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

[CinemaFirst]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Well there are the bonuses of better image detail, resolution, HDR (I really like how colors look on the laser system, probably even more on the single projector than dual projector which is what I saw Endgame on). Plus I believe all laser sites use the 12 channel IMAX sound systems whereas the Xenon theaters typically have the older setup.

Yes.

Compared with the Xenon, the Laser projection is actually sharp. The Xenon had always seemed to me slightly out of focus, certainly compared to Dolby Cinema. Color reproduction has also improved to a great extent. Sound has been hit and miss. Endgame was alright, Glass was terrible.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

The new issue of American Cinematographer covers Godzilla: King of the Monsters. In addition to confirming the whole film is 2.39:1 scope, they went into some details on the overall "look" as well. Apparently they're purposefully trying to avoid looking "too crisp" and clean, hence shooting mostly on 2x anamorphic lenses, adding simulated film grain in post, et cetera. They claim to be emulating the look of Blade Runner and Alien to an extent.

The movie was mostly shot on the Alexa 65 but with 2x anamorphic Panavision lenses that only cover a portion of the sensor, which is in line with their desire not to have hyper-sharp look. It does say that for some of the visual effects shots they used large-format, non-anamorphic lenses that covered the whole sensor so those would be sharper and give them more to work with.

Yep, read that too and it's verr interest that they'd shoot 2x anamorphics on a large format sensor, it's going to take up such a small amount of the available sensor area that one wonders what benefits they'd actually get it from it. I mean, the A3X sensor in the A65 is so-named because it's literally three regular Alexa sensors stitched together and rotated 90 degrees so you're not getting photosites of a higher quality than the regular Alexa, you're just getting more of them. So using less than a third, maybe even a quarter of the available imager makes no sense to me when you'd get the same quality (basically 2.8K) from shooting 2x anamorphic glass on a Alexa SXT. And you can shoot spherical in 3.4K for VFX etc on that same camera.

I suspect that the second part of it that you mention, the usage of spherical for VFX plates, factored into it more than a little, as using the A65 for those plates would give them a hell of a lot of quality baked in and would allow for extensive repositioning and whatnot.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Link, please!

You need to be a subscriber.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So using less than a third, maybe even a quarter of the available imager makes no sense to me when you'd get the same quality (basically 2.8K) from shooting 2x anamorphic glass on a Alexa SXT. And you can shoot spherical in 3.4K for VFX etc on that same camera.

To be fair I have no idea what the image circle is like for any of these Panavision lenses. Maybe at least some of the longer ones do have more coverage than you'd get on an XT / SXT. Otherwise as you said there's really no point to using the more expensive camera.

[ITDEFX101]

Aladdin. ...scoped during IMAX viewings. shit... what a wasted opportunity. There were plenty of scenes that would have taken advantage of the extra framing.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Aladdin. ...scoped during IMAX viewings. shit... what a wasted opportunity. There were plenty of scenes that would have taken advantage of the extra framing.

It was shot anamorphic 2.35 so why would you want it cropped???

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It was shot anamorphic 2.35 so why would you want it cropped???

It looked fine! Not every movie has to fill the entire IMAX screen. If all movies did, then it wouldn't be special anymore.

[Dubstar]

I think what he was getting at, is that Disney usually open matte's certain movies for their IMAX engagements. I'm not all that enamored with letterboxing of scope movies on 4:3 IMAX screens, that's why I'll just choose to see 2.35/39 movies on a screen that is actually 'wide' (here in DC, the best screen in this respect is the Uptown).

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I think what he was getting at, is that Disney usually open matte's certain movies for their IMAX engagements. I'm not all that enamored with letterboxing of scope movies on 4:3 IMAX screens, that's why I'll just choose to see 2.35/39 movies on a screen that is actually 'wide' (here in DC, the best screen in this respect is the Uptown).

You can't "open matte" a movie if it was shot on anamorphic widescreen. You can only do that with formats like Super 35 or native IMAX

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

You can't "open matte" a movie if it was shot on anamorphic widescreen. You can only do that with formats like Super 35 or native IMAX

oh I know, but you get the gist of what I'm referring to when Disney does the reframing for select movies to take up more of an IMAX screen's screen - however they do it: Disney's technical "magic" at work...

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

oh I know, but you get the gist of what I'm referring to when Disney does the reframing for select movies to take up more of an IMAX screen's screen - however they do it: Disney's technical "magic" at work...

There certainly have been movies which were mostly 2.35:1 widescreen but had a few scenes in native IMAX, like TFA. But I'm really not aware of any movie that was originally 2.35:1 and got cropped to fill up an IMAX screen - I imagine there would have been an uproar?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

To be fair I have no idea what the image circle is like for any of these Panavision lenses. Maybe at least some of the longer ones do have more coverage than you'd get on an XT / SXT. Otherwise as you said there's really no point to using the more expensive camera.

