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

[ITDEFX101]

Does anyone think that the 5 to 6 dollar upcharge for 3-d/IMAX/Large Screens is worth it?

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by creed123

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

It has to be a mistake. Even Bay isn't crazy enough to use 8 different aspect ratios.

[Creed]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

It has to be a mistake. Even Bay isn't crazy enough to use 8 different aspect ratios.

I was wondering. But it could be possible. AOE had 3 different aspect ratios.

According to IMDB, the film has 3 again.

1.90 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version: some scenes)
2.00 : 1 (IMAX version: some scenes)
2.35 : 1

Arri 416
Arri Alexa 65
Hawk V-Lite16 1.3x Anamorphic
Hawk65 Anamorphic lenses
Phantom 65 Gold, IMAX 3-D Lenses
Red Epic Dragon, Panavision C-Series Lenses
Red Weapon Dragon, Panavision C-Series Lenses
Red Weapon Helium (8K S35)
Vantage One T1 lenses

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by creed123

I was wondering. But it could be possible. AOE had 3 different aspect ratios.

According to IMDB, the film has 3 again.

1.90 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version: some scenes)
2.00 : 1 (IMAX version: some scenes)
2.35 : 1

Arri 416
Arri Alexa 65
Hawk V-Lite16 1.3x Anamorphic
Hawk65 Anamorphic lenses
Phantom 65 Gold, IMAX 3-D Lenses
Red Epic Dragon, Panavision C-Series Lenses
Red Weapon Dragon, Panavision C-Series Lenses
Red Weapon Helium (8K S35)
Vantage One T1 lenses

Yeah, but eight? That's just absurd. And how is this gonna work for non-IMAX screens? Most of the footage is way narrower than 2.39. Will this be shown on 1.85 screens? Is every version gonna have these shifting aspect ratios?

[Creed]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Yeah, but eight? That's just absurd. And how is this gonna work for non-IMAX screens? Most of the footage is way narrower than 2.39. Will this be shown on 1.85 screens? Is every version gonna have these shifting aspect ratios?

I'm pretty sure the 2D version is 2:35:1 throughout. We'll see. After all, the Blu-Ray 3D has the IMAX version.

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by creed123

I'm pretty sure the 2D version is 2:35:1 throughout. We'll see. After all, the Blu-Ray 3D has the IMAX version.

And the 3D version had shifting aspect ratios out the wazoo. I wonder why Bay keeps doing this.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Poya

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.

Well, yeah. That's what I was getting at in the second paragraph of the post you quoted The fixed widescreen versions of Nolan's look properly framed, the IMAX versions do not (IMO). Personally I loved that Lawrence used the full frame on Catching Fire, it looked magnificent in IMAX and the alternating aspect Blu-ray still retains some of that flavour. It's a pity, then, that he chose to go with the fixed AR version of the film for UHD (which actively tilt-and-scans the IMAX scenes to make them fit 2.40) but what can you do?

As for Transformers, I wouldn't read anything into the "8 ratios" of the trailer. The close-up of the girl is quite clearly shot anamorphic (dat lovely bokeh) which is 2.40 but the ratio doesn't quite match so it's been cropped slightly for that shot, which would indicate a certain amount of monkey business on the other sources too. The movie won't have 8 ratios.

[ITDEFX101]

how long til Bay *addresses* the 8 Ratios of the trailer ?

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

how long til Bay *addresses* the 8 Ratios of the trailer ?

Until somebody asks him about it. Which no one will, because the only people who really notice it are weirdos like us.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by Poya

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.

Plus, Catching Fire 4K Blu-ray was cropped down to 2.40:1 for the entire film. :/

I don't mind the Nolan composition since my home screen is 2.35:1 and I let it spill anyway.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Does anyone think that the 5 to 6 dollar upcharge for 3-d/IMAX/Large Screens is worth it?

It is always worth it. Why spend the money to go to the theater and not experience the best? Go big or stay home.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

It is always worth it. Why spend the money to go to the theater and not experience the best? Go big or stay home.

Not all theaters are presenting the movie as intended. As I stated in a few posts/pages back, a regal theater manager admitted to me that they always crank the IMAX/RPX audio to it's full potential during trailers but tone it down during the actual movie.

