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

[Spike M.]

Does anyone have a hard number for the contrast ratio of Dolby Cinema?

I know IMAX claims it's 2,500:1 ratio for lasers is significantly better than 35mm and 15/70mm projection, which seems like a non-hyperbolic and fair rating (surprising, from IMAX), but all I can find for DV are those inflated numbers of 1,000,000 or 2,000,0000:1, nothing reasonable.

[nrocket3]

This article states that Dunkirk will in fact have over 100 minutes of IMAX footage.

http://in70mm.com/news/2016/evacuation/index.htm

[The Debts]

With all of this talk about Dunkirk, something I'm wondering is whether or not Nolan will opt to also throw in object based audio into this, especially considering that IMAX has that 12 channel system with their laser locations.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by The Debts

With all of this talk about Dunkirk, something I'm wondering is whether or not Nolan will opt to also throw in object based audio into this, especially considering that IMAX has that 12 channel system with their laser locations.

I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make; Nolan favors front heavy sound mixes since those speakers are where the power's at, and I don't imagine that changing.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by The Debts

With all of this talk about Dunkirk, something I'm wondering is whether or not Nolan will opt to also throw in object based audio into this, especially considering that IMAX has that 12 channel system with their laser locations.

Doubt it, Nolan has even yet to do a 7.1 mix, and admits he is usually pretty reserved in using the surround channels in his mixing.

Plus, you know Nolan cares most about those locations projecting it on film (IMAX first, but also regular 70 and 35mm), and thus is unlikely to emphasize something which would be exclusive to digital sites (perhaps to a fault, great that Tarantino and Nolan still shoot on film and I'm all for them getting some prints out there if that's what they want, but I find film-only release windows like H8 and Interstellar had annoying).

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make; Nolan favors front heavy sound mixes since those speakers are where the power's at, and I don't imagine that changing.

I just wish he'd hard encode/mix with 5 front channel sound

[Dubstar]

just got confirmation that the aspect ratio for Sully is 1.9:1 for it's IMAX release. Since the film is also going out with a Dolby Atmos mix, the laser presentation's audio is 12-channel.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

just got confirmation that the aspect ratio for Sully is 1.9:1 for it's IMAX release. Since the film is also going out with a Dolby Atmos mix, the laser presentation's audio is 12-channel.

So bars on 1.43.1 screens.

I wonder if the Blu-ray will be 1.85:1...

Seems like they should just make films at 1.85:1 to fill the digital IMAX screens and not bother with the 2.4:1 version. What's the point?

Ant-Man filled the digital IMAX screen just fine.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

So bars on 1.43.1 screens.

I wonder if the Blu-ray will be 1.85:1...

Seems like they should just make films at 1.85:1 to fill the digital IMAX screens and not bother with the 2.4:1 version. What's the point?

Ant-Man filled the digital IMAX screen just fine.

so yes, I saw the IMAX trailer on a 4:3 screen - and there are still letterbox bars above and below the image, but it takes up a lot more of the screen. Apparently the movie was shot with Alexa IMAX cameras and therefore the image does have more vertical information - as to why the image needs to cropped framed to 2.39 for mass theatrical release is beyond me, seems IMAX wants the exclusivity to have a larger image for their screens.

Ant-Man took up more of the IMAX (digital) screen because it's AR is 1.85 : 1

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

So bars on 1.43.1 screens.

I wonder if the Blu-ray will be 1.85:1...

Seems like they should just make films at 1.85:1 to fill the digital IMAX screens and not bother with the 2.4:1 version. What's the point?

Ant-Man filled the digital IMAX screen just fine.

Because filmmakers make films for cinemas. Not TVs.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Because filmmakers make films for cinemas. Not TVs.

I have a 2.35:1 screen so I benefit from widescreen, it just surprises me that they'd make a special IMAX edition in 1.90:1 and not 1:43.1. If their going to go through the trouble of different masters they should start with 1.43:1.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

I have a 2.35:1 screen so I benefit from widescreen, it just surprises me that they'd make a special IMAX edition in 1.90:1 and not 1:43.1. If their going to go through the trouble of different masters they should start with 1.43:1.

The Alexa IMAX cameras can only output up to 1.90:1 at the moment. If you crop it to about 1.43:1, you'd lose information from both sides and hence quality. That's why I wish IMAX would roll the 1.43:1 update for the Alexa IMAX cameras as soon as possible so that we can get movies like the Avengers: Infinity War to be shown in the proper IMAX ratio without sacrificing overall image quality.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, if we want the cameras that shoot 1.43:1, work with the film cameras. But most directors nowadays seem to work towards digital and are too lazy to adapt to the noise and cumbersomeness IMAX film cameras are notorious for. Plus, push the envelope on the capability of digital cameras because why the hell not?

