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

[Dreamliner330]

I'm looking forward to seeing GITS in IMAX. 1.85 will fill it nicely. Justice League is 1.85, too.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Rupert Sanders even has said one of the big reasons he went 1.85 was because of how well it would work with IMAX, and I wouldn't expect them to do IMAX ratio and frame breaks just for the laser version (Ghostbusters did, but that's still rare and it also had 1.9 frame breaks for the digital IMAX and regular 3D versions).

Anyway, even with a bit of the bottom not filled, in the fifth row in IMAX laser it basically filled my field of view, and visually it was incredible in that format IMO.

I think there is one or two tv spots that show Frame Breaking.....total false Advertising.

As for ratio...well the movie maintained it's ratio during the entire movie. I really wish I could take a picture of the screen to show how my local IMAX theater really screwed up their IMAX projection set up.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I think there is one or two tv spots that show Frame Breaking.....total false Advertising.

That's a pretty common technique in TV spots for 3D movies now. It's not to say there's actual frame breaking in the movie but to simulate the 3D effect.

[Visionist]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

They also tested things like Super Dimension 70 which is a 48fps process but because it looked so much like "hyper-HD" they declined to use it.

That's interesting. So did Nolan potentially want a HFR version for the dream scenes? Would have been interesting (and beaten Jackson to the punch) but would digital projectors have been ready yet? And can they vary their framerates between 24fps (non dream scenes) and 48fps (dream scenes)?

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Visionist

And can they vary their framerates between 24fps (non dream scenes) and 48fps (dream scenes)?

They wouldn't really have to. Just encode it all in 48fps by doubling up the frames on the 24fps scenes.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

That's a pretty common technique in TV spots for 3D movies now. It's not to say there's actual frame breaking in the movie but to simulate the 3D effect.

Well that's kinda pointless. If they would say the movie features Frame Breaking, then YES it would really sell the movie well. I enjoyed that effect for Ghostbusters 2016.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It was shot mostly on anamorphic 35mm and 5-perf 65mm (with VistaVision for aerial shots) so there wasn't much chance for embiggening the image. Incidentally they chose 5-perf rather than 15-perf (IMAX) for the large format capture on this show because they wanted more of a looser, hand-held approach to the visuals, and after seeing tests of 65mm and 35mm cut together - using large format for the wider shots and 35 for the tighter shots - they were convinced. They also tested things like Super Dimension 70 which is a 48fps process but because it looked so much like "hyper-HD" they declined to use it.

The photography unit involved in filming the slow motion shot of DiCaprio inside a bathtub was shot using high frame rate Phantom digital cameras. I read an article where they say they didn't really tell Nolan they were using a digital camera because of his preference for film.

Here's another article where Paul Franklin also talks about it -

http://www.artofvfx.com/inception-pa...uble-negative/

However, the original article featured the interview of the cinematographers themselves.

[Geoff D]

They used the Phantom for select shots (edit: two in total) but according to the AC article most of the high-speed work was done on the 35mm Photo-Sonics 4ER (up to 360fps). Nolan likes film but, as I keep saying over and over, he's also a pragmatist so I doubt he was as offended by the Phantom as we might think. He says in the article that he doesn't like using slow motion in general for its "unreal" appearance, but it became crucial on Inception as an actual part of the storytelling toolset to differentiate between the real and the dream worlds. So because the process itself was inherently 'false' it allows the Phantom to sneak in there and compared to all that film goodness it doesn't disgrace itself either.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

They used the Phantom for select shots (edit: two in total) but according to the AC article most of the high-speed work was done on the 35mm Photo-Sonics 4ER (up to 360fps). Nolan likes film but, as I keep saying over and over, he's also a pragmatist so I doubt he was as offended by the Phantom as we might think. He says in the article that he doesn't like using slow motion in general for its "unreal" appearance, but it became crucial on Inception as an actual part of the storytelling toolset to differentiate between the real and the dream worlds. So because the process itself was inherently 'false' it allows the Phantom to sneak in there and compared to all that film goodness it doesn't disgrace itself either.

Those Phantom shots weren't used in the final cut, according to Pfister.