[Poya]

The Universal Citywalk upgraded their cinema to "Universal Cinemas" (and yet they show films from other studios. Not a wise title). Every screen is equipped with Dolby Atmos (though downconverts to regular for those not mixed in Atmos) and 4K laser projection (same ones used for Dolby Vision but aren't Dolby Vision enabled). Haven't been there yet but it sounds exciting. The fact they are bringing back IMAX 70mm is also a plus.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Poya

The Universal Citywalk upgraded their cinema to "Universal Cinemas" (and yet they show films from other studios. Not a wise title). Every screen is equipped with Dolby Atmos (though downconverts to regular for those not mixed in Atmos) and 4K laser projection (same ones used for Dolby Vision but aren't Dolby Vision enabled). Haven't been there yet but it sounds exciting. The fact they are bringing back IMAX 70mm is also a plus.

this is AMC? I wish they'd add Atmos to more theater/screens and not have to rely on Dolby doing it for them. If AMC really wants to continue running Washington DC's Uptown theater I'd wish they Atmos that screen and upgrade to 4K laser - the latter is particular would be most ideal.

with one of the few complexes in the US that features ALL Atmos equipped screens, this cements Dolby Atmos is here to stay, unlike DTS-X 'theater' which basically gone nowhere, except home theater application.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

this is AMC? I wish they'd add Atmos to more theater/screens and not have to rely on Dolby doing it for them. If AMC really wants to continue running Washington DC's Uptown theater I'd wish they Atmos that screen and upgrade to 4K laser - the latter is particular would be most ideal.

with one of the few complexes in the US that features ALL Atmos equipped screens, this cements Dolby Atmos is here to stay, unlike DTS-X 'theater' which basically gone nowhere, except home theater application.

That's genuinely sad. DTS-X is actually better than Atmos due to its flexibility and customization. I don't think it's dead but it needs all the support it can get or else it will be the Dolby True-HD of this generation.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Poya

That's genuinely sad. DTS-X is actually better than Atmos due to its flexibility and customization. I don't think it's dead but it needs all the support it can get or else it will be the Dolby True-HD of this generation.

every bit of marketing, roll out, theatrical acceptance of DTS' object based mixing, and it's system has DOA written all over it... I have nothing against it, as 'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II' was sonically very very impressive - yet get a sense where and what theaters have signed up for installation - pfft... you got me (?) Studio support? I think the only December release is La La Land but that's also being remixed in Dolby Atmos. Both DTS and Auro like to claim they have studio support, it's so minimal and sporadic, how are they financially staying afloat?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Poya

That's genuinely sad. DTS-X is actually better than Atmos due to its flexibility and customization. I don't think it's dead but it needs all the support it can get or else it will be the Dolby True-HD of this generation.

Which was just marketing nonsense (read: they were lying). DTS:X decoders are locked to 7.1.4 even on the most advanced processors.


Hollywood's finally caught on to the "Promise the moon now and try to make it work somewhere-sometime down the line" of theirs. Atmos is flexible and expandable, and innovations such as reflective speakers and even soundbars with Atmos that work. Not to mention being able to mixdown directly from theatrical Atmos soundtracks - DTS:X theatrical is not compatible with DTS:X home. The soundtrack has to be remastered. Time is money.

[antovolk]

IMAX Melbourne Hi Andrew, we are aware of information regarding the possibility of a prologue for DUNKIRK screening on the front of IMAX sessions of ROGUE ONE from Friday December 16. Unfortunately, due to the express wishes of the studios and film makers involved we are not permitted to officially comment on this matter at this time (but stay tuned!). Thanks! - Kate

https://www.facebook.com/imaxmelbour...%3A%22R0%22%7D

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by antovolk

https://www.facebook.com/imaxmelbour...%3A%22R0%22%7D

I had the same "cannot confirm or deny" reply from the BFI IMAX. Why they (the filmmakers I mean) have to be so utterly coy about this when it's all over the internet anyway is stupid, especially when we're just hours from Rogue One actually being released!

I know they're trying to be all mysterious to get the marketing hyped up just for the prologue, but some people are spending a lot of money and travelling a long way to see Rogue One in IMAX with the Dunkirk prologue attached. If it's not there then my impotent nerd rage will know no bounds!!

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I had the same "cannot confirm or deny" reply from the BFI IMAX. Why they (the filmmakers I mean) have to be so utterly coy about this when it's all over the internet anyway is stupid, especially when we're just hours from Rogue One actually being released!

I know they're trying to be all mysterious to get the marketing hyped up just for the prologue, but some people are spending a lot of money and travelling a long way to see Rogue One in IMAX with the Dunkirk prologue attached. If it's not there then my impotent nerd rage will know no bounds!!

I guess the way I'm reading into these is that - they wouldn't have been told explicitly by the studio and filmmakers not to confirm/deny if it wasn't actually happening.