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

[Riddhi2011]

Creed II is getting an IMAX release. Are they expanding the aspect ratio to 1.89:1? It'd be cool because all 'Rocky' films were 1.85:1.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Creed II is getting an IMAX release. Are they expanding the aspect ratio to 1.89:1? It'd be cool because all 'Rocky' films were 1.85:1.

Unlikely as the IMAX release was a last minute deal (probably to do with Fantastic Beasts not doing as much business as they expected).

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Plenty of opened up 1.77 stills in the link above, CG or no CG. Still got nothing to do with true IMAX either way but then what does these days aside from Nolan wheeling out his latest movie? Just another add-on that makes for great marketing sizzle but means ****-all.

I prefer taller aspect ratios over scope as the former is more photographic and natural-looking. So, expanded or flat, it works for me!

[Geoff D]

It's not the taller ratio itself I have a problem with, it's composing for one ratio and protecting for another which is basically what modern IMAX is all about. In the cinema, on a massive screen, your eyes can't take it all in at once so the extra peripheral information (all 26% of it!) adds to the effect and doesn't play like dead space, but in the home it literally looks like an open-matte TV presentation and distracts the heck out of me.

[Creed]

A Star Is Born is getting a limited IMAX release for a week only. Damn, is the weekend that lackluster?

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Creed

A Star Is Born is getting a limited IMAX release for a week only. Damn, is the weekend that lackluster?

Great...another DRM IMAX Movie...

[Dreamliner330]

IMAX mostly dropping 3D really sucks.

I don’t want to watch 3D on some small, dark screen with crappy sound in some crappy room. IMAX and very few other premium rooms actually have enough brightness to make theatrical 3D awesome.

Most 3D-Whiners haven’t see 3D IMAX glory.

Aquamam isn’t getting 3D IMAX and Bumblebee isn’t getting premium screens at all. I’ve barely went to the theater this year because of this nonsense.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

IMAX mostly dropping 3D really sucks.

I don’t want to watch 3D on some small, dark screen with crappy sound in some crappy room. IMAX and very few other premium rooms actually have enough brightness to make theatrical 3D awesome.

Most 3D-Whiners haven’t see 3D IMAX glory.

Aquamam isn’t getting 3D IMAX and Bumblebee isn’t getting premium screens at all. I’ve barely went to the theater this year because of this nonsense.

The powers-that-be want you to feel disappointed enough so that you will give up on 3D. But, the problem is that due to lack of 3D, theatre attendance is dropping.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not the taller ratio itself I have a problem with, it's composing for one ratio and protecting for another which is basically what modern IMAX is all about. In the cinema, on a massive screen, your eyes can't take it all in at once so the extra peripheral information (all 26% of it!) adds to the effect and doesn't play like dead space, but in the home it literally looks like an open-matte TV presentation and distracts the heck out of me.

I think if it's intended for a taller aspect ratio, it should be composed as such. The composition should be for IMAX while the smaller ratios should be a cropped down version of that. However, sometimes that open-matte really does feel expansive, when the scope version feels just normal. Composition is the key. I like how Guillermo Del Toro shoots so wide. Scope extractions can easily be made from his movies and they won't look too tight.
I loved how the IMAX portions of M:I-Fallout felt so immersive, expansive and vertigo-inducing. The scope version also had a large framing but it is the IMAX where I truly felt the expansion. This is funny since the 4K scope version I saw was in an ex-IMAX 15-70 auditorium, while the digital IMAX version I saw was in a small screen; 1/4th the size of the scope one. But I preferred the IMAX composition.

[Scorpion Soldier]

As expected with Marvel/IMAX, but here's official confirmation:

@IMAX
Who’s excited about the NEW trailer for @CaptainMarvel? We are and we also have big news! #CaptainMarvel will feature up to 26% more picture, only in IMAX theatres when it releases starting March 8.

https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/1069785761942126592

[Riddhi2011]

With Marvel, all movies are the same - Same cameras, same aspect ratios. They could try to bring in a little variety, such as using real IMAX film cameras or a ratio taller than 1.9:1. However, it's great they're still keeping the IMAX 3D and BD 3D options alive.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

IMAX mostly dropping 3D really sucks.

I don’t want to watch 3D on some small, dark screen with crappy sound in some crappy room. IMAX and very few other premium rooms actually have enough brightness to make theatrical 3D awesome.

Most 3D-Whiners haven’t see 3D IMAX glory.

Aquamam isn’t getting 3D IMAX and Bumblebee isn’t getting premium screens at all. I’ve barely went to the theater this year because of this nonsense.

Aquaman is playing in IMAX 3D in the US, but it looks like it is on a per theater case and there are more showing it in 2D than 3D (still an improvement on Justice League which was just 2D IMAX).

One thing I hate is how all the Christmas releases are doing preview screenings (makes sense, the release window is too crowded and it's a way to build up buzz) but they are doing everything just in standard format.

[rwc]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

IMAX mostly dropping 3D really sucks.

