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

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm not surprised, seeing as Nolan times his digital stuff to ape the film version as we know. The highlights were blown out too, like when the fella on the Moonstone locks Cillian Murphy in the back cabin (not a major spoiler folks, don't sweat it) and the image of Mark Rylance behind him on deck was almost completely nuked out.

The HDR on the 4K UHD this one is gonna be a great test of just how Nolan wants to approach it: will he be tempted to draw out significant amounts of shadow/highlight detail that's simply not there on the film versions (and digital cinema derivations thereof), or stick to that visual ethos all the way through and just use the HDR 2020 container more for the wider colour gamut than anything?

Heck, the Dolby Vision HDR cinema screenings would be a good place to start but there's still not a single such cinema in the UK. It makes the three 15/70 & two 4K Laser IMAX locations in the UK look like an embarassment of riches in comparison.


Yes, but it's not especially prevalent. I noticed more focus problems when they were on the boats TBH.

I saw this via IMAX Laser and 70mm film. In my eyes on the IMAX version, the IMAX filmed sequences looked clean and clear. I don't think I saw any film grain but during the 70mm sequences looked totally different. It had film grain and it looked like a lot of contrast was added. In the 70mm version, the grain and contrast wasn't too noticeable but the IMAX sequences were.
I didn't see any focus problems per se and the shaky cam on the planes were understandable considering that you're putting a really heavy camera on a moving airplane so it didn't bother me at all.
I plan on seeing this again and I'll probably see some other things I probably didn't noticed before.

[NegaScott128]

On a technical note, Steve Yedlin (DP for Looper, San Andreas, and The Last Jedi) has put out a 2-part demonstration on sensor resolution and how it relates to perceivable image quality. The ideal viewing method is a 4K DCP, but he put out some Blu-Ray-quality 1080p versions.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

I saw this via IMAX Laser and 70mm film. In my eyes on the IMAX version, the IMAX filmed sequences looked clean and clear. I don't think I saw any film grain but during the 70mm sequences looked totally different. It had film grain and it looked like a lot of contrast was added. In the 70mm version, the grain and contrast wasn't too noticeable but the IMAX sequences were.
I didn't see any focus problems per se and the shaky cam on the planes were understandable considering that you're putting a really heavy camera on a moving airplane so it didn't bother me at all.
I plan on seeing this again and I'll probably see some other things I probably didn't noticed before.

It's always more noticeable when blowing up x film format than downrezzing it which is why some of the differences were less pronounced on the 5-perf 70mm print: you're seeing the 5/65 capture in its native format but are also getting the benefits of the 15/65 IMAX footage passed along, even with an optical reduction, whereas in 15/70 print (and clearly 4K Laser) there's no room to hide for the 5/65mm footage because it's been uprezzed into something that's 3x as big in terms of frame size.

That stuff looked a lot grainier and a lot 'flatter', I was actually surprised that certain shots were 5/65 because they look so good in the trailers but again, those trailers aren't dealing with a hugely embiggened version of that 5/65 source material. In that vein the home versions will provide the best combinations of both formats so it should look a little more balanced in terms of quality.

I spotted several instances of the focus being lost on the non-aerial shots but that too is understandable because the depth of field is insanely shallow on this largest of large formats, and IIRC someone posted something recently about how the digital 'measuring tape' used by focus pullers didn't work with the IMAX cameras so they basically had to wing it, setting markers and hoping for the best which was quite some feat considering all of the shots at sea on those boats rocking back and forth.

Oh, and as for the colour discussion further above I wasn't quite so 'wowed' with the blues and whatnot because I've been enjoying a wider colour gamut on my home viewing for about a year now. It did indeed look gorgeous in that respect (grading oddities aside) but it wasn't that that really got me, it's always been about the sheer resolution of IMAX 15/70 por moi.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, and as for the colour discussion further above I wasn't quite so 'wowed' with the blues and whatnot because I've been enjoying a wider colour gamut on my home viewing for about a year now. It did indeed look gorgeous in that respect (grading oddities aside) but it wasn't that that really got me, it's always been about the sheer resolution of IMAX 15/70 por moi.

The incredibly shallow depth of field also astounded me, aside from the resolution and color gamut. Hoo boy, dat focus.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I spotted several instances of the focus being lost on the non-aerial shots but that too is understandable because the depth of field is insanely shallow on this largest of large formats, and IIRC someone posted something recently about how the digital 'measuring tape' used by focus pullers didn't work with the IMAX cameras so they basically had to wing it, setting markers and hoping for the best which was quite some feat considering all of the shots at sea on those boats rocking back and forth.

So, on top of the noise the IMAX make, their depth of field is too shallow for focus pullers to effectively work with.

[Geoff D]

It works plenty effectively when you nail it, which is why IMAX isn't usually used in such an aggressive hand-held manner (not to mention how heavy and cumbersome the cameras actually are to operate). Inception was not shot IMAX for this reason, but on Dunkirk they went full-tilt and for the most part it paid off handsomely. It helps that DP Hoyte van Hoytema is himself a big unit, mind you.