2x glass is designed for 4-perf 35mm coverage, you may get a bit more out of it but then issues of vignetting could occur. Take La La Land, which used the whole 35mm aperture with 2x glass rather than the usual Academy 35 offset. What they shot was effectively 2.66 but cropped it slightly for the final extraction, even so there's a surprising amount of vignetting in the end 2.55 product. Most lenses have these artefacts of course, we just rarely see them because the image is being framed up on the 'clean' part of the lens' coverage.

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

You can't "open matte" a movie if it was shot on anamorphic widescreen. You can only do that with formats like Super 35 or native IMAX

Most movies using anamorphic also shoot stuff in spherical like aerial shots, the aforementioned VFX plates etc so if they wanted to embiggen whatever scene then it's simply a matter of shooting the whole sequence flat rather than just select plates, it doesn't even have to be S35 or 'native IMAX' or whatever. Stick a spherical lens on any digital camera and there's your 'IMAX'.

They could've done this with Spectre for example, the Mexico City opener was shot in S35 and the Thames boat chase at the end was Alexa 65, the rest in-between was 35mm anamorphic. And Fallout did much the same thing, shooting on anamorphic for all the regular stuff but using digital for the aerials and the two main 'IMAX' sequences which used RED and Panavision DXL respectively.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

There certainly have been movies which were mostly 2.35:1 widescreen but had a few scenes in native IMAX, like TFA. But I'm really not aware of any movie that was originally 2.35:1 and got cropped to fill up an IMAX screen - I imagine there would have been an uproar?

There were a couple in the early days of IMAX DMRs, such as Attack of the Clones which I believe was both cropped to 1.43 and edited down about 20 minutes to fit film platter limits they had at the time. But nothing has been cropped in well over a decade I think, unless you count something like Blade Runner 2049 having 3 shots cropped for the IMAX version due to technical issues (I’d argue not a big deal for a movie of that length where everything else was expanded).

[Geoff D]

I read that the IMAX version of Prometheus was a crop to 2:1. Saw that in dual-strip 15/70 3D, damned if I can remember what it was framed like though

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I read that the IMAX version of Prometheus was a crop to 2:1. Saw that in dual-strip 15/70 3D, damned if I can remember what it was framed like though

Prometheus in IMAX indeed used 2.0 (I saw it in digital IMAX, 15/70 showing was sold out but still really enjoyed the experience) but seems to have been an expanded image and not cropped, as it is stated to have audiences “see more of the image”. Which is what I believed, but did take a quick look to make sure that was correct.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...157445105.html

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Most movies using anamorphic also shoot stuff in spherical like aerial shots, the aforementioned VFX plates etc

Right, but those are usually limited to a few scenes or shots, it's usually not the entire movie.

Originally Posted by xbs2034

There were a couple in the early days of IMAX DMRs, such as Attack of the Clones which I believe was both cropped to 1.43 and edited down about 20 minutes to fit film platter limits they had at the time. But nothing has been cropped in well over a decade I think, unless you count something like Blade Runner 2049 having 3 shots cropped for the IMAX version due to technical issues (I’d argue not a big deal for a movie of that length where everything else was expanded).

I remember the AOTC conversion, they even made special posters with Yoda and it said something like "Size does matter", but at least in that case they were being very upfront about the need to alter the movie for that format due to technical limitations!

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

The new issue of American Cinematographer covers Godzilla: King of the Monsters. In addition to confirming the whole film is 2.39:1 scope, they went into some details on the overall "look" as well. Apparently they're purposefully trying to avoid looking "too crisp" and clean, hence shooting mostly on 2x anamorphic lenses, adding simulated film grain in post, et cetera. They claim to be emulating the look of Blade Runner and Alien to an extent.

The movie was mostly shot on the Alexa 65 but with 2x anamorphic Panavision lenses that only cover a portion of the sensor, which is in line with their desire not to have hyper-sharp look. It does say that for some of the visual effects shots they used large-format, non-anamorphic lenses that covered the whole sensor so those would be sharper and give them more to work with.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, read that too and it's verr interest that they'd shoot 2x anamorphics on a large format sensor, it's going to take up such a small amount of the available sensor area that one wonders what benefits they'd actually get it from it. I mean, the A3X sensor in the A65 is so-named because it's literally three regular Alexa sensors stitched together and rotated 90 degrees so you're not getting photosites of a higher quality than the regular Alexa, you're just getting more of them. So using less than a third, maybe even a quarter of the available imager makes no sense to me when you'd get the same quality (basically 2.8K) from shooting 2x anamorphic glass on a Alexa SXT. And you can shoot spherical in 3.4K for VFX etc on that same camera.

I suspect that the second part of it that you mention, the usage of spherical for VFX plates, factored into it more than a little, as using the A65 for those plates would give them a hell of a lot of quality baked in and would allow for extensive repositioning and whatnot.

