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

[Geoff D]

Hawks breathe quite a bit as well when racking focus, something that Panavision glass has long had a handle on.

[xbs2034]

Based on the Sela interview (where he talks about doing digital for his last four movies after having shot film before), no Kodak film logo on the end credits, and no mention on the Kodak Reel Film website (though they are often behind on updates there), I'm gonna assume Deadpool 2 was mostly shot with Alexa.

It certainly is possible if not likely they mixed in shots/sequences on film, and may also have added grain in post to the Alexa footage to try and match 35mm material better, though I didn't feel like it had the clear look of film throughout as On Chesil Beach did (which I also saw this week, and did have the Kodak film logo in the credits). For what's it worth, IMDB's tech specs lists Super 35 being used for "some scenes" and mentions both 35mm and 3.4k as negative formats.

[UFAlien]

Just saw Deadpool 2 and the vast majority of the movie definitely looked like Alexa footage to me. A handful of shots presumably done on Super 35 that were obviously film, such as the scene with the acoustic version of "Take on Me" playing - you know the one.

[Creed]

First Man - Official Trailer (HD) - YouTube

Select scenes filmed with IMAX cameras. Experience it in IMAX.

[GenPion]

Wow! It looks amazing. I had no doubts give the filmmaker but that was a great trailer!

[Eric The Duke]

IMAX digital camera or the 70MM film camera?

[Poya]

It’s being presented in IMAX 70mm in select theaters, so that’s a clue.

[Gacivory]

The director is hardcore film dude. I would assume and hope 70mm film!

https://theplaylist.net/first-man-imax-20180406/

According to this link he is using 70mm.

[Pieter V]

Better quality trailer:

https://trailers.apple.com/trailers/...sal/first-man/

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

The director is hardcore film dude. I would assume and hope 70mm film!

https://theplaylist.net/first-man-imax-20180406/

According to this link he is using 70mm.

According to that link BR2049, Ragnarok and Black Panther all "expanded their vision with IMAX cameras"....ummmm nope. Expanded AR yes, but only because they literally just unmatted the letterboxed image which was originally framed for.

Intrigued that First Man is apparently coming in 15/70, I might have to schlep into London to see it at the BFI, provided that they don't pull a fast one with a 2K digital presentation.

[xbs2034]

Sounds like First Man doesn't use much native IMAX footage, just a "special sequence" (probably like Force Awakens).
https://mobile.twitter.com/imax/stat...45912380129280

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nx5uYGiPjA8
(Look at the description for the IMAX trailer)

Assuming it's not an R rated movie, does seem like a good selection for museum sites, which is where I imagine most film prints (if it gets any) would come from.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Eric The Duke

IMAX digital camera or the 70MM film camera?

Most likely IMAX film.

As for a 15/70 release, expect it to be rare as f*ck as usual.

[ITDEFX101]

So if 3D wasn't shoved down our throat on a yearly basis, now we have IMAX DMR movies that don't look any better, but honestly sound really good (when the local theater doesn't drop the volume because people complain it's too loud).
I really wish there was more of an explanation to this process...this video doesn't say shit to me.

IMAX® 101 DMR - YouTube

[Riddhi2011]

First Man is mostly shot on techniscope (2-perf 35mm) and the telltale signs of that are clear enough (very tight framing, image not having as much detail as 35mm anamorphic, etc). I guess they used that to cut production costs as the film would need a lot of visual effects.

Look at the rounded black corners on the widescreen frame. It's a cheaper alternative to anamorphic and you can use a lot more film stock per minute.
First Man 2-perf techniscope copy.jpg

I wonder how the 2-perf image will hold-up on a 15-perf frame.

Also, IMAX film cameras are expensive. And, it's just one scene.
I hope Chazelle doesn't crop the IMAX footage to 2.40:1, like The Last Jedi. Then it's absolutely not worth going to IMAX.

