IMAX Enhanced

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Waboman

It plays into the mentality that more = more = better. The focus is on his expression, not all the junk around him. The widescreen scope ratio fixes in on his face and eyes. That is what the DP wanted you to consider.


It's the same issue as something like Blade Runner 2049. By opening up the frame, the focus of the shot is lost.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I think Sony's upcoming 4K Blu-rays being "IMAX Enhanced" doesn't mean anything. It's probably going to be like the Superbit DVD days, or the "Mastered in 4K" Blu-rays from previous years. It's more marketing gimmick to give people the impression that their discs have an edge in quality over other studios.

It doesn't guarantee an "open matte" version of movies, which incredibly, so many people these days think IMAX owns the "full screen ratio". It also doesn't guarantee HDR10+, and we lose Dolby Vision HDR and Dolby Atmos because IMAX and Dolby are rivals. So what we get instead is the DTS:X soundtrack.

Indeedy. What I find interesting about Sony being so gung-ho for this 'IMAX Enhanced' shite is that, yes, they came up with gimmicks before like la Superbit but they were THEIR gimmicks, not anyone else's. They certainly didn't give a crap about THX, and have been using their Super Bit Mapping tech to provide superior gradations on their Blu-rays for years. While they master most or all of their HDR content with Dolby workflow and tools at source they've been reticent to actually use Dolby Vision on disc, IIRC they're barely into double figures (if at all) for UHDs that have DV and they're all new releases, no catalogue stuff at all.

So what's baking my noodle is that they've suddenly decided to go all in with IE, shunning superior tech like Dobly for the sake of putting a sticker on the front. Admittedly it's not a major loss when we're only talking about a handful of Sony DV discs anyway but what makes me do a sad is that it's now guaran-damn-teed that there will be no more Sony discs with DV. It's like their execs said "right, we need a gimmick to get people buying these discs but we don't want to spend a lot of money and/or have some kind of fancy proprietary encoding involved". I mean, out of ALL the studios involved in UHD disc then Sony are the least in need of any kind of pre-processing juju to make them look betterer. It's so ****ing strange.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Indeedy. What I find interesting about Sony being so gung-ho for this 'IMAX Enhanced' shite is that, yes, they came up with gimmicks before like la Superbit but they were THEIR gimmicks, not anyone else's. They certainly didn't give a crap about THX, and have been using their Super Bit Mapping tech to provide superior gradations on their Blu-rays for years. While they master most or all of their HDR content with Dolby workflow and tools at source they've been reticent to actually use Dolby Vision on disc, IIRC they're barely into double figures (if at all) for UHDs that have DV and they're all new releases, no catalogue stuff at all.

So what's baking my noodle is that they've suddenly decided to go all in with IE, shunning superior tech like Dobly for the sake of putting a sticker on the front. Admittedly it's not a major loss when we're only talking about a handful of Sony DV discs anyway but what makes me do a sad is that it's now guaran-damn-teed that there will be no more Sony discs with DV. It's like their execs said "right, we need a gimmick to get people buying these discs but we don't want to spend a lot of money and/or have some kind of fancy proprietary encoding involved". I mean, out of ALL the studios involved in UHD disc then Sony are the least in need of any kind of pre-processing juju to make them look betterer. It's so ****ing strange.

One thing slightly related I find pretty odd is the format company near allegiance and flipping. Eg DVDs were 95% Dolby, then Blu-Rays were 95% DTS, then UHD is 95% Dolby. IE seems like some "desperate" grab for DTS to claw a bit more market share.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

One thing slightly related I find pretty odd is the format company near allegiance and flipping. Eg DVDs were 95% Dolby, then Blu-Rays were 95% DTS, then UHD is 95% Dolby. IE seems like some "desperate" grab for DTS to claw a bit more market share.

That in itself isn't so odd, these things will always flip-flop as formats change and one company gets ahead of the other. But yeah, DTS were struggling badly for relevance in the UHD era and now they're finally part of the conversation thanks to the IE gimmick.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That in itself isn't so odd, these things will always flip-flop as formats change and one company gets ahead of the other. But yeah, DTS were struggling badly for relevance in the UHD era and now they're finally part of the conversation thanks to the IE gimmick.

Aside from the whole IE gimmick, I'm still ticked at DTS for some of the DTS UHD releases they did do, namely the few idiotic DTS-X HRA constant bit rate release (two of the Fast series at least) that A) would have been smaller if variable bit rate lossless DTS-X MA, and B) No receiver could play (and my top end Anthem still can't and I'm waiting on their frigging firmware update). NOW we hear that part of this imax "enhanced" is a new lossy DTS-X codec that I bet will once again cause issues with receivers - when even their old lossy one still isn't handled...

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It plays into the mentality that more = more = better. The focus is on his expression, not all the junk around him. The widescreen scope ratio fixes in on his face and eyes. That is what the DP wanted you to consider.


It's the same issue as something like Blade Runner 2049. By opening up the frame, the focus of the shot is lost.

They should be arrested, putting actual guns to the head of people and forcing them to make different versions!
Disney love being IMAX shills!!
It's not like 2 of the Star Wars movies where in scope or anything!
Plus it looked better in laser, one of the jokes played better in that ratio and the 12 channel mix was miles better.
Deakins did his stuff his way, opened up to avoid DMR.

[BozQ]

I find it hilarious, and exhausting how so many people think that shooting with the Alexa 65/IMAX means the movie was shot with 1.90:1 aspect ratio, without realising the open gate aspect ratio is 2.11:1, or realising that even at 1.90:1, the image is cropped.

Lots of movies now shoot with the Alexa 65/IMAX cameras, and they end up with 2.39:1. Rogue One is a fine example. In fact, that was shot with anamorphic lenses.

And it works the other way too. You don't need an "IMAX" camera to have the "IMAX" ratio. 1.90:1 is no different with 1.85:1 ratio that's been standard in regular cinemas for decades. Any aspect ratio switching is at the filmmakers' discretion. Guardians of the Galaxy in IMAX 3D was personally supervised by James Gunn, the way he wanted it. And he used none of the "IMAX" cameras.

So stop thinking that having a taller ratio is "better" only because it fills your 40 inch TV. It's 2.39:1 for specific creative reasons. And if you're asking, "why shoot with Alexa 65 IMAX if not for the taller ratio?", That's because the larger 65mm sensor has a different way of capturing images than a 35mm or smaller digital sensor. If you know photography, you should know the difference between shooting on a full frame sensor and cropped sensor. Same logic applies.

Sony's partnership with IMAX to release IMAX Enhanced discs is our loss. We lose dynamic HDR with Dolby Vision, we lose a more dynamic immersive soundtracks with Dolby Atmos.

I am not even convinced they do anything behind the scenes to "IMAX Enhance" the movie before releasing it on 4K disc.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I find it hilarious, and exhausting how so many people think that shooting with the Alexa 65/IMAX means the movie was shot with 1.90:1 aspect ratio, without realising the open gate aspect ratio is 2.11:1, or realising that even at 1.90:1, the image is cropped.

Lots of movies now shoot with the Alexa 65/IMAX cameras, and they end up with 2.39:1. Rogue One is a fine example. In fact, that was shot with anamorphic lenses.

And it works the other way too. You don't need an "IMAX" camera to have the "IMAX" ratio. 1.90:1 is no different with 1.85:1 ratio that's been standard in regular cinemas for decades. Any aspect ratio switching is at the filmmakers' discretion. Guardians of the Galaxy in IMAX 3D was personally supervised by James Gunn, the way he wanted it. And he used none of the "IMAX" cameras.

So stop thinking that having a taller ratio is "better" only because it fills your 40 inch TV. It's 2.39:1 for specific creative reasons.

Sony's partnership with IMAX to release IMAX Enhanced discs is our loss. We lose dynamic HDR with Dolby Vision, we lose a more dynamic immersive soundtracks with Dolby Atmos.

I am not even convinced they do anything behind the scenes to "IMAX Enhance" the movie before releasing it on 4K disc.

Lol

Specs = better

The most embarrassing argument here.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Terminator: Dark Fate *is* IMAX Enhanced - on FandangoNow.

Needless to say I'll be buying the disc and redeeming the digital code on Vudu where it's DV & Atmos.

What soundtrack is TDF on FandangoNow?

[Lee A Stewart]

The IMAX is 15/70 film.

[BozQ]

Yes. *The* real IMAX, the one that got them famous, was 15 perf 70mm film, which results in an image with 1.43:1 aspect ratio.

But IMAX is discreetly replacing 70mm projectors with Laser projectors.

They claim that with Laser, they are able to retain the same 1.43:1 aspect ratio. But what I found out recently is they rolled out two different versions of IMAX Laser. The IMAX Laser GT system, which uses two projectors, and 6P dichroic glasses for 3D. And a singe laser projector, using circular polarising glasses for 3D.

The single Laser for whatever reason, is 1.90:1 ratio only. And it's not a whole lot better than digital IMAX Xenon.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

Aside from the whole IE gimmick, I'm still ticked at DTS for some of the DTS UHD releases they did do, namely the few idiotic DTS-X HRA constant bit rate release (two of the Fast series at least) that A) would have been smaller if variable bit rate lossless DTS-X MA, and B) No receiver could play (and my top end Anthem still can't and I'm waiting on their frigging firmware update). NOW we hear that part of this imax "enhanced" is a new lossy DTS-X codec that I bet will once again cause issues with receivers - when even their old lossy one still isn't handled...

It's not a new codec at all, that's the funny thing. It's just the DTS theatrical mix (apparently) put into the DTS:X container and there haven't been any reported issues with it, apart from how it deactivates all your EQ. Again, apparently.

BTW I had the same issue with the lossy DTS:X on Furiouses 6 & 7 on a Denon AVR, this was corrected in firmware a while ago though. Sorry you're still waiting on it. Though to be fair Universal only did it for those two movies for whatever reasons, there are some very odd choices on there in general like giving the extended cut of F6 a lossy 768 kb/s DTS 5.1 track only.

Originally Posted by BozQ

Yes. *The* real IMAX, the one that got them famous, was 15 perf 70mm film, which results in an image with 1.43:1 aspect ratio.

But IMAX is discreetly replacing 70mm projectors with Laser projectors.

They claim that with Laser, they are able to retain the same 1.43:1 aspect ratio. But what I found out recently is they rolled out two different versions of IMAX Laser. The IMAX Laser GT system, which uses two projectors, and 6P dichroic glasses for 3D. And a singe laser projector, using circular polarising glasses for 3D.

The single Laser for whatever reason, is 1.90:1 ratio only. And it's not a whole lot better than digital IMAX Xenon.

The full fat Laser version is the one they rolled out first, then they brought in the single laser version for smaller venues and lesser installs. I don't think that's a bad thing per se, if it means more venues can break away from having the overlapped 2K xenon projektors.

Personally I think that the 1.44 AR doesn't really enter into IMAX's thinking any more, they're keeping it going in 'legacy' laser installs but for new theatres and 'LieMAX' makeovers of old ones then 1.90 is the default. It's so rare that filmmakers actually use 15-perf 65mm these days, not so much for Hollywood movies as it was hardly used on everything even at its height (though we do have three movies this year which will use it, a relative embarassment of IMAX riches) but more w/ref to IMAX's own documentaries.

But when it got to the point where they were happy enough to stick an IMAX badge on a Canon DSLR

[Show spoiler]

then IMAX was dead, long live IMAX! It's ironic that it's the movies (and Nolan in particular) that have kept IMAX's own format going though, as IMAX themselves would've mothballed it years ago. I wonder if WW1984 and No Time to Die will even get 1.44-finished versions, though that's a given for Tenet as well as 15/70 prints which Nolan will insist upon (for the few venues still capable of playing them). The BFI IMAX should get one, and I'll be right there.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It plays into the mentality that more = more = better. The focus is on his expression, not all the junk around him. The widescreen scope ratio fixes in on his face and eyes. That is what the DP wanted you to consider.


It's the same issue as something like Blade Runner 2049. By opening up the frame, the focus of the shot is lost.

I like expanding ratios when planned. Example with The Dark Knight where it goes to an aerial shot of Gotham and the screen expands. For me it gives a wow factor. More immersive. But then it goes back to normal. Nothing wrong with IMAX. I also liked it with Alita where it expands for action scenes like the motorball. But I do not want an expanded image for the sake of it or for thr sake of filling a screen.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not a new codec at all, that's the funny thing. It's just the DTS theatrical mix (apparently) put into the DTS:X container and there haven't been any reported issues with it, apart from how it deactivates all your EQ. Again, apparently.

