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

[GLaDOS]

Has anyone seen Rogue One in IMAX Laser yet? I know it's stuck to 2.35:1, but I'm curious on how it fares up with Laser projection since it's showing in IMAX 3D.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

confirmed...NO AR changes during the entire movie. Letter boxed all the way. :-\ *sigh*

Yep. Too bad it wasn't cropped and blown up to fill your TV, I mean IMAX screen.

[Dreamliner330]

I'm debating between seeing Rogue One at AMC LIMAX 3D or Great Clips IAMX 70mm 2D...

I happen to really enjoy 3D. Not quite certain what to do here...

Tix are $10 at LIMAX and $16 at Great Clips. :/

[Leo Ontiveros]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

I'm debating between seeing Rogue One at AMC LIMAX 3D or Great Clips IAMX 70mm 2D...

I happen to really enjoy 3D. Not quite certain what to do here...

Tix are $10 at LIMAX and $16 at Great Clips. :/

You should totally see it in imax 70 mm and then share your experience. Saw it in liemax 3d and the 3d doesn't add anything really, you kinda forget its there.

[Leo Ontiveros]

Originally Posted by FAShaffi

I saw Rogue One in the AMC Empire 25 Dolby Cinema here in NYC this morning and all I have to say is: wow wow wow wow wow! Loved the movie itself, and the Dolby Vision 3D and Atmos sound was incredible, first 3D title I've seen since "Amazing Spider-Man" back in 2012 that was worth the price IMO. and the HDR colors and detail were just amazing. I also love that this Dolby Cinema has a huge scope screen, so no letterboxing, which is great. I'm seeing it in IMAX Laser next week back in Virginia but I don't think anything will come close to matching what I just saw.

Pleasee let us know how both systems compare!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

The Dunkirk prologue in IMAX laser looked great, though I didn't like the shaky cam at the start (on a full screen the size of Lincoln Square, any camera bouncing felt a bit dizzying, though wasn't a problem after first 20 seconds of preview or for Rogue One of course). Also noticed there were a few non IMAX shots in the prologue, and they used a black bar at bottom of screen similar to the entirety of Rogue One.

One little presentation issue was that Dunkirk was shown first, and the theater turned down lights completely for it as people were still getting seated, then the lights were brought up a bit for rest of previews, before finally going down for the movie (I guess Nolan wanted prologue to look the best with lights down and they didn't want people taking off 3D glasses after end of the 3D previews, or just leaving them on during Dunkirk, but I think that would've been less distracting overall).

Only other IMAX laser title I've seen is The Force Awakens, and I think Rogue One looks better overall (though IMAX scene in FA blows it away) with pretty much equal to 15/70 DMR quality, though I was more impressed with the Force Awakens IMAX sound mix.

I've gotta say the shakey cam in the Dunkirk prologue didn't bother me at all (this was on a 65ft screen too) and yes, I noticed that a couple of shots were letterboxed (though top and bottom in the case of the 15/70 presentation) and yet they looked far better intercut with the proper IMAX than Nolan's 35mm stuff. I think Nolan shooting a mix of horizontal and vertical 65mm is the right way to go, and I hope he sticks to this combo in future.

As far as the running order goes, we had digital trailers for other stuff (nowt exciting) and then they started the presentation proper, with the lights all the way down and the prologue was built in to the main print of the movie, which makes sense.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by FAShaffi

I saw Rogue One in the AMC Empire 25 Dolby Cinema here in NYC this morning and all I have to say is: wow wow wow wow wow! Loved the movie itself, and the Dolby Vision 3D and Atmos sound was incredible, first 3D title I've seen since "Amazing Spider-Man" back in 2012 that was worth the price IMO. and the HDR colors and detail were just amazing. I also love that this Dolby Cinema has a huge scope screen, so no letterboxing, which is great. I'm seeing it in IMAX Laser next week back in Virginia but I don't think anything will come close to matching what I just saw.

I'm all for folk supporting the Smithsonian and all, but why are you not checking out the new IMAX-laser system over at the AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 in NYC?

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Saw the 15/70 Dunkirk prologue in front of Rogue One, it was AWESOME. The shots when we're flying along with the Spitfires and seeing through the gun cam, wow. Just wow. A spine-tingling experience.

As for Rogue One itself, it looked pretty good in 15/70. The usual DMR edge enhancement was there and the movie is often quite dark and dim so it doesn't always zing off the screen, but the large format origination was telling as the detail was mostly superb, complete with that characteristically shallow depth of field, and some of the shots during the final battle were as good as anything I've seen captured on true 15/70.

