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

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Apart from the sound, I see very little reason to watch it on IMAX.

Seeing as it isn't Dolby Atmos even that reason disappears.


Edwards' Godzilla had an outstanding Atmos track.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Question, how expensive would it be to film the entire movie in IMAX? I am assuming this movie is going to make at least 1 billion total. I find it hard to believe that Marketing for a movie could cost just as much as the actual movie production.

That beach battle with the ATCTs could look impressive in IMAX with those being so huge.

Edwards has always shot digitally. It's not just about "expense" (it is, but not creatively), it's about whether or not Edwards' filmmaking process has developed around the tools digital provides that film, especially IMAX, does not. Slower set ups, camera reload delays, VHS quality/inaccurate playback, etc...

I know Nolan likes to make it seem like big budget = camera doesn't matter to a director, but that's insanely untrue.

[StarWarsIsAwesome123]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Seeing as it isn't Dolby Atmos even that reason disappears.


Edwards' Godzilla had an outstanding Atmos track.

Force awakens had Dolby Atmos and so have almost all blockbusters in the past few years so there is no reason in the world why rogue one won't follow suit. It definitely will.

[ManBeast]

The Dolby site says it is coming soon in Atmos.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by StarWarsIsAwesome123

Force awakens had Dolby Atmos and so have almost all blockbusters in the past few years so there is no reason in the world why rogue one won't follow suit. It definitely will.

Originally Posted by ManBeast

The Dolby site says it is coming soon in Atmos.

I was referring to the fact IMAX doesn't support Atmos.
They have their own 12 channel hard coded sound system (not object based).


If Rogue One is as aggressive in Atmos as Godzilla was, it would sound better than an IMAX presentation.

[StarWarsIsAwesome123]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I was referring to the fact IMAX doesn't support Atmos.
They have their own 12 channel hard coded sound system (not object based).


If Rogue One is as aggressive in Atmos as Godzilla was, it would sound better than an IMAX presentation.

Ah okay, thanks for clearing that up.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by StarWarsIsAwesome123

Force awakens had Dolby Atmos and so have almost all blockbusters in the past few years so there is no reason in the world why rogue one won't follow suit. It definitely will.

It will. Ticket sales here confirmed it Monday since they're listing showings with Atmos. (Netherlands, btw.)

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As with TFA, it seems as if the prints were created primarily for the non-digital/laser equipped IMAX venues just so they're able to show the movie. I think the BFI have snagged one just for the sake of it.

I'd love to see RO on 'regular' 70mm though.

Well, that and 2D obviously (as all digital screenings are 3D and will prob be the case too in THR US). And so that BFI don't have to play it on their Xenon 3D system - that's why they prob got it. Getting 70mm gives them a fair contest with the Leicester Sq IMAX now.

[xbs2034]

http://www.imax.com/news/advance-tic...-you-need-know

Includes list of 15/70 Rogue One locations for US/Canada (looks like just one Canadian location). Universal City Walk is the only one I can't tell isn't a museum site, and looks like a bunch of sites are Omnimax or IMAX dome (which I would not recommend watching a two hour movie in, but they've never converted to digital IMAX).

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

...tools digital provides that film, especially IMAX, does not. Slower set ups, camera reload delays, VHS quality/inaccurate playback, etc...

Film has VHS quality? It seems as if you've only seen film shot movies on VHS. Which means, you've either never seen a film shot feature after the end of the VHS era, or the cinemas you went to, projected VHS copies of films.

How could you even make such a statement, do you have any ties to digital camera manufacturers or what? When famous and experienced directors like Spielberg, Scorsese, P.T. Anderson, Abrams and Nolan, who have decades worth of experience, have praised film, how can you say it has "VHS quality"?
All raw footage needs processing before release, if that's what you're talking about.
Have you seen a raw digital footage from an Alexa? It looks like a nauseating gray mess.

EDIT: As UFAlien points out below, perhaps you were talking about monitor playback, in which case I misunderstood. But, it wasn't clear from your post whether you were strictly talking about monitor playback or film in general. Mocking Roll taken out.

[UFAlien]

Slow your mocking roll. He's talking about live on-set video playback monitors, "video assist." In modern filmmaking "VHS quality" is maybe a stretch, but it is significantly lower resolution and quality than the final filmed product and as such primarily used for framing, because it looks very little like the image being captured on film. Shooting with digital cinema cameras as opposed to film means the actual, high-quality live feed from the camera itself can be used on on-set monitors, providing a much more accurate view of what is being recorded.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

http://www.imax.com/news/advance-tic...-you-need-know

Includes list of 15/70 Rogue One locations for US/Canada (looks like just one Canadian location). Universal City Walk is the only one I can't tell isn't a museum site, and looks like a bunch of sites are Omnimax or IMAX dome (which I would not recommend watching a two hour movie in, but they've never converted to digital IMAX).