Since the article didn't get into those specifics, I played around with the Arri Frame Line Composer for a general idea.

If they shot the Alexa 65 open gate, 2x anamorphic would be 3700x3100, which is almost the same as the Alexa LF's 3696x3096. But I'll assume the LF wasn't widely available at the start of their production.

But since the Panavisions they used don't cover that full frame area (appendix A of the LF white paper), I'll assume they shot in 4.3k crop mode. That would be 3438x2880. Still more pixels than the regular Alexa's 2628x2202.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by puddy77

If they shot the Alexa 65 open gate, 2x anamorphic would be 3700x3100, which is almost the same as the Alexa LF's 3696x3096. But I'll assume the LF wasn't widely available at the start of their production.

But since the Panavisions they used don't cover that full frame area (appendix A of the LF white paper), I'll assume they shot in 4.3k crop mode. That would be 3438x2880. Still more pixels than the regular Alexa's 2628x2202.

Again, though, we don't even know if the lenses would cover that much area. La La Land having vignetting is a decent indicator since it used some of the same lenses on a frame area narrower than an Alexa XT/SXT sensor. That said, KotM is using a wider range of lenses.

The Panavision 2x anamorphics are obviously designed for roughly Super 35 coverage, but that doesn't mean some of them won't have a larger image circle. "Covers Super 35/FullFrame/etc" is just a ballpark and different lenses, even by the same manufacturers, will have different specific usable image areas. Longer lenses tend to have bigger image circles even within the same series.

As Geoff pointed out, the Alexa 65 sensor is essentially identical to the SXT sensors, just bigger. It's not quite exactly three stitched together, but the individual photosites (pixels) are exactly the same size as on the smaller Alexas. So using the same physical sensor area results in the same pixel resolution on both cameras. As such, if the lenses don't even cover the whole XT/SXT sensor, swapping them onto the Alexa 65 will not provide a higher-resolution image because you wind up with the same number of usable pixels. The same is true of the Alexa LF. All of Arri's current Alexa line use the same photosite size/pixel density.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by puddy77

Since the article didn't get into those specifics, I played around with the Arri Frame Line Composer for a general idea.

If they shot the Alexa 65 open gate, 2x anamorphic would be 3700x3100, which is almost the same as the Alexa LF's 3696x3096. But I'll assume the LF wasn't widely available at the start of their production.

But since the Panavisions they used don't cover that full frame area (appendix A of the LF white paper), I'll assume they shot in 4.3k crop mode. That would be 3438x2880. Still more pixels than the regular Alexa's 2628x2202.

I, too played around with that FLC. (Cool app, BTW.) It seems 2x anamorphic in either open gate or 4.3K would result in higher information than the standard Alexa.
The RED cameras have a 6:5 ANA mode with the result of 5184x4320.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

I, too played around with that FLC. (Cool app, BTW.) It seems 2x anamorphic in either open gate or 4.3K would result in higher information than the standard Alexa.
The RED cameras have a 6:5 ANA mode with the result of 5184x4320.

It would only matter if the lens actually covers the larger area, though. I'm talking about the physical light hitting the sensor and creating an image. The frame line tool alone doesn't take that into account and just assumes you're covering the whole sensor.

You can get a better idea from their Frame Line & Lens Illumination Tool, which is currently in beta:
https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/l...umination-tool

Unfortunately the lens selection for the tool is very limited as of right now, especially when it comes to anamorphics. And the choice of lenses you have varies depending on camera. So there's no way to use the tool to tell for sure if the Panavision lenses used on KotM would cover a larger area than the SXT sensor. The closest you can get is checking coverage of a couple 2x anamorphic lenses on the Alexa LF, and overlaying a frame line for the size of the SXT sensor.

In the spoiler are examples I put together of this. The full image is the Open Gate Alexa LF sensor, the wider blue box is the Open Gate SXT sensor, and the narrower box inside is the maximum area used for 2x anamorphic 2.39:1 scope on the XT/SXT:

[Show spoiler]
Arri's own Master Anamorphic line barely covers the SXT anamorphic scope area at its widest focal length.


Same for the only other line of 2x anamorphics the tool currently has, P+S Evolution lenses. You can see the coverage pattern is quite different as well because it varies from lens to lens even if they're both designed for Super 35.


The longest lens in Arri's series demonstrates that longer lenses have better coverage but softer edges to the image circle, which means more vignetting if you use a larger area.

So in these specific examples you could get a LITTLE bit of extra resolution on the larger Alexa 65 sensors, but not by much, and you'll run into serious vignetting if you push it. The Panavision lenses' image circles could be larger or smaller than these, though. Since they're all made for S35 I can't imagine they'd be SIGNIFICANTLY larger.

In the ASC article the cinematographer did say the 65 got them more resolution, so obviously I'll take his word for it. This is just there to show that it's probably not a major difference for the anamorphic shots (which are most of the movie).