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

[xbs2034]

I'm wondering if anyone else is going to see any of the Potter films this week, in particular the first two which are being newly mastered for IMAX.

I saw the first film today, and enjoyed the experience overall. The sound mix was great, though I was a bit disappointed with the IMAX visuals initially as were some soft looking scenes early on (the IMAX re-release of Raiders of the Lost Ark had the same issue) and were some dust marks from a film print source despite the digital projection (probably a minor issue and I guess they werent gonna give this the same attention as a new IMAX wide release DMR, but imagined WB would be handling such a top title better). But many other parts of the film, particularly in close-ups, looked great with detail I wouldn't have noticed in other formats, and just was a lot of fun to see it again on the big screen with an audience into it.

There were no traditional previews when I went, but was a Fantastic Beasts featurette which I imagine all the films shown will come with, as well as a short intro from FB cast members catered to this specific movie.

I might see either the 3rd or 4th film if I find time in the coming week with a showing, as I didn't see them in IMAX before, they are my favorites in the series along with Deathly Hallows Pt 2, and are the Potter titles I don't have on Blu (do have on old DVD releases).

[Riddhi2011]

Did HP1 have a taller aspect ratio on the IMAX screen, or was it the regular 2.39:1?

Also, has anyone seen Inferno on IMAX, how did it look?

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Did HP1 have a taller aspect ratio on the IMAX screen, or was it the regular 2.39:1?

Also, has anyone seen Inferno on IMAX, how did it look?

Regular 2.39:1

[FAShaffi]

really wanted to see Chamber of Secrets or Prisoner of Azkaban on the big screen again but missed my chance I called AMC Empire 25 here in NYC and asked if they're showing Fantastic Beasts on their Dolby Cinema screen when it comes out next month but they said they're not sure yet, but they will be showing it in Liemax 3D for sure. I'm not a 3D fan, so I'm really really hoping the Dolby Cinema has it on their gigantic scope screen lol

[The Mad Kiwi]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

I'm wondering if anyone else is going to see any of the Potter films this week, in particular the first two which are being newly mastered for IMAX.

I saw the first film today, and enjoyed the experience overall. The sound mix was great, though I was a bit disappointed with the IMAX visuals initially as were some soft looking scenes early on (the IMAX re-release of Raiders of the Lost Ark had the same issue) and were some dust marks from a film print source despite the digital projection (probably a minor issue and I guess they werent gonna give this the same attention as a new IMAX wide release DMR, but imagined WB would be handling such a top title better). But many other parts of the film, particularly in close-ups, looked great with detail I wouldn't have noticed in other formats, and just was a lot of fun to see it again on the big screen with an audience into it.

See, I was pretty impressed by Sorcerer's Stone. Yeah, a lot of shots were soft, but many were surprisingly detailed, especially the closeups you mentioned. That film has always had a soft focus to it, and it doesn't help that they literally smeared vaseline on the camera lens for a few scenes to give the kids a bit more color.

I think if the IMAX master were put on Blu-ray, the difference between it and the current master would be more noticeable. In particular, I was surprised to find the CG more seamless due to the added detail. It's still bad, but it somehow seemed less jarring in IMAX even though you'd think the format would make it worse.

Chamber of Secrets, though, looked pretty identical to me. Then again, that one's always been sharper and more neutral in its color scheme than the first.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by The Mad Kiwi

I think if the IMAX master were put on Blu-ray, the difference between it and the current master would be more noticeable.

Those masters are pretty old; any new master would show an improvement just from how much better film scanning equipment is now than it was back with those BDs came out.

Side note: How extensive do you think these remasters were? Do you think they went full 4K with it and are planning a UHD release?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Those masters are pretty old; any new master would show an improvement just from how much better film scanning equipment is now than it was back with those BDs came out.

Side note: How extensive do you think these remasters were? Do you think they went full 4K with it and are planning a UHD release?

Warners is very inconsistent in what gets the 4K remasterings and if new DCPs will be culled or not. "2001" in 2K DCP is a joke; "Excalibur" in 4K makes the bluray look like garbage.

The Harry Potter movies were all shot on film, right? And in theory and in the right hands of a good telecinist a decent if not better 35mm to 4K transfer could look great

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

The Harry Potter movies were all shot on film, right? And in theory and in the right hands of a good telecinist a decent if not better 35mm to 4K transfer could look great

Yes they were. Most of them had DIs too.

[imdobe]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Also, has anyone seen Inferno on IMAX, how did it look?

I saw it in an IMAX with laser projection and it looked fantastic. Afterwards and IMAX employee told me that "Dunkirk" probably won't be as good looking as Inferno because of the changing aspect ratios. He told me that the laser projection system is best suited for movies with a constant 1.89:1 aspect ratio.

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by imdobe

I saw it in an IMAX with laser projection and it looked fantastic. Afterwards and IMAX employee told me that "Dunkirk" probably won't be as good looking as Inferno because of the changing aspect ratios. He told me that the laser projection system is best suited for movies with a constant 1.89:1 aspect ratio.

How strange; I heard fantastic things about Batman v Superman's presentation in laser.

[imdobe]

Originally Posted by The Debts

How strange; I heard fantastic things about Batman v Superman's presentation in laser.

