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

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

I'm pretty sure Real D gets no money from IMAX 3D screenings, as IMAX uses its own 3D tech (and while the majority of non-IMAX 3D screenings are Real D at least domestically, not all of them are, for instance I saw Lego Batman and Legend of Tarzan in Dolby Digital 3D which a theater near me uses). Now, there is a three way split between the studio, Regal, and IMAX for those showings, though I'm not sure exactly what % goes to whom.

As for museums, the big reason why a lot of them are cheaper is those films are often just barely feature length (40-45 minutes), and similarly I think the digital IMAX in an AMC multiplex charged 2/3 the regular IMAX price for A Beautiful Planet.

I do know some museums also play Hollywood films, if those are cheaper as well, I'm not sure the exact reason other than maybe an incentive to get people to come to the museum also (in the New York area, the Natural History museum never plays traditional Hollywood features, and the Liberty Science Center I think only does it for things like Nolan films, plus its an Omnimax which I don't think works well for Hollywood movies anyway).

Oh...I see about the Real D gets nothing from an IMAX 3d showing. If that's the case then IMAX gets 7.5 and Regal and the studio work out the rest for the 13.05...

I would be going to Udvar often but no way I am going to pay 15 JUST to park and then another 15 for the movie. I know after 4pm parking is free, but then there is dealing with huge lines. I remembered seeing TFA at 10ish on Christmas Eve and arrived nearly 2 hours early because I had to wait in line.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The 4K Laser projectors have the same native ratio, they achieve the full height with a specially formatted DCP that squashes the 1.44 down into 1.90 which is then unsquished with a special adaptor at the projector end. I think. But although I agree that IMAX is mostly just a glorified term for upscaling (mostly), that's pretty much always been the case. Some of the first 'IMAX' movie releases were Apollo 13 (shot Super 35) and Attack of the Clones (shot 1080p!).

Apollo 13 was still 1.66:1 in IMAX, which fills almost the entire screen. But 1.90:1, visually, is even smaller than 1.85:1, a regular format. IMAX used to be about the height, the vertigo; an eight-storey tall screen where you could almost fall into. Now you can clearly see the top and bottom edges of the screen. And because IMAX is now widescreen, the composition cannot allow for as much headroom as a 1.43:1 frame does. So, the immersion will be significantly less.

And how many IMAX laser screens with 1.43 AR are there? I heard that the TCL Chinese is 1.89:1 with laser. See?

[Geoff D]

"See?" what? I'm not bashing what you were saying at all, just stating that laser with 1.44 is a possibility and indeed a reality, as some folks on here have pointed out before: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...r#post13668942

And yeah, some movies have been opened up even when not shot in IMAX but I've seen a fair few 15/70 DMR presentations where there was no full-height embiggening to be seen e.g. Watchmen, Star Trek, Superman Returns, Avatar and most recently Rogue One. As much as people don't want to hear it, IMAX really HAS been just as much of a glorified upscale outfit as it has for true 15/70 goodness.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

"See?" what? I'm not bashing what you were saying at all...

Wasn't suggesting that at all! The "see" was absolutely harmless.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yeah, some movies have been opened up even when not shot in IMAX but I've seen a fair few 15/70 DMR presentations where there was no full-height embiggening to be seen e.g. Watchmen, Star Trek, Superman Returns, Avatar and most recently Rogue One. As much as people don't want to hear it, IMAX really HAS been just as much of a glorified upscale outfit as it has for true 15/70 goodness.

From what I learned, both 'Star Trek Into Darkness' and 'The Force Awakens' was 1.66:1 in 15/70, not 1.43:1.

Imagine a Jurassic Park in 1.66:1. It would look absolutely breathtaking, immersive and terrifying; seeing those jungle vistas and dinosaurs in their real height-scale or close to it.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Imagine a Jurassic Park in 1.66:1. It would look absolutely breathtaking, immersive and terrifying; seeing those jungle vistas and dinosaurs in their real height-scale or close to it.

I feel like we are at a point where it's dumb to shoot Scope if your goal is to have the largest scale presentation in theaters. Vast majority of Premium Large Format screens are either 1.9:1 (LieMAX) or 1.85:1 (Regal RPX, Cinemark XD, Dolby Cinema, etc). And of course you have true IMAX at 1.43:1. You end up with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen for all these Scope films played on the PLF screens.