Uvar Hazy is not listed yet. :-|

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Slow your mocking roll. He's talking about live on-set video playback monitors, "video assist." In modern filmmaking "VHS quality" is maybe a stretch, but it is significantly lower resolution and quality than the final filmed product and as such primarily used for framing, because it looks very little like the image being captured on film. Shooting with digital cinema cameras as opposed to film means the actual, high-quality live feed from the camera itself can be used on on-set monitors, providing a much more accurate view of what is being recorded.

I've taken out the emoticon. However, a live feed from a digital camera will never look anywhere near as good as the finished product. As I mentioned in my earlier post, a raw digital video looks like an ugly, flat/dull gray mess. It is only after extensive DI polish that it looks usable. The video monitor for the live digital camera feed should look equally dull as well.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I've taken out the emoticon. However, a live feed from a digital camera will never look anywhere near as good as the finished product. As I mentioned in my earlier post, a raw digital video looks like an ugly, flat/dull gray mess. It is only after extensive DI polish that it looks usable. The video monitor for the live digital camera feed should look equally dull as well.

This is why the onset DIT's usually apply a corrective LUT (created in consultation with the DP) to the raw images precisely so that they don't look flat and dull for playback. No, it's not the finished product but it helps to give them an idea of what they're aiming for. Just FYI.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

This is why the onset DIT's usually apply a corrective LUT (created in consultation with the DP) to the raw images precisely so that they don't look flat and dull for playback. No, it's not the finished product but it helps to give them an idea of what they're aiming for. Just FYI.

Yup. Even my consumer Sony a6300 has a nifty little playback feature that makes the display image look "normal" when I'm shooting in S-Log so that I'm generally aware of what the image will look like after slapping on a standardized LUT. As a youngin' fresh outta film school and just having interned on a 35mm set where I hung out with the film loader most of the time, the process of shooting on film is definitely different than how I learned and a lot of the tools I take for granted aren't around. That's not even including how many times the camera broke down or film was jammed that would cost the production a few set ups a day. It all looked very unappealing to me and the rest of the fresh blood on set.

Riddhi, I was indeed referring to playback. I was a film projectionist for a bit in college and even had the pleasure of running some changeover machines. I'm aware of it's pluses and minuses.

[Geoff D]

Indeedy, it's no wonder some directors jumped ship to digital just as soon as they possibly could (and I don't just mean Lucas but Robert Rodriguez, Michael Mann, even Roger Deakins hasn't got much time for film these days) because they were sick of having to wrestle with film's foibles to get the work done. Sure, it's not like they were special cases or anything as film is what it is and people just got on with it for almost a century, but the times they are a' changin'.

As for breakdowns, I hear those IMAX 65mm bodies are also right bastards to maintain, to the point where Nolan has a 35mm camera fully loaded and ready to go at all times should the IMAX ones break down completely.

[Riddhi2011]

I think because of the different textural/aesthetic/longevity value of film, also the high resolution and detail of IMAX 15/70 film, Kodak needs to improve the infrastructure around such productions so as to keep film alive and keep filmmakers committed to film (those who are still using it and those that want to). The problems associated with a celluloid production as SpikeM pointed out should be addressed by Kodak, IMAX. Because at the end of the day, this is all a business and convenience is key. People would not care as much about an aesthetic when they face too much difficulties.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Uvar Hazy is not listed yet. :-|

The Smithsonian Facebook pages denotes both the in town DC Lockheed screen and Udvar Hazy location will be showing this

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Uvar Hazy is not listed yet. :-|

Uvar Hazy isn't playing it in 15/70, they are an IMAX laser location (that's the format I got tickets for also, Friday evening at Lincoln Square).
Also, looks like Rogue One will be a Dolby Vision 3D release at some Dolby Cinema locations based on what Fandango has listed, think that might make it the second Dolby Vision 3D title after The Jungle Book.

[ITDEFX101]

So it's going to be presented in letterbox at Uvar just like STB... shit....

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Uvar Hazy isn't playing it in 15/70, they are an IMAX laser location (that's the format I got tickets for also, Friday evening at Lincoln Square).
Also, looks like Rogue One will be a Dolby Vision 3D release at some Dolby Cinema locations based on what Fandango has listed, think that might make it the second Dolby Vision 3D title after The Jungle Book.