I've seen TFA and BvS with IMAX laser projection and the 1.43:1 sequences looked great. But Inferno, Civil War and Sully looked even better at 1.89:1. I think it's because apparently 1.43:1 isn't the native resolution of the laser projection system.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imdobe

I've seen TFA and BvS with IMAX laser projection and the 1.43:1 sequences looked great. But Inferno, Civil War and Sully looked even better at 1.89:1. I think it's because apparently 1.43:1 isn't the native resolution of the laser projection system.

That's a very good point, the native ratio of the Laser projectors is 1.89 (like regular digital cinema projectors) so it needs some kind of reverse anamorphic lens to stretch that out to 1.43. The problem there is that the entire 1.43 IMAX DCP (including the letterboxed 'scope shots) needs to be formatted with that stretch baked in so it can be unstretched in projection, so I can see why a native 1.89 Laser presentation would be the best. That said, an alternating 2.39/1.89 version wouldn't need the monkey business with the special lenses, so that should still look the bollocks in 4K Laser.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by imdobe

I've seen TFA and BvS with IMAX laser projection and the 1.43:1 sequences looked great. But Inferno, Civil War and Sully looked even better at 1.89:1. I think it's because apparently 1.43:1 isn't the native resolution of the laser projection system.

so how does screen size equate to resolution ... ???

~~

went down to AMC Georgetown to visit's it's new Dolby Cinema auditorium - it's a lot smaller than Tyson's Corner, but the audio isn't all wonky and flawed... sadly 'The Accountant' is NOT the most ideal movie to judge the system by as it's not an official color graded Dolby Vision movie, nor mixed in Atmos. The audio though with it's gun shots were really really loud and merciless; the rumbling seats were appropriately jarring. Since the movie was also shot on film and the DI gave the movie a generically more 'film-alic' look, thus darkly lit scenes were more gray, than inky as 'Dolby Cinema' promotes and promises. Even projected in 'laser' one could easily tell the DCP was 2K and not 4K.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by imdobe

I saw it in an IMAX with laser projection and it looked fantastic. Afterwards and IMAX employee told me that "Dunkirk" probably won't be as good looking as Inferno because of the changing aspect ratios. He told me that the laser projection system is best suited for movies with a constant 1.89:1 aspect ratio.

Isn't the laser IMAX screen supposed to be 1.44:1? So, Inferno (1.85:1) would have black bars on top and bottom. Laser IMAX screens use a special vertical anamorphic De-squeeze lens to stretch 1.89:1 image back to 1.44:1 as per the movie in question. That's what I learned anyway.

Inferno looked pretty good on regular 2.39:1 screen. So, on a dual 4K it should look stunning. Especially because it was shot on 6K and 3.4K resolutions. And the cinematography, colour-grading is very good and detailed, often filmic.

Inferno_Full Frame 1.jpg

If you notice, they've even added slight film grain to the digital image.

I hope they retain the 1.85:1 aspect ratio for the next Robert Langdon movie as it looks beautiful and far less cramped than The Da Vinci Code's 2.39:1.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

A digital scan of a film cell doesn't look the same as that same cell being projected onto a screen, and the former is the image the filmmaker's are using to make color and contrast decisions. They scan the graded IP and then use digital tools to make it match the original look. This is still, literally, digital color grading. They aren't going back to the original IP (they should, it would give them better image quality), but they're still using digital tools to varying extremes based on how far off each scan of each shot is from the look of the projected image. I can't find it for the life of me, but Nolan might've even spent more time on the digital version than the film one; he was extremely picky about it matching.

I'm sorry for my stupidity, but original IP? Aren't IPs already color graded?

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Poya

I'm sorry for my stupidity, but original IP? Aren't IPs already color graded?

You are correct. They are.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Poya

I'm sorry for my stupidity, but original IP? Aren't IPs already color graded?

The term is actually 'colour timing,' not 'colour grading,' when you're talking of the photochemical process. Though they mean the same thing - colour correction, but timing is associated with physical film prints in general. 'Grading' is used when you're talking about digitally colour correcting movies, whether they are shot on celluloid film or digital.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

IPs are colour timed positives of the original colour (or b&w) negatives. Nolan always photochemically times his movies. Then the Home video department scans the IP, adjusts it digitally to "enhance for HDTVs" and records them on the Blu-Ray. In this process, the image changes slightly, hence they do not look exactly as the film prints.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The term is actually 'colour timing,' not 'colour grading,' when you're talking of the photochemical process. Though they mean the same thing - colour correction, but timing is associated with physical film prints in general. 'Grading' is used when you're talking about digitally colour correcting movies, whether they are shot on celluloid film or digital.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

IPs are colour timed positives of the original colour (or b&w) negatives. Nolan always photochemically times his movies. Then the Home video department scans the IP, adjusts it digitally to "enhance for HDTVs" and records them on the Blu-Ray. In this process, the image changes slightly, hence they do not look exactly as the film prints.

No, you are correct. Maybe Spike misspoke when he said "graded IPs".

[Trekkie313]

Wish 70mm would make a comeback...so much equipment just rotting in theaters around the world.

[voltz]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Wish 70mm would make a comeback...so much equipment just rotting in theaters around the world.

I've been seeing that the latest line of digital Red video cameras were looking to do 8k recording right out the gate, so I'd imagine at some point IMAX may look forward into adapting this into their cinema. I know real IMAX has a resolution which is typically double of that, but it's nice to know we're at least getting there and maybe one of these days we'll go back to that tall screen presentation.