I don’t want to watch 3D on some small, dark screen with crappy sound in some crappy room. IMAX and very few other premium rooms actually have enough brightness to make theatrical 3D awesome.

Most 3D-Whiners haven’t see 3D IMAX glory.

Aquamam isn’t getting 3D IMAX and Bumblebee isn’t getting premium screens at all. I’ve barely went to the theater this year because of this nonsense.

I can’t believe they’re not offering you IMAX 3D for Aquaman after all the international promo, not even a few showings, that’s insane. If I were you I would write to your local IMAX theatre about your concern, as well as to IMAX USA HQ (based on my experience writing to Paris and Geneva IMAXs, you’d be surprised how it can make a difference), and then pay to see it in a regular 3D theatre - that’s the only way you can signal to them their mistake and your demand for 3D. Get friends/family to do the same if they feel the same.
Honestly if you don’t ask, I don’t think you can expect to get at this point, unfortunately; there’s no other way of showing your preference if they no longer offer the option in the first place.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

The powers-that-be want you to feel disappointed enough so that you will give up on 3D.

Absolutely; problem is, the powers-that-be in the movie industry (not the home video industry) seem to change their minds a lot on this issue. Good illustration of this:

Ridley Scott: I wanted to shoot Covenant in 3D, but somebody supposedly wiser than us up there decided that the days of 3D might be over, and therefore we didn’t do that. Now, of course, it’s finished and somebody mumbled, ‘Can we do this in 3D?’ I said, ‘Well, it’s a bit late, dude.’
- American Cinematographer, June 2017

[jm149]

I've noticed both AMCs near me have been trending toward IMAX 2D over 3D for the last year or so now. Clearly for them to make this shift, the 3D numbers must have been underwhelming and they decided 2D would yield better results. It would be pure speculation as to why audiences didn't take to 3D... lack of quality, additional ticket surcharge, feels gimmicky, etc.

I can speak for myself and a few family/friends, the primary factor for us is simply that we don't like wearing the glasses (especially since I wear regular glasses). We typically prioritize IMAX when possible for movies, but if it's in IMAX 3D I find myself just seeing it in a smaller regular auditorium.

Even after 10+ years, 3D does still feel like mostly an optional add-on novelty that (most of the time) doesn't really add much -- I find that the large IMAX screen and kick-ass audio are plenty to get me immersed into the movie without needing 3D. Besides Avatar and Gravity, two 3D experiences that I do very much cherish, I think most movies are frankly more enjoyable in 2D.

[rwc]

Originally Posted by jm149

Clearly for them to make this shift, the 3D numbers must have been underwhelming and they decided 2D would yield better results.

I can’t comment on the numbers. But for the record, decisions in the movie industry are often far from logical and made in spite of evidence, with execs making the mistake of ‘second-guessing’ the market. The way titles have been chosen for 4K UHD release is one of the many recent examples. As for choices made by cinema programmers, see below*

Originally Posted by jm149

I can speak for myself and a few family/friends, the primary factor for us is simply that we don't like wearing the glasses
[...] I find that the large IMAX screen and kick-ass audio are plenty to get me immersed into the movie without needing 3D. Besides Avatar and Gravity, two 3D experiences that I do very much cherish, I think most movies are frankly more enjoyable in 2D.

You and those you know are absolutely entitled to that preference. I totally get how annoying it must be to wear glasses over glasses (luckily I have lenses), to simply prefer 2D etc etc. BUT this divergence of preferences is exactly why the market needs choice! A healthy variety of IMAX 2D and 3D showings should be offered if the film has been prepared for those formats.


*I’ve got a personal example that’s multilayered: the head of programming for a group that owns multiple cinemas in my region (who isn’t all that competent) tried to eliminate 3D earlier this year; he is known to personally dislike 3D and had never really given it a chance. Numbers were becoming disastrous and he couldn’t figure out why. I lobbied him to add some 3D showings for films released in 3D after he’d skipped some. At first he claimed that people actively didn’t want it.
So I encouraged him to add just one showing of each film in 3D on the weekend, to test the waters. Within 3 months he noticed that the one-off 3D showings were consistently packed. By the summer he was adding multiple 3D sessions again. Then came along M:I Fallout, and as I’ve previously mentioned, the guy - a programmer for multiple cineplexes - literally didn’t even know there was a 3D option... another example of why contacting cinemas to ask for 3D is worthwhile.
The one-off 3D showings for Venom and Smallfoot were both packed in their first week and led him to offer more than one in the second week. But when Fantastic Beasts 2 came along, his personal preference got the better of him again and he chose not to release it locally in 3D, believing that the franchise status would guarantee attendance; meanwhile the IMAX cinema did offer 3D. He immediately regretted his decision, as pretty much everyone who wanted to see it went to the IMAX 3D. As a result of the disastrous 2D-only week, he put EVERY showing of the film in 3D in the second week; of course by then it was too late, those who wanted to see it had already. But it served as a reminder for him to offer 3D.
For Nutcracker & The Four Realms in 3D he offered just one 3D showing in the week, and it was packed, to the point that again he made a film’s second week entirely 3D. He doesn’t seem to understand the concept of offering a healthy balance of 3D/2D options from the start but he’ll get there meanwhile the IMAX always offers both and is consistently frequented
Takeaways?
1) Lobbying your cinema is worthwhile
2) Programming decisions can be misinformed and/or arbitrary
3) More options offered = more personal preferences met.

