyder did with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, where he cropped some of the 65mm footage to the 1.43:1 ratio to maintain consistency with the last IMAX sequence of the film

[Show spoiler](in this case, the conversation between Batman and Lex in prison during the epilogue)

. Yeah, you'd lose information from the 5 perf stock, but at least the aspect ratio would remain constant throughout for people who hate switching aspect ratios.

Interesting.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

Maybe the "Filmed with IMAX Cameras" label had more to do that the majority of the film (presumably) was shot with IMAX film cameras that it overshadows much of the regular 65mm film stock used during filming.

I wonder if Nolan will do something similar to what Zack Snyder did with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, where he cropped some of the 65mm footage to the 1.43:1 ratio to maintain consistency with the last IMAX sequence of the film

[Show spoiler](in this case, the conversation between Batman and Lex in prison during the epilogue)

. Yeah, you'd lose information from the 5 perf stock, but at least the aspect ratio would remain constant throughout for people who hate switching aspect ratios.

Sully has the same "Filmed with IMAX cameras" tagline on its IMAX poster, and Ghostbusters had a "specially formatted for IMAX" logo in its end credits (I got it even though I didn't see it in IMAX) so I think IMAX is using those to easily distinguish such titles in marketing from the traditional DMR titles which don't have some kind of IMAX bonus.

Also, somehow I doubt Nolan will crop the regular 65mm footage to maintain a constant aspect ratio, as unlike some directors he has shown no problem with frequent AR switches before, sometimes even back and forth in the middle of a scene (which doesn't bother me as much at home on a blu ray, but on a big IMAX screen I find very distracting).

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Sully has the same "Filmed with IMAX cameras" tagline on its IMAX poster, and Ghostbusters had a "specially formatted for IMAX" logo in its end credits (I got it even though I didn't see it in IMAX) so I think IMAX is using those to easily distinguish such titles in marketing from the traditional DMR titles which don't have some kind of IMAX bonus.

Also, somehow I doubt Nolan will crop the regular 65mm footage to maintain a constant aspect ratio, as unlike some directors he has shown no problem with frequent AR switches before, sometimes even back and forth in the middle of a scene (which doesn't bother me as much at home on a blu ray, but on a big IMAX screen I find very distracting).

I'd be the other way around: the IMAX 15/70 scenes would be cropped, not the regular 65mm footage which has an AR of 2.20:1

[Geoff D]

What's the confusion over Dunkirk? I thought it was common knowledge that Nolan swapped out 35mm anamorphic for 5-perf 65mm as the main taking format, with select scenes in 15-perf 65mm IMAX as per usual. [edit] And for all the plaudits that 5/65 usually gets, BvS showed that it ain't no substitute for the big daddy: 15/65 still spanks the pants clean off it IMO.

To that end I think xbs is correct: Nolan isn't using cropped 5/65mm as an IMAX substitute, he's using it as his widescreen format (albeit 2.20) and the IMAX will still embiggen to 1.43. Can't wait to see it in 15/70, there's only a year to go.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What's the confusion over Dunkirk? I thought it was common knowledge that Nolan swapped out 35mm anamorphic for 5-perf 65mm as the main taking format, with select scenes in 15-perf 65mm IMAX as per usual. [edit] And for all the plaudits that 5/65 usually gets, BvS showed that it ain't no substitute for the big daddy: 15/65 still spanks the pants clean off it IMO.

To that end I think xbs is correct: Nolan isn't using cropped 5/65mm as an IMAX substitute, he's using it as his widescreen format (albeit 2.20) and the IMAX will still embiggen to 1.43. Can't wait to see it in 15/70, there's only a year to go.

I wonder if my theater will play it in IMAX 70mm. They did keep the projector.....

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

I wonder if my theater will play it in IMAX 70mm. They did keep the projector.....

After checking out the laser projectors, and combined with the awful projection of my 70mm print of Interstellar, I'm all for seeing Dunkirk digitally in 4K laser IMAX over 70mm.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

After checking out the laser projectors, and combined with the awful projection of my 70mm print of Interstellar, I'm all for seeing Dunkirk digitally in 4K laser IMAX over 70mm.

The only real IMAX theater in Minnesota replaced their 70mm projector with a 2K projector in 2014...thats right, a 6-story tall screen with a 2K projector.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

The only real IMAX theater in Minnesota replaced their 70mm projector with a 2K projector in 2014...thats right, a 6-story tall screen with a 2K projector.

Does the 2k projector at least fill the screen, or are they shown windowboxed (obviously there is a resolution loss vs 15/70 or laser, but that's what annoys me most with digital IMAX on what should be their larger screens)

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Does the 2k projector at least fill the screen, or are they shown windowboxed (obviously there is a resolution loss vs 15/70 or laser, but that's what annoys me most with digital IMAX on what should be their larger screens)

Dude...its horrible. I already knew that going to 2K meant a 1.9:1 projected image on a 1.43:1 screen, so even in 'IMAX' scenes it doesn't go top to bottom.

But you know what's even worse? It doesn't even go side to side!!!!

There's about 5-8 feet on each side where the projected image doesn't go. Its like they stretched the image as big as they could and called it good. It's bad.

In addition, because there is no masking and the projeted image is just in the center of a 1.43:1 screen, the way IMAX does 3D you can totally see the sides and overlay of the 3D image, so if they are trying to show depth you can see the overlay on the sides shift. Its really bad.

At $18 a ticket, I won't go back.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

Dude...its horrible. I already knew that going to 2K meant a 1.9:1 projected image on a 1.43:1 screen, so even in 'IMAX' scenes it doesn't go top to bottom.

But you know what's even worse? It doesn't even go side to side!!!!

There's about 5-8 feet on each side where the projected image doesn't go. Its like they stretched the image as big as they could and called it good. It's bad.

Yup, same with Lincoln Square, I'd say about 12 feet on both the left and right of blank screen.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Yup, same with Lincoln Square, I'd say about 12 feet on both the left and right of blank screen.

Is that 4K Laser?

IMAX is doing everything they can to kill their own brand. First they diluted their brand with '1.9:1 IMAX Digital' now their pulling these shenanigans on their 1.43:1 screens...Heck, you can't even see upcoming IMAX releases without reverting to Wikipedia. They killed the 'IMAX domestic film slate' page. Meanwhile, competing Atmos theaters with recliners are better in every regard for ever title except actual IMAX sequence films.

It really bothers me because when IMAX flames out we'll all miss the glory of those enormous 1.43:1 screens filled with content.

IMAX: People will pay for quality. Prove you're still capable of it.

[xbs2034]

No, its 2K digital as well. If/when laser comes (rumored to be after Sucide Squad, but then was also rumored to be done after Force Awakens in order to play BvS in laser, but instead they reinstalled their 15/70 projector just for that film) it would fill the screen.

I saw Force Awakens on a similarly sized IMAX screen in San Francisco and laser did the 1.43 scene brilliantly.