Dunkirk was AWESOME, I totally agree. Such gorgeous color, depth, and detail. Those gun cam shots were amazing and I enjoyed the shaky cam scenes because it felt so realistic and you felt like you were in the plane, rattling your teeth along with the pilot. I had goosebumps the entire time, soaking in that large format goodness. Every shot was a treasure to see. It really is impressive. There was a big drop in quality when the 5/70 footage was shown, but it was noticeably improved over the 35mm footage from Interstellar and other films I've seen there. Me likey.

I liked the fact that the 15/70 film was promoted before the trailers started. "We are pleased to show Rogue One on 70mm film. Experience the power of IMAX 70mm film." Ah yeah.

The downside is that the Dunkirk footage made the Rogue One footage look quite flat and mushy by comparison. A lot of the darker shots had a milky grey look to it (I'd venture the first 2/3rds of the film looked like this). At first I thought it was the film print, but the letterbox bars were black and the space scenes looked fine. I was surprised how poor the blacks were. Geoff, did you see this at your 15/70 showing? I didn't see as much detail as I expected to see, but it was better than your average digital or 35mm DMR experience and way better than seeing SPECTRE via 2K projectors there. I guess even 4K digital can't hold up on such a large screen.

Towards the end, even during the darker scenes, the image picked up quite a bit. The final battle looked rather good, I agree. Lots of detail in the ships and planets, for example. I loved the 2.76:1 frame, and visually it was a big improvement over TFA. Excellent framing and composition. Very cinematic.

It would be exciting to see this on a Dolby Vision theater or a 5/70 print on a smaller screen.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Dunkirk was AWESOME, I totally agree. Such gorgeous color, depth, and detail. Those gun cam shots were amazing and I enjoyed the shaky cam scenes because it felt so realistic and you felt like you were in the plane, rattling your teeth along with the pilot. I had goosebumps the entire time, soaking in that large format goodness. Every shot was a treasure to see. It really is impressive.

I liked the fact that the 15/70 film was promoted before the trailers started. "We are pleased to show Rogue One on 70mm film. Experience the power of IMAX 70mm film." Ah yeah. There was a big drop in quality when the 5/70 footage was shown, but it was noticeably improved over the 35mm footage from Interstellar and other films I've seen there. Me likey.

The downside is that the Dunkirk footage made the Rogue One footage look quite flat and mushy by comparison. A lot of the darker shots had a milky grey look to it. At first I thought it was the film print, but the letterbox bars were black and the space scenes looked fine. I was surprised how poor the blacks were. Geoff, did you see this at your 15/70 showing? I didn't see as much detail as I expected to see, but it was better than your average digital or 35mm DMR experience and way better than seeing SPECTRE via 2K projectors there. I guess even 4K digital can't hold up on such a large screen.

Towards the end, even during the darker scenes, the image picked up quite a bit. The final battle looked rather good, I agree. I loved the 2.76:1 frame, and visually it was a big improvement over TFA. Excellent framing and composition. Very cinematic.

It would be exciting to see this on a Dolby Vision theater or a 5/70 print on a smaller screen.

4K blows up just fine on a screen that size. See: 4K laser projection. Also, it wasn't a 2.76:1 frame.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Dunkirk was AWESOME, I totally agree. Such gorgeous color, depth, and detail. Those gun cam shots were amazing and I enjoyed the shaky cam scenes because it felt so realistic and you felt like you were in the plane, rattling your teeth along with the pilot. I liked the fact that the 15/70 film was promoted before the trailers started. "Experience the power of IMAX 70mm film." Ah yeah. There was a big drop in quality when the 5/70 footage was shown, but it was noticeably improved over the 35mm footage from Interstellar and other films I've seen there.

The downside is that the Dunkirk footage made the Rogue One footage look quite flat and mushy by comparison. A lot of the darker shots had a milky grey look to it. At first I thought it was the film print, but the letterbox bars were black and the space scenes looked fine. I was surprised how poor the blacks were. Geoff, did you see this at your 15/70 showing? I didn't see as much detail as I expected to see, but it was better than your average digital or 35mm DMR experience and way better than seeing SPECTRE via 2K projectors there. I guess even 4K digital can't hold up on such a large screen.

Towards the end, even during the darker scenes, the image picked up quite a bit. The final battle looked rather good, I agree. I loved the 2.76:1 frame, and visually it was a big improvement over TFA. Excellent framing and composition. Very cinematic.

It would be exciting to see this on a Dolby Vision theater or a 5/70 print on a smaller screen.

