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

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

The new system is supposed to debut with tonight/tomorrow opening of "Fantastic Beasts" but there appears to be a delay of sorts

Looks like Lincoln Square will start showing Fantastic Beasts IMAX on Saturday as tickets agree now on sale for that. I was told before they couldn't sell tickets until the construction was done, so seems like that's the case now, but maybe was too late to get staff in for tonight or tomorrow.

It will show in IMAX 2D at Lincoln Square. Actually seems like that's the case with the majority of US IMAX locations (it also will have some 2D 5/70 film prints, which I have to admit is interesting to me, particularly as that's very rare, maybe unprecedented, for a digitally shot picture).

[Trekkie313]

Saw Doctor Strange in 4K at an Ultrascreen, it seemed so drab and dark. Maybe if I had seen it in 3D it would've been better?

[ITDEFX101]

At the very end of Doctor Strange's credits it showed a number to call in case you have any questions regarding the quality of the IMAX presentation.

Why the hell are they shooting a TV Pilot in IMAX? Isn't there going to be loss in detail when they downgrade it to 1080i for tv broadcast? And you know it's going to be compressed even further by the networks and cable carriers.

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Doctor Strange wasn't promoted as "shot in IMAX" either, as the IMAX Alexa cameras apparently have a software update specifically focused around IMAX color grading and workflow. Which is why Civil War and Sully got that status (with The Last Knight and Inhumans pilot soon to join them).

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Looks like Lincoln Square will start showing Fantastic Beasts IMAX on Saturday as tickets agree now on sale for that. I was told before they couldn't sell tickets until the construction was done, so seems like that's the case now, but maybe was too late to get staff in for tonight or tomorrow.

It will show in IMAX 2D at Lincoln Square. Actually seems like that's the case with the majority of US IMAX locations (it also will have some 2D 5/70 film prints, which I have to admit is interesting to me, particularly as that's very rare, maybe unprecedented, for a digitally shot picture).

Smithsonian's Udvar Hazy (IMAX-laser) is showing Fantastic Beasts in 2D and 3D with favoritism towards the former.

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Saw Doctor Strange in 4K at an Ultrascreen, it seemed so drab and dark. Maybe if I had seen it in 3D it would've been better?

is that what Disney encoded the DCP at? I thought that was more of a DP's decision in terms of the color palette - at both Udvar Hazy and Arclight Bethesda - the 3D was excellent.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Smithsonian's Udvar Hazy (IMAX-laser) is showing Fantastic Beasts in 2D and 3D with favoritism towards the former.

HA that's my theater that robbed me of what could have been an epic 15 minutes of a hero vs hero brawl!!!

[Poya]

Why would Fantastic Beasts get a 70mm release? It's a digitally shot picture. Might as well release a Techniscope picture in 70mm while they are at it.

[ITDEFX101]

my head just exploded from reading more posts in this thread. Don't get me wrong but the more I learn of the truth, the more I want to just stay away from IMAX.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

At the very end of Doctor Strange's credits it showed a number to call in case you have any questions regarding the quality of the IMAX presentation.

Why the hell are they shooting a TV Pilot in IMAX? Isn't there going to be loss in detail when they downgrade it to 1080i for tv broadcast? And you know it's going to be compressed even further by the networks and cable carriers.

Yes, they have Q+A phone numbers and emails and do pay attention to them, I once sent one about a potential sound mix problem and got a very nice reply.

As for Inhumans, it was announced the first two episodes will screen in IMAX two weeks before airing on ABC, which is no doubt the big reason to shoot the opener in IMAX (and while much of the image quality will indeed be lost by TV compression, should still get some of the benefits of the better image there).

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Doctor Strange wasn't promoted as "shot in IMAX" either, as the IMAX Alexa cameras apparently have a software update specifically focused around IMAX color grading and workflow. Which is why Civil War and Sully got that status (with The Last Knight and Inhumans pilot soon to join them).

but what is the overall base imagery that the Alexa captures? Is that why the scenes in the IMAX presentations of Doctor Strange, Civil War and Sully opened vertically to 1.90 to expose more image that was cropped to 2.40 for it's non-IMAX framing?

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Why the hell are they shooting a TV Pilot in IMAX? Isn't there going to be loss in detail when they downgrade it to 1080i for tv broadcast? And you know it's going to be compressed even further by the networks and cable carriers.

Those first two episodes are going to premiere in IMAX theatres two weeks before they air on TV.

BTW, the show will be on ABC, which actually (still!) only broadcasts in 720p. So the resolution loss will be even more than you think.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

but what is the overall base imagery that the Alexa captures? Is that why the scenes in the IMAX presentations of Doctor Strange, Civil War and Sully opened vertically to 1.90 to expose more image that was cropped to 2.40 for it's non-IMAX framing?

