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

[joeydrunk]

not true at all, sitting in the front row you have to focus your eyes and it gives you a headache, along the same lines as an ipad but of course much less. i believe you are in a huge minority with your statements. most people dont like sitting in the first couple rows because they have to starin their eyes by trying to focus and cranking their neck....wich brings us back to your your first comment... watching a small screen up closeit is definitly not the same as watching a large screen from farther back. i think many more people would agree with me, this all comes down to personal preference though.

Originally Posted by 42041

Well obviously we're not talking about ipads are we? A 10" screen and a 30' screen are completely different animals in terms of viewing discomfort. Once you're looking at something about 20 feet from your eye, to the eyeball that's essentially the same as looking at something on the other side of the galaxy, so the mechanisms of visual discomfort are completely different. I think sitting at a 60degree viewing angle from a 60" TV already provides more immersive viewing than sitting at a 30degree angle from a movie screen.
Whether you have to crane your neck is up to the configuration of a particular theater.

[42041]

Originally Posted by joeydrunk

most people dont like sitting in the first couple rows because they have to starin their eyes by trying to focus and cranking their neck..

Again, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You'd get a headache watching an IMAX blowup from those viewing angles too... I know that from experience. On an ipad, that's pretty much the equivalent of mashing it into your face. At that point it has less to do with screen size and more to do with your not being able to take in the whole image.
I'm talking about a comfortable viewing angle, and it's the same on both an IMAX screen and a regular screen. You'd move closer in a regular theater, further away in an IMAX theater, and end up with about the same size image to your eyes.

[joeydrunk]

it seems like your going back on what you said originally, you said, "Who cares how big the screen is? You could project a movie on the bloody moon, what matters is the size of the image in your visual field." implying that sitting close to a small screen or further away to a big screen produces the same results, what im trying to say is it doesnt matter the size of the image in your viewing field, for example- im going to use the ipad again- hold an ipad about a foot in front of your face while simultaneously having your 60 inch tv next to it about 10 feet away-they both have the same image size in my visual field, as you put it, but theres no way i would rather watch movies on the ipad vs the 60 inch tv and its because of the size of the screen not the size of the image in my viewing field. thats just an example but the same thing applies with theater screen size given both are of the same quality.

Originally Posted by 42041

Again, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You'd get a headache watching an IMAX blowup from those viewing angles too... I know that from experience. On an ipad, that's pretty much the equivalent of mashing it into your face. At that point it has less to do with screen size and more to do with your not being able to take in the whole image.
I'm talking about a comfortable viewing angle, and it's the same on both an IMAX screen and a regular screen. You'd move closer in a regular theater, further away in an IMAX theater, and end up with about the same size image to your eyes.

[42041]

Originally Posted by joeydrunk

it seems like your going back on what you said originally, you said, "Who cares how big the screen is? You could project a movie on the bloody moon, what matters is the size of the image in your visual field." implying that sitting close to a small screen or further away to a big screen produces the same results, what im trying to say is it doesnt matter the size of the image in your viewing field, for example- im going to use the ipad again- hold an ipad about a foot in front of your face while simultaneously having your 60 inch tv next to it about 10 feet away-they both have the same image size in my visual field, as you put it, but theres no way i would rather watch movies on the ipad vs the 60 inch tv and its because of the size of the screen not the size of the image in my viewing field. thats just an example but the same thing applies with theater screen size given both are of the same quality.

sigh... I guess it's too much to hope for that people won't be hopelessly obtuse and keep bringing up ipad screens even though they have nothing to do with the conversation and I've already addressed why watching an ipad half a foot from your face is completely different than watching some 40' wide screen in a regular movie theater from the equivalent viewing distance. After a certain point (and that point is determined by the optics of your eyeball and where it stops straining to focus), it doesn't matter if you're watching a 40' wide screen from 40' away, or a 10 mile wide screen from 10 miles away, its the same bloody thing to your eyes.

[retablo]

My problem with large format screens is that the films almost always have to alter their intended aspect ratio to fit. It's more important to me to see the properly framed movie than to see an opened up image with tons of unnecessary headroom just because it's bigger.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by retablo

My problem with large format screens is that the films almost always have to alter their intended aspect ratio to fit. It's more important to me to see the properly framed movie than to see an opened up image with tons of unnecessary headroom just because it's bigger.

That's not true. They used to do that when they first started showing features in IMAX. However, nowadays, movies are shown in their intended aspect ratios. I saw Star Trek and Iron Man 2 in Real IMAX, and they were shown with a constant 2.39:1 frame even though this also meant huge black bars at the top and bottom.

Some movies have shifting aspect ratios, but they were meant to be that way.

The people who made Skyfall wanted it to be shown in 1.90:1. Nothing is being altered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_DMR_films

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by retablo

My problem with large format screens is that the films almost always have to alter their intended aspect ratio to fit. It's more important to me to see the properly framed movie than to see an opened up image with tons of unnecessary headroom just because it's bigger.