I think he meant the shaky cam during the scenes on land, not the obvious vibration during the cockpit shots, but I enjoyed both. RO's blacks did look kinda flat but then they usually do at the BFI, it doesn't help that the Dunkirk prologue was so bright and beautiful I couldn't really gauge how the blacks looked either way there. I thought the intercut 5/65 stuff held up really well.

I thought the detail in RO was terrific for the most part, certain close-ups held a true large-format level of detail and it destroyed any 35mm DMR I've seen. Don't forget that even this 4K footage has gone through IMAX's special sauce, I spotted EE here and there due to their sharpening and I wish they'd leave it alone. Also bear in mind that these prints were seemingly struck from a filmed-out IMAX negative (I spotted printed-in negative density dirt and hairs) so they're a generation down from what the actual 4K source would look like. It was not shown in 2.76 though, the movie has been framed at the conventional 2.39 widescreen aspect.

My next screening will be plain old 2K digital in about a month's time.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

4K blows up just fine on a screen that size. See: 4K laser projection. Also, it wasn't a 2.76:1 frame.

Thanks for the info. I thought the frame wasn't quite wide enough when the movie started but it was shot anamorphic so I assumed I was mistaken because the screen was so large that my perception of the AR was off. I haven't seen 4K laser projection yet on such a big screen so I'll take your word for it.

I thought RO was supposed to be 2.76:1 but it appears that I was wrong. I thought Ultra Panavision 70= 2.20:1 native AR w/ anamorphic glass->2.76:1? Or does that just mean that some anamorphic glass was used on 65mm ? Maybe this rule no longer applies for digital cameras. They advertised this in the credits. Were any of the trailers 2.76:1?

Geoff: That seems rather silly to use DMR on digital footage as there's no grain to speak of and very little sensor noise, especially with a large format sensor. I'm reminded of Roger Deakins saying that he supervised the Skyfall 15/70 prints and instructed them specifically not to use the DMR process. Now I can see why he did that. You have a very sharp eye.

Is there any way to print directly to a positive print using the film-out process to avoid generational loss? I would imagine Kodak never uses anything but negative film for movies, but as this is digitally sourced could one essentially invert the colors on the DI/DCP and print a negative onto a negative?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Thanks for the info. I thought the frame wasn't quite wide enough when the movie started but it was shot anamorphic so I assumed I was mistaken because the screen was so large that my perception of the AR was off. I haven't seen 4K laser projection yet on such a big screen so I'll take your word for it.

I thought RO was supposed to be 2.76:1 but it appears that I was wrong. I thought Ultra Panavision 70= 2.20:1 native AR w/ anamorphic glass->2.76:1? Or does that just mean that some anamorphic glass was used on 65mm ? Maybe this rule no longer applies for digital cameras. They advertised this in the credits. Were any of the trailers 2.76:1?

Geoff: That seems rather silly to use DMR on digital footage as there's no grain to speak of and very little sensor noise, especially with a large format sensor. I'm reminded of Roger Deakins saying that he supervised the Skyfall 15/70 prints and instructed them specifically not to use the DMR process. Now I can see why he did that. You have a very sharp eye.

Is there any way to print directly to a positive print using the film-out process to avoid generational loss? I would imagine Kodak never uses anything but negative film for movies, but as this is digitally sourced could one essentially invert the colors on the DI/DCP and print a negative onto a negative?

You're overthinking it singh! They did indeed shoot using the UP70 glass on the 65mm-equivalent Alexa, hence the credit, BUT the image was framed and cropped for 2.39 accordingly. OR they may have even shot with the camera's 1.90 mode, which at 1.25x = 2.37 aspect. Hopefully we'll find out when the relevant issue of American Cinematographer comes out. And no, none of the trailers were 2.76 either.

It's a shame about the DMR processing but it is what it is, IMAX just gotta apply their special sauce to anything that's not true 15-perf IMAX. The image would still need to be uprezzed to about 8K in order to be recorded onto 15-perf, granted, but you're right: with a source of this quality there was no need to add any more sharpening. Still looked dazzling during the space battle though.

As for the prints, that's a good question but I believe it'd be too time consuming and presumably too expensive to record out x number of prints straight from the digital source. It's cheaper to film out a negative (the source is indeed inverted for this purpose) and conventionally print however many you need off of that.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Thanks for the info. I thought the frame wasn't quite wide enough when the movie started but it was shot anamorphic so I assumed I was mistaken because the screen was so large that my perception of the AR was off. I haven't seen 4K laser projection yet on such a big screen so I'll take your word for it.

