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

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by singhcr

In terms of picture quality, IMAX film is better as it is 3 times larger than standard 70mm film.

However, 70mm film looks wonderful in its own right quality wise and many movies have been shot in that format whereas only portions of feature films have been shot in IMAX. Standard 70mm film also has a wider aspect ratio (2.20:1 or 2.76:1 depending on the lenses used) which can be more cinematic. IMAX has an aspect ratio of 1.44:1.

Thats why i love it becouse it looks fantastic with 2.76:1 aspect ratio.

Thanks again

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Correct me if I am wrong but a 4K down-sampled from an 8K source is going to have more perceivable detail and richness than a 4K scan from a 6K source, isn't that right? Anyway, what am I talking about, I'll have to make do with regular 2K and no IMAX.

When you're talking about distilling an analogue source down into a set electronic resolution, yes, but with a native digital capture there's no need for oversampling in the way we think of it with scanning film.

[edit] That said, the Bayer arrays in most digital cameras don't capture true RGB colour so using a 5/6/8K sensor will help to keep the colour resolution higher when downscaled for the eventual 4K or 2K finish.

[Pieter V]

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Thats why i love it becouse it looks fantastic with 2.76:1 aspect ratio.

Thanks again

You're welcome

[Geoff D]

Booked my ticket for the 15/70 Rogue One at the BFI for the 16th. If they do get the Dunkirk prologue then that will be a rather delicious bonus.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

What's funny is that in your first frame break image when viewing the new ghostbusters in 3d that I didn't need to see it in IMAX to see frame breaking.

I wonder if Rogue One will be also frame breaking in 3d?

[Creed]

Did anyone find the constant shifting aspect ratios interesting or odd in the Transformers: The Last Knight trailer? Since it was shot with IMAX 3D cameras?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by creed123

Did anyone find the constant shifting aspect ratios interesting or odd in the Transformers: The Last Knight trailer? Since it was shot with IMAX 3D cameras?

Not odd from a production standpoint because AoE did exactly the same thing, it shifts between three different ratios! But I did find it odd from a trailer standpoint as they don't normally put the shifting AR into the marketing guff.

[Creed]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Not odd from a production standpoint because AoE did exactly the same thing, it shifts between three different ratios! But I did find it odd from a trailer standpoint as they don't normally put the shifting AR into the marketing guff.

Yeah, I remember the AR in AOE. But it's a bit odd in the trailer, I agree. Someone made a cropped version of the trailer.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Not odd from a production standpoint because AoE did exactly the same thing, it shifts between three different ratios! But I did find it odd from a trailer standpoint as they don't normally put the shifting AR into the marketing guff.

I hated that during AoE... when I saw it in fake IMAX it was going back and forth and I was like WTF Michael Bay!?!?!?

[Poya]

He doesn't know how to use ratios. Even watching ROTF in IMAX (thankfully for free), with that huge 1.44 ratio, he jams in too much information on the screen that it gets hard to see what is happening. I haven't seen the other two because I'm done with these films after that one but I also keep hearing about the constant ratio shifting. You gotta appreciate how Nolan handles these things by only shooting the IMAX scenes when they're absolutely necessary and you don't feel the shift as much. Same with the other filmmakers that aren't Bay that have used IMAX cameras, regardless of format.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Poya

He doesn't know how to use ratios. Even watching ROTF in IMAX (thankfully for free), with that huge 1.44 ratio, he jams in too much information on the screen that it gets hard to see what is happening. I haven't seen the other two because I'm done with these films after that one but I also keep hearing about the constant ratio shifting. You gotta appreciate how Nolan handles these things by only shooting the IMAX scenes when they're absolutely necessary and you don't feel the shift as much. Same with the other filmmakers that aren't Bay that have used IMAX cameras, regardless of format.

Thank you for mentioning Nolan... he's the only one I respect seeing how he knows how to properly use the camera. Although I did enjoy TDK, I did question his use of the camera in TDKR as I though many of his up close shots of the characters just talking that was filmed in imax (the scene where Bruce fires Alfred...in IMAX...WTF??)

[Creed]

The AR for Interstellar Blu-Ray was perfect.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Thank you for mentioning Nolan... he's the only one I respect seeing how he knows how to properly use the camera. Although I did enjoy TDK, I did question his use of the camera in TDKR as I though many of his up close shots of the characters just talking that was filmed in imax (the scene where Bruce fires Alfred...in IMAX...WTF??)

There are certain scenes in TDKR where I too thought IMAX was unnecessary - Wayne waking up on his bed in the manor (Bruce firing Alfred was shot anamorphic scope, not IMAX), the Bar fight with Selina and Gordon heading down the manhole. The scenes were so tightly shot, that it would've been better to film them on 2.35:1. There was no added effect on IMAX expansion. I did see this in 15/70 IMAX film.

Originally Posted by creed123

The AR for Interstellar Blu-Ray was perfect.

I personally prefer the composition in 1.44:1. It looks more enveloping than the 1.78:1 crop.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Booked my ticket for the 15/70 Rogue One at the BFI for the 16th. If they do get the Dunkirk prologue then that will be a rather delicious bonus.

Do let us know how the films look on IMAX. If possible, click.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

There are certain scenes in TDKR where I too thought IMAX was unnecessary - Wayne waking up on his bed in the manor (Bruce firing Alfred was shot anamorphic scope, not IMAX), the Bar fight with Selina and Gordon heading down the manhole. The scenes were so tightly shot, that it would've been better to film them on 2.35:1. There was no added effect on IMAX expansion. I did see this in 15/70 IMAX film.

Did he ever explain why he shot those scenes in IMAX?

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Did he ever explain why he shot those scenes in IMAX?

I remember from one of the special features that he said he tried to shoot in IMAX whenever possible, so I guess it was just because he felt like it.

Honestly, I think he went kinda overboard with it in TDKR. Some of the IMAX scenes were just unnecessary, and, unlike TDK, it would switch from IMAX to 35mm very frequently. In TDK, whenever a sequence was in IMAX, it would stay in IMAX for pretty much the entire sequence. In TDKR, it switches much more often, which just calls more attention to the switch and makes it more jarring.

[Geoff D]

Interstellar was similarly arbitrary, I thought. Instead of using when "absolutely necessary" he just started using it whenever, just because he could. And I've never been too enamoured with Nolan's 1.44 stuff anyway, he subscribes to the Brad Bird way of thinking which is that your eyes can only take in so much at any one time, so the important stuff is usually framed very centrally (in terms of height) and the remainder is the equivalent of wallpaper as it pads out the field of peripheral vision.

It works well enough in actual IMAX (bigger the better) but the 1.44 shots in the home end up looking like open-matte with lots more skies and feet and the effect is lost, which is why I prefer the 1.78 crops as they tighten up the framing without losing the embiggening effect. I'd love to have fixed 2.40 widescreen HD/UHD versions of all Nolan's IMAX movies too, though. They're too well-framed to just be forgotten by history.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Interstellar was similarly arbitrary, I thought. Instead of using when "absolutely necessary" he just started using it whenever, just because he could. And I've never been too enamoured with Nolan's 1.44 stuff anyway, he subscribes to the Brad Bird way of thinking which is that your eyes can only take in so much at any one time, so the important stuff is usually framed very centrally (in terms of height) and the remainder is the equivalent of wallpaper as it pads out the field of peripheral vision.

It works well enough in actual IMAX (bigger the better) but the 1.44 shots in the home end up looking like open-matte with lots more skies and feet and the effect is lost, which is why I prefer the 1.78 crops as they tighten up the framing without losing the embiggening effect. I'd love to have fixed 2.40 widescreen HD/UHD versions of all Nolan's IMAX movies too, though. They're too well-framed to just be forgotten by history.

The problem, however, is that they are composing for those who are going to see it in the more common ratio, as there aren't a lot of venues to show the films in that format. Take Francis Lawrence and Catching Fire. Sure, he composed those scenes specifically for the 1.44 ratio, but at the process, you miss a lot from the inevitable crop for the majority of screens around the globe and the home.

[Creed]

From Reddit. There's 8 different aspect ratios in the trailer.

http://imgur.com/XjhBCtN

[ITDEFX101]

uh oh.... #ARGATE!!!!