BTW I had the same issue with the lossy DTS:X on Furiouses 6 & 7 on a Denon AVR, this was corrected in firmware a while ago though. Sorry you're still waiting on it. Though to be fair Universal only did it for those two movies for whatever reasons, there are some very odd choices on there in general like giving the extended cut of F6 a lossy 768 kb/s DTS 5.1 track only.


The full fat Laser version is the one they rolled out first, then they brought in the single laser version for smaller venues and lesser installs. I don't think that's a bad thing per se, if it means more venues can break away from having the overlapped 2K xenon projektors.

Personally I think that the 1.44 AR doesn't really enter into IMAX's thinking any more, they're keeping it going in 'legacy' laser installs but for new theatres and 'LieMAX' makeovers of old ones then 1.90 is the default. It's so rare that filmmakers actually use 15-perf 65mm these days, not so much for Hollywood movies as it was hardly used on everything even at its height (though we do have three movies this year which will use it, a relative embarassment of IMAX riches) but more w/ref to IMAX's own documentaries.

But when it got to the point where they were happy enough to stick an IMAX badge on a Canon DSLR

[Show spoiler]

then IMAX was dead, long live IMAX! It's ironic that it's the movies (and Nolan in particular) that have kept IMAX's own format going though, as IMAX themselves would've mothballed it years ago. I wonder if WW1984 and No Time to Die will even get 1.44-finished versions, though that's a given for Tenet as well as 15/70 prints which Nolan will insist upon (for the few venues still capable of playing them). The BFI IMAX should get one, and I'll be right there.

Just a quick correction: IMAX was 15-perf/70mm for the negative and 15-perf/70mm for the print. The print is struck directly from the negative.

I can't begin to estimate how much a 15/70 IMAX print costs today. I do know that right as the new "LieMAX" theaters were showing up, a 40 minute IMAX print was $96,000! There is a single chem lab left that can produce 15/70 IMAX prints

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Yes. *The* real IMAX, the one that got them famous, was 15 perf 70mm film, which results in an image with 1.43:1 aspect ratio.

But IMAX is discreetly replacing 70mm projectors with Laser projectors.

They claim that with Laser, they are able to retain the same 1.43:1 aspect ratio. But what I found out recently is they rolled out two different versions of IMAX Laser. The IMAX Laser GT system, which uses two projectors, and 6P dichroic glasses for 3D. And a singe laser projector, using circular polarising glasses for 3D.

The single Laser for whatever reason, is 1.90:1 ratio only. And it's not a whole lot better than digital IMAX Xenon.

The science museum in the uk is getting a 12 channel laser upgrade and keeping its 70mm.
Cineworld have opened 4 new 1.44 screens with laser in the UK just last year.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

The science museum in the uk is getting a 12 channel laser upgrade and keeping its 70mm.
Cineworld have opened 4 new 1.44 screens with laser in the UK just last year.

What are the dimensions of the 4 screens you mention?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Just a quick correction: IMAX was 15-perf/70mm for the negative and 15-perf/70mm for the print. The print is struck directly from the negative.

I can't begin to estimate how much a 15/70 IMAX print costs today. I do know that right as the new "LieMAX" theaters were showing up, a 40 minute IMAX print was $96,000! There is a single chem lab left that can produce 15/70 IMAX prints

The gauge is 65mm on the negative. 70mm on prints.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by BozQ

What soundtrack is TDF on FandangoNow?

Unfortunately they don't publish specs on the website for movies you haven't bought apparently.

Their regular releases (the ones I have rights to) are a mix of super compressed DTS lossy and DD+

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The gauge is 65mm on the negative. 70mm on prints.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It plays into the mentality that more = more = better. The focus is on his expression, not all the junk around him. The widescreen scope ratio fixes in on his face and eyes. That is what the DP wanted you to consider.


It's the same issue as something like Blade Runner 2049. By opening up the frame, the focus of the shot is lost.

say what you will of the movie itself but the 2016 Ghostbusters took the vertical expansion/3D frame breakage to new levels of visual eye candy - the jump into the vortex expanding on a 4:3 screen was "whoah ... oh my gawd!"