Jurassic World was shot 2.00:1 and it was nice to see a movie fill almost all of the RPX screen for once. Seems like everything else I've been watching at my local Regal is shot in Scope.

[ITDEFX101]

JW was 2.00:1???? What???? I saw that in RPX. I don't recall it being projected like that.

Is Udvar Hazy projecting their films correctly? if the answer is no, then I will not go to Udvar again.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

JW was 2.00:1???? What???? I saw that in RPX. I don't recall it being projected like that.

Is Udvar Hazy projecting their films correctly? if the answer is no, then I will not go to Udvar again.

I could have sworn it pretty much filled the RPX screen at 1.85:1, but the Blu-ray review here says the original aspect ratio is 2.00:1. Very possible it was projected 1.85:1, but not sure. It was definitely a more immersive presentation than all the Scope movies I've been seeing on that screen over the last few years.

[Zhorik]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

I could have sworn it pretty much filled the RPX screen at 1.85:1, but the Blu-ray review here says the original aspect ratio is 2.00:1. Very possible it was projected 1.85:1, but not sure. It was definitely a more immersive presentation than all the Scope movies I've been seeing on that screen over the last few years.

JW was 2.00:1 inside a flat container with slim black bars at top and bottom. The theatre may have zoomed in to get rid of these black bars.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Zhorik

JW was 2.00:1 inside a flat container with slim black bars at top and bottom. The theatre may have zoomed in to get rid of these black bars.

Yep, very possible. It was an awesome theater experience. Wish more of these large scale productions would go for the taller aspect ratio given the way these PLF screens are built.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

Yep, very possible. It was an awesome theater experience. Wish more of these large scale productions would go for the taller aspect ratio given the way these PLF screens are built.

Unfortunately, where I live, all screens are scope. Only 1 or 2 single-screens are 2.20:1.

My point was why can't more movies fill the real IMAX screens with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 that'll look very tall, yet make a smooth transition to Blu-ray without much need for cropping.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Unfortunately, where I live, all screens are scope. Only 1 or 2 single-screens are 2.20:1.

My point was why can't more movies fill the real IMAX screens with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 that'll look very tall, yet make a smooth transition to Blu-ray without much need for cropping.

Cause not all D-Imax screens are the same. Regal D-Imax in Manassas looks very similar to Fairfax Cinemark's xD screen. However Regal RPX in Gainesville is a taller screen and could be retrofitted for Imax. But if go to AMC Tyson's corner and see the IMAX screen over there, it looks pretty big to me.

I am getting more annoyed with the audio systems of these theaters. They aren't outputting at correct levels and sound lower than usual. How do I know this? Because they play the trailers at full blast, including the Dunkirk preview. I think that AMC Prime and Udvar are the winners in delivering the audio correctly.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Interesting thing is the LieMAX at my local Regal is probably in the neighborhood of 1.66:1...it's taller than the 1.9:1 aspect of the typical LieMAX screen. It's also taller than the 1.85:1 RPX auditorium right next to it. But the projector is limited to 1.9:1.

I saw Interstellar on that screen and the IMAX sequences had a large black bar at the bottom of the screen. Kind of a weird experience. I suppose if they ever get an IMAX Laser projector, they could possibly take advantage of the remaining screen space.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Cause not all D-Imax screens are the same. Regal D-Imax in Manassas looks very similar to Fairfax Cinemark's xD screen. However Regal RPX in Gainesville is a taller screen and could be retrofitted for Imax. But if go to AMC Tyson's corner and see the IMAX screen over there, it looks pretty big to me.

I am getting more annoyed with the audio systems of these theaters. They aren't outputting at correct levels and sound lower than usual. How do I know this? Because they play the trailers at full blast, including the Dunkirk preview. I think that AMC Prime and Udvar are the winners in delivering the audio correctly.

Arclight Bethesda screen #6 'widescreen' has the best Dolby Atmos calibrated sound system in the DMV area in my opinion

Tysons IMAX is the best IMAX-digital screen due to its height - the audio though is a bit assaulting - I thought the audio during the last Transformers movie gave me a nosebleed. Cinemark XD screens at Fairfax Corner are also on the tall side.