Not always, most large format formats simply show anamorphic widescreen on a letterboxed print, so the movie is not really altered. So pretty much half of the film frame of the IMAX print is wasted. Skyfall was not altered at all, the information was always there, you just don't see the extra information in a regular theatre.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by joeydrunk

I am trully excited to see the movie in 48fps, it was at the cinemacon not comicon and its a whole new experience we have to get use to, Peter Jackson said afterword it takes at least 15 minutes to get into, what they saw was just 10 mins of a bunch of clips that hadnt gone through post production. it was completely differen than what the finished product in the intended environment is suppose to look like, also 3d is much improved with hfr. i really think the whole experience of each factor will help bring it together which is his intention- the atmos, the 3d, top of the line sound system/screen/4k projection, all of this will make the hfr come together and be more imersive. were just not use to 48fps, weve been watching movies in 24fps since the 20's solely becuase that was the cheapest possible solution, it had nothing to do with optimal visual experience. we have to give it a real chance. if we had been watching in 48fps this whole time and 24fps just came out people would propably have horrible htings to say about it. i am very optimistic, if i dont like it im going to at least give it a few movies to decide wether i dont like it or not...if i dont like it i will be the first to say and eat my words, i will jump on the anti hfr bandwagon with you. .....change is enevitable.

I don't know if 48 fps will do well, but if 48 fps has the backing of Peter Jackson I hear James Cameron, then I am sure it will like to do very well.

As for Dolby Atmos, I doubt it will go very far.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by 42041

As far as I'm concerned, IMAX blowups are a waste of money.

I mostly agree. Anything blown up from 35mm is a complete waste, some digital 4k blowups do look good.

[Flatnate]

Well I finally found photos of the Alamo Drafthouse at the Ritz. Yup, that is perhaps the smallest theater I have ever seen run 70mm. I can't believe they hosted a 70mm festival on that thing.

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/10194/photos/31085

I wouldn't call that that particular theater a large format venue either. I still stand by statement that 70mm is a large format exhibition medium (and a good one at that), and that the majority of theaters on that list comprise the last bastion of the second best analog format ever created, only behind 15/70mm IMAX. So, okay scratch Alamo Drafthouse Ritz off the list. However, if you think standard 70mm is not a large exhibition format...

[42041]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

I still stand by statement that 70mm is a large format exhibition medium (and a good one at that), and that the majority of theaters on that list comprise the last bastion of the second best analog format ever created, only behind 15/70mm IMAX. So, okay scratch Alamo Drafthouse Ritz off the list. However, if you think standard 70mm is not a large exhibition format..

I'd put 5-perf ahead of 15-perf because they actually managed to shoot entire movies on it. IMAX gets no points for practicality unfortunately.
If Christopher Nolan really was committed to IMAX, he wouldn't muck around with 35mm at all and shoot that stuff on 5-perf. If David Lean can lug those cameras around the desert for a year, Nolan has no excuse.
And I agree, if you think regular 70mm isn't a large-format exhibition medium...

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by 42041

I'd put 5-perf ahead of 15-perf because they actually managed to shoot entire movies on it. IMAX gets no points for practicality unfortunately.

Yeah, and I always enjoyed the 2.20:1 aspect ratio myself.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

For the last time...

Shooting in 70mm = a recording method

Showing in 70mm = an exhibition method

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

For the last time...

Shooting in 70mm = a recording method

Showing in 70mm = an exhibition method

What are you trying to say?

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

What are you trying to say?

Rush Hour - YouTube

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

For the last time...

Shooting in 70mm = a recording method

Showing in 70mm = an exhibition method

Where on earth do you get this idea that I do not understand that? I mean no crap.

Did you even read my post where I took time to compile a theater list that I that can exhibit 70mm? I told you I compiled the list from a film that was recently released in 70mm for exhibition, the fact that it was recorded in 65mm Panavision is completely besides the point. But you got all worked up about pointing out that exhibiting and filming are different things. Well DUH!
Still, I thought it would be interesting for people to know hey someone actually shot a film in 65mm Panavision in the past decade! Guess I'll keep crap like that out of your thread? I mean your adherence to pointing out this obvious fact makes you look... well rude. I have no idea what your getting at with this?

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Where on earth do you get this idea that I do no understand that? I mean no crap.

Did you even read my post where I took time to compile a theater list that I that can exhibit 70mm? I told you I compiled the list from a film that was recently released in 70mm for exhibition, the fact that it was recorded in 65mm Panavision is completely besides the point. But you got all worked up about pointing out that exhibiting and filming are different things. Well DUH!
Still, I thought it would be interesting for people to know hey someone actually shot a film in 65mm Panavision in the past decade! Guess I'll keep crap like that out of your thread? I mean your adherence to pointing out this obvious fact makes you look... well rude. I have no idea what your getting at with this?

This is a thread about large screens, NOT large recording technologies.

If you like 70mm films so much, feel free to update Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

This is a thread about large screens, NOT large recording technologies.

If you like 70mm films so much, feel free to update Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films

What did I just tell you. DO you hear the words coming out of my mouth?

I found a movie... filmed in 70mm.. YAAY.

Then! There was a list of theaters that said they could show it in 70mm... an exhibition format... I posted it... that list of theaters! YAY! What is wrong with that?

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

This is a thread about large screens, NOT large recording technologies.

If you like 70mm films so much, feel free to update Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films

No, this thread is about "large format" and premium theatres. Unless you are showing 70mm, you are not "large format"

This thread is not just about large screens.

[42041]

A 70mm screen is a premium theater in my book. A large screen isn't the end-all of movie theater experiences, sorry.