Jurassic Park taller IMAX version?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I was talking about it being worth it from a ROI perspective....

That's what I said in my last tweet - about the box office. In the pandemic era, two films released on IMAX 1.43:1 are already a resounding success. A third (Eternals in 1.43:1 IMAX) is on its way to do the same. Jurassic Park is a hugely successful IP for Universal. JWD is more or less a guaranteed success financially speaking. People are going to watch because of Nostalgia (Neill, Dern & Goldblum), love for the books (Dodgson and Biosyn), love for palaeontology (feathered dinosaurs). Also, there are the new fans of Jurassic World, camp Cretaceous and fans of Chris Pratt among others. The ROI being good if not great (Covid) is guaranteed. It'll most likely make around $550-600 mil, if not more. The 1.43:1 version can also be released on home video; particularly for the iPad pro crowd who rarely, if ever, get to watch full-screen videos. It would be great for people with projectors who could blow up the 1.43:1 image on their walls.

[BluBonnet]

I'm not talking about any sequels, I'm talking about the original

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I'm not talking about any sequels, I'm talking about the original

If you are talking about the 1993 film, then I understand they may have felt unsure about JP's financial success. Today, though, they can absolutely re-release JP trilogy in IMAX 1.43:1 by using the fresh 4K scans in 1.33:1.

JP 35mm Island Entry final frame 1-43-1 lowrez.jpg

JP 35mm Sick trike first sight 1-43-1 lowrez.jpg

JP 35mm Rex breakout 1-66-1.jpg

JP 35mm Alan checks Trike breath 1-43-1 lowrez.jpg

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

If you are talking about the 1993 film, then I understand they may have felt unsure about JP's financial success. Today, though, they can absolutely re-release JP trilogy in IMAX 1.43:1 by using the fresh 4K scans in 1.33:1.

Re-release theatrically? I doubt it. But if it happens, great!

And nobody in 1993 doubted that JP was going to be a ginormous hit.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

They may use it for VFX plates only, or for filming some action sewuences/sublime shots/inserts. In any case, VV is just a camera, Geoff. A film can be partially or fully shot on it, just like IMAX 15 perf. The tall 1.47:1 image of VV is perfect for an IMAX 1.43:1 expansion and would also reduce the budget compared to 15 perf shooting while delivering a fine-grained, sharp and yet organic image that VV is known for. Just scan VV in 6K/8K like Nolan did for TDK, TDKR and Interstellar.

If it's just a camera then why get so excited about it? And saying that the new one "was shot in VistaVision like the OG trilogy" is a bit disingenuous as they were all shot 4-perf spherical and used the VV for...VFX plates. I'd imagine they're doing the exact same thing this time because, if you hadn't noticed, the list of gear on IMDB would suggest that they're shooting it in anamorphic...so bang goes your dream of an entire 1.43 shaped JW3. And where was it said they were going for 2:1 ratio again? Makers of feature films don't often shoot anamorphic just to discard some of it, it's common for TV but this ain't TV.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Re-release theatrically? I doubt it. But if it happens, great!

And nobody in 1993 doubted that JP was going to be a ginormous hit.

They knew it would be successful, but they didn't know to what extent. No one had any way of knowing that it would be a "ginormous hit." Producers of movies nowadays don't know it either. They can only hope that it would be successful.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

They knew it would be successful, but they didn't know to what extent.

This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in regards to JP. Literally EVERYONE in the industry expected the movie to break pretty much every box-office record.

I was already reading Variety regularly at the time, so I'm pretty sure I know what the industry expected of the movie.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If it's just a camera then why get so excited about it? And saying that the new one "was shot in VistaVision like the OG trilogy" is a bit disingenuous as they were all shot 4-perf spherical and used the VV for...VFX plates. I'd imagine they're doing the exact same thing this time because, if you hadn't noticed, the list of gear on IMDB would suggest that they're shooting it in anamorphic...so bang goes your dream of an entire 1.43 shaped JW3. And where was it said they were going for 2:1 ratio again? Makers of feature films don't often shoot anamorphic just to discard some of it, it's common for TV but this ain't TV.

It appears that you don't follow all the JWD updates Geoff, which is fine. Colin Trevorrow has confirmed the 2.00:1 aspect ratio for JWD a couple of times. He even said it has become his go-to aspect ratio now. Take a look at the screenshot below. Also, I never said I wanted an "entire 1.43 shaped JW3," just select sequences/scenes/shots like in the Nolan films. Also, while VV is just a camera, it records higher quality images because of the larger negative area and was used by Nolan in TDK, TDKR and Interstellar for IMAX scenes (by cropping from 1.47:1 to 1.43:1) for select shots.