I thought RO was supposed to be 2.76:1 but it appears that I was wrong. I thought Ultra Panavision 70= 2.20:1 native AR w/ anamorphic glass->2.76:1? Or does that just mean that some anamorphic glass was used on 65mm ? Maybe this rule no longer applies for digital cameras. They advertised this in the credits. Were any of the trailers 2.76:1?

Geoff: That seems rather silly to use DMR on digital footage as there's no grain to speak of and very little sensor noise, especially with a large format sensor. I'm reminded of Roger Deakins saying that he supervised the Skyfall 15/70 prints and instructed them specifically not to use the DMR process. Now I can see why he did that. You have a very sharp eye.

Is there any way to print directly to a positive print using the film-out process to avoid generational loss? I would imagine Kodak never uses anything but negative film for movies, but as this is digitally sourced could one essentially invert the colors on the DI/DCP and print a negative onto a negative?

originally there were plans to shoot the movie as such:

‘Star Wars: Rogue One’ May Be an Ultra-Widescreen Spectacle

[Leo Ontiveros]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think he meant the shaky cam during the scenes on land, not the obvious vibration during the cockpit shots, but I enjoyed both. RO's blacks did look kinda flat but then they usually do at the BFI, it doesn't help that the Dunkirk prologue was so bright and beautiful I couldn't really gauge how the blacks looked either way there. I thought the intercut 5/65 stuff held up really well.

I thought the detail in RO was terrific for the most part, certain close-ups held a true large-format level of detail and it destroyed any 35mm DMR I've seen. Don't forget that even this 4K footage has gone through IMAX's special sauce, I spotted EE here and there due to their sharpening and I wish they'd leave it alone. Also bear in mind that these prints were seemingly struck from a filmed-out IMAX negative (I spotted printed-in negative density dirt and hairs) so they're a generation down from what the actual 4K source would look like. It was not shown in 2.76 though, the movie has been framed at the conventional 2.39 widescreen aspect.

My next screening will be plain old 2K digital in about a month's time.

Dudee! if you're in london then you should go watch rogue one (with dunkirk's prologue) at empire leicester square and make a comparison. They have Imax with laser there and it would make for a neat in detail comparison between them.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

originally there were plans to shoot the movie as such:

‘Star Wars: Rogue One’ May Be an Ultra-Widescreen Spectacle

So the question is....why wasn't it?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

So the question is....why wasn't it?

I'm trying to find an online story regarding this, I'm not having any luck

~

this might have been mentioned - but in terms of AMC bucking it's own trend with partnering with Dolby and the installation of Dolby Cinema auditoriums, they did one better with it's new 'Universal Cinema' (AMC Universal Citywalk 19, Los Angeles) and decided to add state of the art amenities without 'DC's bells and whistles

for CityWalk all the auditoriums feature:

Redesigned auditoriums featuring:
- Reserved deluxe power-reclining seats
- Dolby Atmos immersive surround sound
- Christie RGB Laser projection

hope AMC does this nationally and converts select theaters as such.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

originally there were plans to shoot the movie as such:

‘Star Wars: Rogue One’ May Be an Ultra-Widescreen Spectacle

There's nothing in that article apart from some guy hearing that they used those lenses and then going off on an explanation. As early as June 2015 we heard rumours that the recently refurbished UP70 lenses would be used on Rogue One: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...l-eight-800623

And the point is, that glass WAS used to shoot Rogue One, hence the UP70 credit at the end of the roll-up. They just didn't use the full 2.76 frame, and personally I don't think the intention was ever there to do so.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Leo Ontiveros

Dudee! if you're in london then you should go watch rogue one (with dunkirk's prologue) at empire leicester square and make a comparison. They have Imax with laser there and it would make for a neat in detail comparison between them.

Heh. I was in London to see RO but I came back the same day, it'd cost me another ton (between the bus fare, train fare, and the cinema ticket itself) to go and see it at the Empire and that's not gonna happen!

[Geoff D]

From the end credits (youtube vid):



And they had little posters that they were giving away at the IMAX, this is the other side of it (main side has the 'hanging stalactite' artwork, my camera's battery just died):

[FAShaffi]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I'm all for folk supporting the Smithsonian and all, but why are you not checking out the new IMAX-laser system over at the AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 in NYC?

I'm finishing up final exam week today and going home to Virginia for winter break tomorrow, so haven't had time to see the movie again yet, or else yeah I would've loved to check out the Lincoln Square IMAX, if it's still playing there after New Year's then I'll definitely check it out, I do love that screen