The Alexa 65's sensor has a native open-gate ratio of 2.11:1. So to get a 1.90:1 image you would crop off the sides but use the full vertical height, and to get 2.40:1 you'd crop off the top and bottom but use the full width. Whether they were shooting the 2.40:1 only material "windowboxed" if you will - only as wide as and less tall than the 1.90:1 IMAX footage - is beyond me. It would be interesting to compare a standard showing and IMAX showing to see if the IMAX scenes are missing information on the sides of the frame in addition to having extra picture on top and bottom.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

The Alexa 65's sensor has a native open-gate ratio of 2.11:1. So to get a 1.90:1 image you would crop off the sides but use the full vertical height, and to get 2.40:1 you'd crop off the top and bottom but use the full width. Whether they were shooting the 2.40:1 only material "windowboxed" if you will - only as wide as and less tall than the 1.90:1 IMAX footage - is beyond me. It would be interesting to compare a standard showing and IMAX showing to see if the IMAX scenes are missing information on the sides of the frame in addition to having extra picture on top and bottom.

thanks for the answer - the reason I ask is that, to me, the IMAX 1.90 framing of 'Sully' looked like it had more head room whereas the 2.40 version looked more cramped and chopped off the top and bottom

[FAShaffi]

I just got back from seeing a 70MM print of Fantastic Beasts at the City Cinema 1,2,& 3 here in NYC. Even though it was a digitally shot picture it was a great looking film and looked great on the 70MM, I'm happy WB did this (even in limited numbers) cause it looked better than most standard 2K digital projections I've seen in the chain theaters in NYC and the DC area. It was a packed house too, and I was checking showings for tomorrow and Saturday and most showings are almost sold out, which makes me happy

[ITDEFX101]

I don't think it will be possible unless it was officially released by the studio and that image could be faked as it is impossible to capture our own images and post them without breaking some federal copy right laws.

If IMAX would get the ok to post which scenes of a "shot in IMAX" film on their web site say 2 weeks after the premiere of the movie. Some would call it a spoiler others would say, "hey if that shot looks amazing in regular wide, then it will be amazing in IMAX...better go check it out.."

Originally Posted by UFAlien

It would be interesting to compare a standard showing and IMAX showing to see if the IMAX scenes are missing information on the sides of the frame in addition to having extra picture on top and bottom.

[Eric The Duke]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I know we've talked about this in the past, but here's how IMAX framed for both IMAX-Digital and IMAX 4:3 screens and for the record most if not all IMAX laser screens are not 1.90 (thank God):

IMAX is telling a lie with that graphic because Into Darkness didn't fill up the entire 1.44 aspect ratio. It was cut off.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

The Alexa 65's sensor has a native open-gate ratio of 2.11:1. So to get a 1.90:1 image you would crop off the sides but use the full vertical height, and to get 2.40:1 you'd crop off the top and bottom but use the full width. Whether they were shooting the 2.40:1 only material "windowboxed" if you will - only as wide as and less tall than the 1.90:1 IMAX footage - is beyond me. It would be interesting to compare a standard showing and IMAX showing to see if the IMAX scenes are missing information on the sides of the frame in addition to having extra picture on top and bottom.

If I had to guess - and I have to - I'd say that they're using the 1.90 mode as the common height and cropping the 2.40 down out of that.

Yes, it's not using the full width of the sensor but Open Gate was never designed to be used 'perf to perf' (in the digital sense), i.e. the image will always be framed inside the full sensor area no matter what ratio you're gunning for, and if shooting for a variable aspect 1.90 IMAX presentation then it just makes sense to stick to that workflow.

Originally Posted by Poya

Why would Fantastic Beasts get a 70mm release? It's a digitally shot picture. Might as well release a Techniscope picture in 70mm while they are at it.

U on crack m8? Something shot anamorphic on Alexa - as Fantastic Beasts was - will beat the shit out of 2-perf every time and should look rather spiffy on 70mm.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Eric The Duke

IMAX is telling a lie with that graphic because Into Darkness didn't fill up the entire 1.44 aspect ratio. It was cut off.

The VFX was (rendered at 1.66). But they did use actual IMAX cameras to capture the live action footage.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The VFX was (rendered at 1.66). But they did use actual IMAX cameras to capture the live action footage.

STID is an odd one. They said they finished the IMAX shots in 1.66 and yet I'm positive that it filled the 1.44 screen at the BFI from top to bottom, I even asked them what the ratio was and they said 1.44. Only thing I can think of is that they cropped the 1.44 presentation out of the 1.66 before laying it down onto 15/70. OR I'm insane. One of the two.

[xbs2034]

http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/n...source=twitter

In addition to Lincoln Square, Chicago's Navy Pier IMAX is reopening with laser this weekend. It will now be operated by AMC, though it will actually close again earlier next year (my guess is after Rogue One) to install the 12 channel sound system and new rocker seats (which are already in place at Lincoln Square).

Also, IMAX did release some short aspect ratio comparison videos with Sully. Looks like the film is purely expanded vertically in 1.9, and just straight cropped with no extra information on the sides for 2.4
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=yi_5ytnIJCE

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Also, IMAX did release some short aspect ratio comparison videos with Sully. Looks like the film is purely expanded vertically in 1.9, and just straight cropped with no extra information on the sides for 2.4
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=yi_5ytnIJCE

Not only was the IMAX laser version superior in showing more vertical visual information and framing, the 12-channel mix was much more vigorous and expansive to the weak Dolby Atmos mix

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The VFX was (rendered at 1.66). But they did use actual IMAX cameras to capture the live action footage.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

STID is an odd one. They said they finished the IMAX shots in 1.66 and yet I'm positive that it filled the 1.44 screen at the BFI from top to bottom, I even asked them what the ratio was and they said 1.44. Only thing I can think of is that they cropped the 1.44 presentation out of the 1.66 before laying it down onto 15/70. OR I'm insane. One of the two.

I am pretty sure the visual effects are rendered in 1.66, then later cropped accordingly to the various formats available at the time.

Letterboxed for IMAX 3D (1.89), Scope (2.39) and Blu-ray (1.78). Pillarbox for 70mm (1.44)

No particular format actually has the full 1.66 visual other than the producers before editing.