[Geoff D]

Well, twice as much stock as 4-perf, yeah. So a 10-minute mag will last 20m, David O. Russell has used Techniscope for several of his movies in recent years precisely because he likes being able to use it for longer before reloading.

Not sure that shooting 2-perf adversely affects the way they frame it though as widescreen is widescreen, if people's foreheads and chins are cut off then that's par for the course. The movie's underlying aesthetic has that documentary-style wobbly-cam feel to it so that doesn't help with the sense of it being cramped, but shooting anamorphic would give you no more leeway at all. You'd probably get less due to the reduced depth of field, as a result you rarely see an anamorphic movie shot in that sort of style.

Anyhoo, I've seen several movies shot Super 35 blown up to 15-70 IMAX and they were fine (even something shot 1080p on Genesis) and as Techniscope is the slightly smaller brother of a 2.40 S35 extraction then I think it'll be fine as long as they're using the negative for the DMR transfer.

[Riddhi2011]

What I was suggesting is because 2-perf is such a small film area, they need to keep the camera a lot more closer to the subject, to capture more resolution in the frame. If they shoot wide, I think that might be a disadvantage. With bigger film formats, the detail is much more and the frame isn't as cramped. You get more reframing possibilities with Super35 or 65mm. This is not the case with techniscope.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

So if 3D wasn't shoved down our throat on a yearly basis, now we have IMAX DMR movies that don't look any better, but honestly sound really good (when the local theater doesn't drop the volume because people complain it's too loud).
I really wish there was more of an explanation to this process...this video doesn't say shit to me.
IMAX® 101 DMR - YouTube

good lord, that's overly simplified ... I like IMAX, but I'll have to say Dolby Cinema (with Atmos sound) has taken the gauntlet away.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

good lord, that's overly simplified ... I like IMAX, but I'll have to say Dolby Cinema (with Atmos sound) has taken the gauntlet away.

I need to go back to AMC Tyson's and rewatch a movie in Dolby.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

What I was suggesting is because 2-perf is such a small film area, they need to keep the camera a lot more closer to the subject, to capture more resolution in the frame. If they shoot wide, I think that might be a disadvantage. With bigger film formats, the detail is much more and the frame isn't as cramped. You get more reframing possibilities with Super35 or 65mm. This is not the case with techniscope.

You talk about 2-perf like it's 16mm, it's nothing of the sort, and they'd still be using the same lenses as with any other 35mm flick shot flat because of the need to cover the wider image circle (same width as 1.85 with the sound offset). As for reframing that's fine, but we're talking about how the images are being composed first and foremost, not whether they can fudge it later. But then again 5-perf 65mm also gives you very little room to manoeuvre, the frames being edge to edge (which is why most of those pictures were cut to A & B rolls) and you certainly can't reframe that as you can a 4-perf S35 show.

You only need to watch any of Leone's Dollars trilogy to see that Techniscope can do glorious widescreen vistas, amazing close-ups and everything else in-between, and it's still capable of capturing very sharp detail. It increasingly fell out of favour when the faster stocks rode into town in the late '70s/early '80s because of how the grain got jacked up (Leone was probably shooting on 50 speed stock, maybe even 25), but by the time the grain had been tamed on those faster stocks in the very late '80s Super 35 had become the flavour of the month for shooting "poor man's widescreen". Thanks to how the modern DI works directly from the negative Techniscope has enjoyed a bit of a renaissance in recent years. Jesus, even Super 16 plumbed straight into a DI looks far better than it has any right to, like most of Darren Aronofsky's recent flicks.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I need to go back to AMC Tyson's and rewatch a movie in Dolby.

the last movie I saw in Dolby Cinema was 'Titanic' last year - and wow, was it a treat~!

I read recently that AMC is going to start converting their IMAX Digital systems over to laser/12-channel ~ and with Tyson's being the highest grossing theater in the DMV area, I'm sure they are plans in the near future for it's conversion. Once that happens that will stop me from frequenting Udvar Hazy which is a further trek for me.