All the screens at Arclight and the Angelika Mosaic (7.1) have excellent acoustics

[ITDEFX101]

You know what's weird about the IMAX screen in Manassas, the way the picture is projected. Whenever a scene that was filmed in IMAX goes full, the bars go away and the image goes full, except for the lower section. There is like maybe 3-6 feet that is left out . After I see a movie there I go to the front of the screen and look at why is that...and here is my theory. I think during the retrofit there was a design problem and they realized that if they had to project the film a little higher than usual because other wise when the film expands for Imax scenes it would hit the back of people's heads. If that was the case, that's one major **** up.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

You know what's weird about the IMAX screen in Manassas, the way the picture is projected. Whenever a scene that was filmed in IMAX goes full, the bars go away and the image goes full, except for the lower section. There is like maybe 3-6 feet that is left out . After I see a movie there I go to the front of the screen and look at why is that...and here is my theory. I think during the retrofit there was a design problem and they realized that if they had to project the film a little higher than usual because other wise when the film expands for Imax scenes it would hit the back of people's heads. If that was the case, that's one major **** up.

IMAX just builds the screens as tall as the room allows them to. They're not doing it to any kind of a specific aspect ratio aside from something that might look absurd.

[Visionist]

At the BFI the bottom of the 1:43 frame is very slightly obscured by the architecture of the bottom of the seating area, from where I like to sit (not too high up). The handrails are clearly silhouetted against the screen. I actually like it, it really drives the size of the image home.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

Jurassic World was shot 2.00:1 and it was nice to see a movie fill almost all of the RPX screen for once. Seems like everything else I've been watching at my local Regal is shot in Scope.

Jurassic World was shot primarily on Super 35 and Super 70 film. It was cropped to 2.00:1 in post, not shot that way.

Most scope movies are also shot flat, then cropped, as anamorphic glasses are expensive and produce distortions and lens flares that not many filmmakers like.

Almost all of my JW screenings were wrong projections. In scope theaters there were black bars at the sides as well as on top & bottom. So, the movie played like a small rectangle in the middle of the screen. Some theaters cropped it to 2.39:1, to fill their screen. The 2.20:1 screen still had black bars on all sides. But because it is taller than scope, the image had less black bars. I saw the film five times.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

From what I learned, both 'Star Trek Into Darkness' and 'The Force Awakens' was 1.66:1 in 15/70, not 1.43:1.

IMAX released full-height stills of Force Awakens, that's the first I've heard that its IMAX sequence was anything less than 1.44.

As for STID (I was referencing the nuthin-but-'scope Star Trek '09 above) I saw it in 15/70 and it filled the BFI IMAX screen ^ from floor to ceiling. From what we know, it was finished in 1.66 according to the AC article but the 15/70 1.44 version may well have been cropped out of that 1.66 finish. The BFI were asked what ratio it was in, dey said dis on faycebuk:

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Most scope movies are also shot flat, then cropped, as anamorphic glasses are expensive and produce distortions and lens flares that not many filmmakers like.

Don't you believe it. There was a bit of a drought for anamorphic as Super 35 really took over in the '90s and '00s and digital capture didn't really work all that well because of the 1.78 sensors not jiving with the traditional 2x glass (3.56:1 ratio, anyone? ). But anamorphic has made an explosive comeback in recent years with the advent of full-frame digital sensors which cover the traditional image circle. Even Ultra Panavision 70 is making a comeback thanks to the 5/65 and other large-format sized sensors that are more commonplace today.

I'm so used to seeing the elliptical bokeh and whatnot (even on TV shows e.g. True Detective, War and Peace, I even saw a freakin' documentary about some NASA thingy in proper anamorphic 'scope on TV the other day) that it seems strange to see something shot in flat widescreen 2.35 these days. I watched Split just yesterday and was like 'oooh, look at the round bokeh, what a novelty!'.

[Visionist]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

IMAX released full-height stills of Force Awakens, that's the first I've heard that its IMAX sequence was anything less than 1.44.

As for STID (I was referencing the nuthin-but-'scope Star Trek '09 above) I saw it in 15/70 and it filled the BFI IMAX screen ^ from floor to ceiling. From what we know, it was finished in 1.66 according to the AC article but the 15/70 1.44 version may well have been cropped out of that 1.66 finish.

I saw TFA at the science museum; pretty sure it completely filled the screen during the Falcon escape.

Was your STID BFI screening the one and only 2D showing they held? I saw it in 3D. Looked good with fantastic depth of field, but the IMAX luminosity I love was greatly reduced.