[testmon112]

Damn, 15/70 really needs more directors to take a crack at it or else IMAX digital marketing scheme will have some substance to it.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by testmon112

Damn, 15/70 really needs more directors to take a crack at it or else IMAX digital marketing scheme will have some substance to it.

Even when the Lunar sequence on First Man (2018) was shot on IMAX 70mm cameras, Universal didn't make any 15/70 prints. And, there was reportedly only one IMAX Laser DCP with the 1.43:1 ratio. All other IMAX DCPs were limited to 1.89:1. If I am wrong, someone do correct me.

Actual IMAX film cameras are rarely used for features, so it never gained that popularity, either because of rental charges and/or lack of convenience in handling such huge cameras (noise, weight, loading time, et all).

But, there should be no problem with shooting on VistaVision and blowing up the image on 15 perf IMAX. Nolan has done it on many of his films. VistaVision is 1.50:1, while IMAX is 1.43:1. So, only a little bit needs to be chopped from the sides of the VV footage.
There is also the AlexaLF. While it's just a cropped version of the Alexa65 sensor, blowing up 4.4K to IMAX Laser 1.43:1 (dual 4K projection) wouldn't be at all problematic, I think.
All that is needed is filmmakers willing to use the format to its full potential.

[UFAlien]

There's also the 8-perf 65mm format. Technically called Dynavision but usually referred to as Iwerks because that's the company that makes most of the compatible equipment. Same width as standard 65mm, and runs vertically as opposed to horizontally like IMAX, but it's eight perforations high instead of the normal five. That gives it a 1.37:1 native ratio and over twice the total frame area/theoretical resolution of VistaVision.

8/65 film has been used for certain shots in a lot of the movies that shot with real IMAX cameras as a lighter, quieter alternative that's close enough in quality that most people won't notice. Theoretically speaking there's no reason you couldn't just shoot a whole feature on the format.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by testmon112

Damn, 15/70 really needs more directors to take a crack at it or else IMAX digital marketing scheme will have some substance to it.

What do you mean, "will have"? IMAX is, as of now, a de facto digital format for both capture and projection. The 15/70 film version is all but dead for projection (only wheeled out now for IMAX museum venues that lack any kind of digital projector) and for capture it doesn't fare much better. Even the 1.44 ratio - which isn't "exclusive" to 15-perf per se - is rarely used any more.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Even when the Lunar sequence on First Man (2018) was shot on IMAX 70mm cameras, Universal didn't make any 15/70 prints. And, there was reportedly only one IMAX Laser DCP with the 1.43:1 ratio. All other IMAX DCPs were limited to 1.89:1. If I am wrong, someone do correct me.

Actual IMAX film cameras are rarely used for features, so it never gained that popularity, either because of rental charges and/or lack of convenience in handling such huge cameras (noise, weight, loading time, et all).

But, there should be no problem with shooting on VistaVision and blowing up the image on 15 perf IMAX. Nolan has done it on many of his films. VistaVision is 1.50:1, while IMAX is 1.43:1. So, only a little bit needs to be chopped from the sides of the VV footage.
There is also the AlexaLF. While it's just a cropped version of the Alexa65 sensor, blowing up 4.4K to IMAX Laser 1.43:1 (dual 4K projection) wouldn't be at all problematic, I think.
All that is needed is filmmakers willing to use the format to its full potential.

When Claudio Miranda was doing camera tests prior to shooting Tomorrowland he had the idea of using a 1.33x anamorphic lens turned through 90 degrees so it would 'squeeze' a taller image onto the wider 17:9 capture mode of the Sony F65, it would be roughly 17:12 or 1.41 which would be ideal for capturing the taller IMAX format 'natively' on a very high quality camera, rather than taking something with a smaller 4:3 sensor and blowing that up for IMAX.

They didn't use it in the end, opting for spherical capture framed for 2.20 with an exclusive 1.90 IMAX opened up version, but it's a nice idea. Trouble is, with IMAX looking to quietly phase out 1.44 then what's the point of going to these lengths? I think that alone is why 15-perf 65mm is getting such little love, it's an extraordinary capture format but is an absolute pain the arse to use. Yes we've just had it deployed on First Man, yes Wondy 2 will be using it as well, but when you can grab a DSLR and slap a sticker on it and market it as 'IMAX' capture then the sizzle greatly outperforms the steak.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...but when you can grab a DSLR and slap a sticker on it and market it as 'IMAX' capture then the sizzle greatly outperforms the steak.

Yes. That'll be that, next. 1080p IMAX has already happened with Avatar (arguably the most successful IMAX feature), Tron: Legacy and now Alita: Battle Angel.

Heck, I myself have entertained such a thought . I can't afford anything better than a DSLR at the moment.