[Geoff D]

Interstellar was shot wide open some of the time, this reduces your depth of field immensely and gives a VERY small margin for error when focusing. In other words the focus pulling was an incredibly difficult job on that show, and if X shot got more of someone's chin than their eyes BUT Nolan liked the performance then that shot was chosen regardless. Kubrick was much the same, he was known for being this astonishing technical perfectionist but it was always about the performance.

[xbs2034]

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...n-qa.html?_r=5

Nolan says Dunkirk is shot "almost entirely" in IMAX.

This would also fit in previously with hearing over 100 minutes of IMAX footage, and Nolan recently suggesting the film is about two hours long.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...n-qa.html?_r=5

Nolan says Dunkirk is shot "almost entirely" in IMAX.

This would also fit in previously with hearing over 100 minutes of IMAX footage, and Nolan recently suggesting the film is about two hours long.

Now see what will be the point of IMAX Filming upclose shots of people talking? There will be people walking around talking and to have shots like that in IMAX will be pointless. Unless it's 100 minutes of action AND 20 mins of talking sounds about right lol

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Now see what will be the point of IMAX Filming upclose shots of people talking? There will be people walking around talking and to have shots like that in IMAX will be pointless. Unless it's 100 minutes of action AND 20 mins of talking sounds about right lol

http://www.thewrap.com/christopher-n...ttle-dialogue/

That actually does sound possible based on what Nolan has said about his storytelling approach. I think it's possible non-IMAX footage will be limited to dialogue and then shots were it was just technically unfeasible.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Now see what will be the point of IMAX Filming upclose shots of people talking? There will be people walking around talking and to have shots like that in IMAX will be pointless. Unless it's 100 minutes of action AND 20 mins of talking sounds about right lol

Nolan used IMAX for a shot of a Samsung telly in Gordon's hospital room in TDKR, there's nothing he won't IMAX!

This does then bring up the aforementioned issue of dialogue coverage with the noise & intimidation factor of the IMAX cameras, but seeing as much of this movie appears to be set in or on a windy beach, the open seas and Spitfire cockpits, not to mention the usual soundtrack to war (explosions, gunfire etc) then ADR becomes a necessity, not to mention Nolan saying that it's much less of a dialogue-driven movie than his previous efforts anyway.

[J-Mart]

I'm going to be in San Francisco next week and we'll be seeing Fate of the Furious. It looks like the AMC there offers Dolby Cinema and IMAX Laser. Which format should we choose? Any suggestions?

[ITDEFX101]

Oh don't you bring up his use of IMAX in TDKR!!!! I was like WTH?!?!?! when I saw it at Udvar Hazy and it went to full frame during some of the dialog scenes and close up's of the characters.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by J-Mart

I'm going to be in San Francisco next week and we'll be seeing Fate of the Furious. It looks like the AMC there offers Dolby Cinema and IMAX Laser. Which format should we choose? Any suggestions?

I assume that's the Metreon, right? If so, definitely go IMAX laser, I saw Force Awakens there last year when I was visiting family in the Bay Area and I believe it's up there with Lincoln Square as the largest movie screens in America.

[UFAlien]

Yup. As a matter of fact the Metreon's is the SECOND-biggest movie screen in America - 97.6 feet wide by 75.6 feet tall. Of course Fate of the Furious is in scope and as far as we know doesn't expand for IMAX, so it'd "only" use about 40 feet of the screen's height.

Still absolutely massive. Unless unmasked screen area bothers you I'd definitely go IMAX. In fact since I have nothing better to do, here's a quick SketchUp, to scale, of the screen size versus a typical human:

[ITDEFX101]

So in other words, this will be Nolan's 2 hour IMAX Demo reel.

[J-Mart]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

I assume that's the Metreon, right? If so, definitely go IMAX laser, I saw Force Awakens there last year when I was visiting family in the Bay Area and I believe it's up there with Lincoln Square as the largest movie screens in America.

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Yup. As a matter of fact the Metreon's is the SECOND-biggest movie screen in America - 97.6 feet wide by 75.6 feet tall. Of course Fate of the Furious is in scope and as far as we know doesn't expand for IMAX, so it'd "only" use about 40 feet of the screen's height.

Still absolutely massive. Unless unmasked screen area bothers you I'd definitely go IMAX. In fact since I have nothing better to do, here's a quick SketchUp, to scale, of the screen size versus a typical human:

[Show spoiler]

Looks like that's what we'll be doing. Thank you for the input.