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

The Alexa IMAX cameras can only output up to 1.90:1 at the moment. If you crop it to about 1.43:1, you'd lose information from both sides and hence quality. That's why I wish IMAX would roll the 1.43:1 update for the Alexa IMAX cameras as soon as possible so that we can get movies like the Avengers: Infinity War to be shown in the proper IMAX ratio without sacrificing overall image quality.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, if we want the cameras that shoot 1.43:1, work with the film cameras. But most directors nowadays seem to work towards digital and are too lazy to adapt to the noise and cumbersomeness IMAX film cameras are notorious for. Plus, push the envelope on the capability of digital cameras because why the hell not?

Just another example of how IMAX is trying to self-destruct. They can't even build the camera correctly.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

Just another example of how IMAX is trying to self-destruct. They can't even build the camera correctly.

I mean, it does take a bit of R&D to build a proper digital camera that can output 1.43:1 at amazing quality. Then again, I am tired of their bullcrap marketing of 1.9:1 and wider screens as "IMAX experiences."

Gimme back them giant 1.43:1 screens, IMAX.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

Just another example of how IMAX is trying to self-destruct. They can't even build the camera correctly.

They're not building anything though, they just took an Alexa 65 and slapped a label on it. It's probably had a 1.90 framing guide loaded on but that's about it.

If this camera is to do 1.43 without cropping then it'll need a special anamorphic lens (and not just one, but for several focal lengths) to squeeze the taller image into the native width of the sensor.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

I mean, it does take a bit of R&D to build a proper digital camera that can output 1.43:1 at amazing quality. Then again, I am tired of their bullcrap marketing of 1.9:1 and wider screens as "IMAX experiences."



Gimme back them giant 1.43:1 screens, IMAX.

Unless I'm not mistaken, didn't they just take somebody else's camera and slap a couple logos on it?

I agree with you. I know the reason they went digital IMAX 1.90:1 is because they could fit it into many more theaters without having to build special rooms but in diluting their brand has confused most people. In fact, many don't understand that IMAX is even any bigger and with the 2K projectors they have in those rooms you can see the pixels if you are closer than 50% (in 2D).

IMAX is so dumb they put 1.90:1 2K projectors in rooms with a 1.43:1 monster screen...that they don't even bother to zoom out to fit width (yes, width) because even they know it's wrong to have freakin .52" (13.4mm) pixels (not an exaggeration, I did the math).

Now that Dolby Cinemas are rolling out with recliners and 4K, people are choosing that.

I'm sure IMAX will eventually be putting 4K laser projectors, 12-channel audio and recliners in their 1.90:1 rooms...I just hope they don't flame out before they get around to it.

[GLaDOS]

I always thought they modified it slightly that the open gate would be at around 1.90:1. If that's not the case, then what a bunch of lazy wanks.

[hendersd]

Saw Star Trek in a Dolby Premium theater. Nice chairs. Expensive. If you decide to go, get your reserved seat tickets on-line. I ended up on the front row.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

Unless I'm not mistaken, didn't they just take somebody else's camera and slap a couple logos on it?

I agree with you. I know the reason they went digital IMAX 1.90:1 is because they could fit it into many more theaters without having to build special rooms but in diluting their brand has confused most people. In fact, many don't understand that IMAX is even any bigger and with the 2K projectors they have in those rooms you can see the pixels if you are closer than 50% (in 2D).

IMAX is so dumb they put 1.90:1 2K projectors in rooms with a 1.43:1 monster screen...that they don't even bother to zoom out to fit width (yes, width) because even they know it's wrong to have freakin .52" (13.4mm) pixels (not an exaggeration, I did the math).

Now that Dolby Cinemas are rolling out with recliners and 4K, people are choosing that.

I'm sure IMAX will eventually be putting 4K laser projectors, 12-channel audio and recliners in their 1.90:1 rooms...I just hope they don't flame out before they get around to it.

Oddly, for me, those goddamn recliners in DC auditoriums are why I prefer to see a movie at the Airbus Imax laser screen - I hate the rumble effect - it's too frickin annoying and distracting in my opinion

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Oddly, for me, those goddamn recliners in DC auditoriums are why I prefer to see a movie at the Airbus Imax laser screen - I hate the rumble effect - it's too frickin annoying and distracting in my opinion

You might be thinking about those DBOX '4D' theaters. I feel more bass in IMAX than I do in Atmos. The recliner theaters I've been in don't have shakers in the seats.

For all the crap I give IMAX (all well deserved), nobody brings the thunder quite like them. Heck, it's why I made this: