IMAX Enhanced

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Okay, where's lgans316 and what have you done with him?

It started with a love or hate affair. After spending quality time understanding this new girl friend, I am totally in love with it. My 2 biggest complaints:

1. DSE. Sadly mine shows a fair amount of DSE which is why I am trying to source 75ZD9. Good news is I don't watch live football
2. DV on built-in app looks better especially with colour reproduction than via HDMI with exactly the same settings.

I am not too concerned with jet blacks as the HDR on daylight scene truly sparkle and can look breath-taking. Night time, the HDR is really good, not OLED like but it does produce a bit better shadows than my OLED.

Back to topic, I am still hoping these will get a physical release.

[Kazzaf]

Originally Posted by yetanotherone

https://twitter.com/scottderrickson/...89865804529674

Interesting- so Derrickson's argument against IMAX at home is basically the same a Brad Bird's for Ghost Protocol: namely that in an IMAX theater you "sit forward" and are "inside the frame" so you do not notice AR switches; whereas at home you'd notice AR switch as you sit further back and can observe the frame.

I wonder if this is why Nolan and others release the IMAX ratio on disc but not on digital - because AV enthusiasts tends to go for discs and have bigger TVs/projectors, whereas your casual digital viewer might just see it on a laptop or phone. Makes you question the Disney+ IMAX strategy, but alas streaming is where the money and the future lie; I just hope future MCU releases on the 4K discs will have the IMAX scenes to satisfy AV enthusiasts while they still keep digital at 2.39 to keep some of these directors who are concerned about small screen sizes happy.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Kazzaf

I just hope future MCU releases on the 4K discs will have the IMAX scenes to satisfy AV enthusiasts while they still keep digital at 2.39 to keep some of these directors who are concerned about small screen sizes happy.

Unfortunately satisfying AV enthusiasts isn't always a concern with studios or even the Blu-ray Association, otherwise we'd have had more than just the 16:9 ratio (and the myriad of mattings within).

It would have been neat for those with the means to have releases that have variable ratios that they could take advantage of. I'd imagine a 120'' screen switching between IMAX and scope would be pretty impressive in the proper environment.

[Dubstar]

I will say, the use of IMAX framing AND Dolby Vision, the colors of 'Doctor Strange' was truly eye popping to watch last night (!)

[sapiendut]

The popping colours have nothing to do with IMAX Enhanced, though.

[tcripe]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

The popping colours have nothing to do with IMAX Enhanced, though.

I think he was trying to say with the expanded aspect ratio the color look to pop more because they area of effect is bigger and in your face.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by chip75

Unfortunately satisfying AV enthusiasts isn't always a concern with studios or even the Blu-ray Association, otherwise we'd have had more than just the 16:9 ratio (and the myriad of mattings within).

I don't think even enthusiasts would want a bunch of different ratios to deal with. Bad enough Netflix is pushing that 2:1 stuff. 1.85 (1.78) and 2.39 for films, IMAX has their own ratio for their stuff and really doesn't apply to the home.

[sapiendut]

“IMAX” ratio is simply the aspect ratio of pro 4K camera imager and projection (1.9:1 or 17:9) it’s not a new thing invented by IMAX.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

“IMAX” ratio is simply the aspect ratio of pro 4K camera imager and projection (1.9:1 or 17:9) it’s not a new thing invented by IMAX.

They would like to make you think so, however.

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

They would like to make you think so, however.

Yup. An insane number of people who “corrected” me all saying that 1.9:1 is “invented” by IMAX and/or “exclusive” to IMAX cameras. SMH.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I don't think even enthusiasts would want a bunch of different ratios to deal with. Bad enough Netflix is pushing that 2:1 stuff. 1.85 (1.78) and 2.39 for films, IMAX has their own ratio for their stuff and really doesn't apply to the home.

We've been dealing with different ratios for quite a while (and cinematography isn't one size fits all), I imagine it could have been pretty automatic for those not interested and easily accessible to those with the equipment.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Yup. An insane number of people who “corrected” me all saying that 1.9:1 is “invented” by IMAX and/or “exclusive” to IMAX cameras. SMH.

I think popularized is a better word. I could only find three features that use it as their OAR from our database.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

“IMAX” ratio is simply the aspect ratio of pro 4K camera imager and projection (1.9:1 or 17:9) it’s not a new thing invented by IMAX.

Can you give us a list of movies that were shown in 1.90 prior to IMAX Digital.

[sapiendut]

Don’t know and don’t care because it’s irrelevant. The 1.9:1 imaging chip and commercial projector standard for full 4K are there from the start. When a 4K camera is used, the image captured is in 17:10 regardless what the end aspect ratio will be. Oh, plus, there is no such thing as digital IMAX cameras, they are all currently available 4K cameras (and now higher, and in various aspect ratio all the way up to 1.4:1) that “passed” IMAX “specifications” (which is no different than any 4K professional video capture standards).

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Don’t know and don’t care because it’s irrelevant. The 1.9:1 imaging chip and commercial projector standard for full 4K are there from the start. When a 4K camera is used, the image captured is in 17:10 regardless what the end aspect ratio will be. Oh, plus, there is no such thing as digital IMAX cameras, they are all currently available 4K cameras (and now higher, and in various aspect ratio all the way up to 1.4:1) that “passed” IMAX “specifications” (which is no different than any 4K professional video capture standards).

Actually the sensor AR for the Alexia LF is 1.44.

AFAIK, 1.90 was never used in movie theaters prior to IMAX Digital (their original replacement for 15/70 IMAX).

1.85 is the AR for non-anamorphic movies has been in use for decades.

[sapiendut]

You are correct. I meant to type 1.44 but O didnt check properly what I typed. And of course I know anout the 1.85. Outside of IMaX, I’ve seen many TV specials that were broadcasted in 17:9. However, the native sensor being in 1.9:1 remains as factual. As you know, directors crop, zoom, pan the captured image to suit their needs for their preferred AR. In fact, in the digital world, I have never seen a hard matted image done at the capture level at all.

I’m rambling now. Too tired. Long dau.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

You are correct. I meant to type 1.44 but O didnt check properly what I typed. And of course I know anout the 1.85. Outside of IMaX, I’ve seen many TV specials that were broadcasted in 17:9. However, the native sensor being in 1.9:1 remains as factual. As you know, directors crop, zoom, pan the captured image to suit their needs for their preferred AR. In fact, in the digital world, I have never seen a hard matted image done at the capture level at all.

I’m rambling now. Too tired. Long dau.

Um... not every digital camera has a 1.90 sensor, they all have their own chips at their own ratios/resolutions. The 8K REDs are 1.90, regular Alexa is about 1.55, LF is 1.43, 65 is 2.11 (those are all in Open Gate recording mode), Sony Venice is 1.50 (8K Venice 2 is 1.46) and so on.

The chips used for digital projektion are indeed 1.90 and the DCI settled on this 17:9 frame size when they set the D-Cinema spec to provide "full resolution" 2K (2048x1080) and 4K (4096x2160) container formats.

So, yeah. 1.90 is not an IMAX thing, they're just using the full size of the digital container available, and even though these aren't DCI compliant systems they're still beholden to the 1.90 chips available for projektion so it makes sense to use the same 1.90 container size to match the chips.

But it's bollocks to say that all digital cameras capture at 1.90 because they're not bound by the same standards body, they can and do have whatever size of sensor they like, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying?

[BijouMan]

I just put on the Disney+ version of Avengers: Endgame just to compare it to the disc. First thing I noticed was the fact that the Disney+ version now has a larger aspect ratio than the disc, even though it's probably only a fourth of the data. Totally unfair for the streaming version to use a superior format. The Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings disc will still only be 2.39:1. Meanwhile, Sony has been putting out IMAX Enhanced discs for over two years now. Doesn't mean I'll stop buying MCU discs as I'm trying to collect all of them.

[BijouMan]

Originally Posted by aviosis

Am I the only one hoping for a so-called "IMAX enhanced" version of Titanic whenever that comes to UHD? That would be awesome.

IMAX Enhanced has only been used by Sony and Disney thus far, the former having released UHD Blu-ray discs with it.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by BijouMan

IMAX Enhanced has only been used by Sony and Disney thus far, the former having released UHD Blu-ray discs with it.

Actually Titanic is now a Disney movie outside US since they bought Fox