[testmon112]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

David Keighley of IMAX has already said that the Blu will be in 1.78/2.20 VAR, and one assumes this will carry over to the 4K UHD which I'm already salivating over.

lmao

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It works plenty effectively when you nail it, which is why IMAX isn't usually used in such an aggressive hand-held manner (not to mention how heavy and cumbersome the cameras actually are to operate). Inception was not shot IMAX for this reason, but on Dunkirk they went full-tilt and for the most part it paid off handsomely. It helps that DP Hoyte van Hoytema is himself a big unit, mind you.

Seeing him and others use the IMAX camera handheld is really something. I hope this film gets Best Cinematography. It's really beautiful to look at.

[antovolk]

Ha, thanks Geoff! Yeah, very cool indeed - they've also featured a couple of my fan posters on there too.

Something to bear in mind - the screen at the BFI is actually closer to 1.33:1, so the sides are cropped off a bit. That's why the JL trailer seemed as tall as it was - it definitely wasn't a taller master (unlike the 1:1 online trailers/spots) being used for the IMAX 1570 trailer print.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

On a technical note, Steve Yedlin (DP for Looper, San Andreas, and The Last Jedi) has put out a 2-part demonstration on sensor resolution and how it relates to perceivable image quality. The ideal viewing method is a 4K DCP, but he put out some Blu-Ray-quality 1080p versions.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

I haven't watched the full hour yet, but the Alexa 65 beating out the resolution of 15/70mm, both in a darker scenario with plenty of shadows, and broad daylight, kinda shocked me.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by antovolk

Ha, thanks Geoff! Yeah, very cool indeed - they've also featured a couple of my fan posters on there too.

Something to bear in mind - the screen at the BFI is actually closer to 1.33:1, so the sides are cropped off a bit. That's why the JL trailer seemed as tall as it was - it definitely wasn't a taller master (unlike the 1:1 online trailers/spots) being used for the IMAX 1570 trailer print.

Thanks man. We really do learn something new every day!

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

I haven't watched the full hour yet, but the Alexa 65 beating out the resolution of 15/70mm, both in a darker scenario with plenty of shadows, and broad daylight, kinda shocked me.

Yeah, it is pretty surprising. Although, I think the comparison is somewhat flawed in that we're just comparing stills on computer monitors, as opposed to full video on a large cinema screen. I'd be very interested to see the 4K DCP to get a better idea of how the formats differ, but even that isn't perfect, as it doesn't represent the full resolution of the Alexa 65 or 15/70 IMAX. Also, I'm not sure what exactly he used when scanning the film formats. Did he do a direct scan from the negative? Or was it a copy several generations removed?

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Yeah, it is pretty surprising. Although, I think the comparison is somewhat flawed in that we're just comparing stills on computer monitors, as opposed to full video on a large cinema screen. I'd be very interested to see the 4K DCP to get a better idea of how the formats differ, but even that isn't perfect, as it doesn't represent the full resolution of the Alexa 65 or 15/70 IMAX. Also, I'm not sure what exactly he used when scanning the film formats. Did he do a direct scan from the negative? Or was it a copy several generations removed?

I mean, he's scaling it using software that's data isn't dependant on the screen it's being viewed on. Meaning, even if we were just going, "wow, on my computer monitor the Alexa 65 does seem sharper", then it'd be an imperfect comparison, but since he's scaling the data right down it each individual pixel, that's not really a concern.

Since he shot and processed the footage himself, I'd assume the negative. Anything else would undercut like... everything he's doing.

[Riddhi2011]

All you guys are so lucky to see this on film, IMAX, Laser, et all. We only have 2.39:1 screens and 2K projection here. No other option.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

All you guys are so lucky to see this on film, IMAX, Laser, et all. We only have 2.39:1 screens and 2K projection here. No other option.

Well based on what I have read so far, looks like framing was done well enough so that if you are not in range of a high end projection system (or real IMAX theater), then you are going to be ok. I doubt it is going to look like shit though....

[Eric The Duke]

I saw Dunkirk today on IMAX Laser at the Smithsonian in DC. I really liked the quality.

[Trekkie313]

So I saw Dunkirk in IMAX, I guess it was actual film despite not being listed as a 70mm or film location. There was visible print damage and inconsistent color-timing. Minimal but clearly present, last shots of the ocean were very grainy too.

[imdobe]

I saw Dunkirk both in Imax 70mm 1.43:1 and Imax Laser 1.43:1.

The Laser presentation was more impressive. Picture quality was slightly better, sound quality was way better.

[MazeRunner]

Does anyone know which movie will be playing in IMAX on the August 19/20th weekend? I'll be near an IMAX in Minnesota that I always go to when I'm there.

[antovolk]

The giant screen exhibitor on Wednesday said it will play more digital 2D versions of Hollywood movies domestically, given a "clear preference" from consumers for 2D in North America, Imax CEO Richard Gelfond said.

Imax Entertainment CEO Greg Foster confirmed during an analyst call that his company will start playing fewer 3D versions of movies, and more 2D versions. "The demand for 2D films is starting to exceed 3D in North America," Foster said.

For example, the domestic release of Blade Runner 2049 will be shown in Imax theaters only in 2D this fall.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...medium=twitter

Let's hope this spreads internationally too.