JWD Aspect ratio official confirmation.jpg

I may be wrong, but it appears as if Colin Trevorrow is not aware of the fact that "full-frame IMAX" aspect ratio is 1.43:1, not "one nine" (1.89:1).

Also, may I remind you Geoff that Avengers Endgame was shot anamorphic too, but they cropped the sides to achieve 1.89:1 for IMAX and then further cropped it down to 2.39:1 for regular theatrical release? No Time to Die also used the 2.28:1 negative of 65mm 5 perf and cropped it to 1.89:1 for some of the IMAX scenes. Again, IMDB is often wrong about technical specs, which often get changed as official information is released. The tech specs of JWD on IMDB are just random placeholder info. they don't even mention VistaVision, which Trevorrow confirmed during a fan screening for Battle at Big Rock.

[Lee A Stewart]

IMAX Digital is 1.90 aspect ratio. 15/70 IMAX and dual Laser Projectors IMAX is 1.43 aspect ratio.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

IMAX Digital is 1.90 aspect ratio. 15/70 IMAX and dual Laser Projectors IMAX is 1.43 aspect ratio.

1.89:1 and 1.90:1 are the same aspect ratio, just like 1.43:1 and 1.44:1 are the same. Some folks use even numbers, some odd, to describe the AR. All 15/70 screens are not in the exact 1.43:1 shape either. If you start to measure by tape, then you will be surprised by the upteen variations you'll find, however slight. Some screens are 1.33-ish, some are 1.47-ish. In India, the only commercial IMAX 70mm screen in Mumbai is in a 1.89:1-ish aspect ratio. 1.43:1 films are shown pillarboxed to 1.66:1 or cropped to 1.89:1. India also has dual 4K Laser projectors, but the screens are locked to 1.89:1. There is one IMAX Laser screen here that is even shorter than 1.9, but taller than 2.4. So, there's no hard and fast rule. Whatever space is available inside the auditorium, they fill it wall-to-wall, ceiling-to-floor.

[Lee A Stewart]

[Socko]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Even if they could, should they?

Can't imagine they would think the expense would be worth it.

They spared no expense

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Socko

They spared no expense

https://youtu.be/2cI6KhH-x7w

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

It appears that you don't follow all the JWD updates Geoff, which is fine. Colin Trevorrow has confirmed the 2.00:1 aspect ratio for JWD a couple of times. He even said it has become his go-to aspect ratio now. Take a look at the screenshot below. Also, I never said I wanted an "entire 1.43 shaped JW3," just select sequences/scenes/shots like in the Nolan films. Also, while VV is just a camera, it records higher quality images because of the larger negative area and was used by Nolan in TDK, TDKR and Interstellar for IMAX scenes (by cropping from 1.47:1 to 1.43:1) for select shots.

Attachment 267768

I may be wrong, but it appears as if Colin Trevorrow is not aware of the fact that "full-frame IMAX" aspect ratio is 1.43:1, not "one nine" (1.89:1).

Also, may I remind you Geoff that Avengers Endgame was shot anamorphic too, but they cropped the sides to achieve 1.89:1 for IMAX and then further cropped it down to 2.39:1 for regular theatrical release? No Time to Die also used the 2.28:1 negative of 65mm 5 perf and cropped it to 1.89:1 for some of the IMAX scenes. Again, IMDB is often wrong about technical specs, which often get changed as official information is released. The tech specs of JWD on IMDB are just random placeholder info. they don't even mention VistaVision, which Trevorrow confirmed during a fan screening for Battle at Big Rock.

I know IMDB isn't the ultimate oracle of truth, but it's strange that such specific "random" details about the cameras and lenses are up already: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8041270/technical, usually it's just the bare minimum. If he did shoot regular 2x 35 anamorphic just to crop it to 2:1 then that's verr unusual for a feature film.

As for Endgame may I remind you that it was shot 6.5K on a 65mm-sized sensor using Ultra Panavision anamorphic glass, it's about as far away from your precious 35mm that you can get and it's because of all that quality baked in that they could crop it the way that they did (similar to Rogue One, shot using the same combo of equipment). The same does not apply to what I thought was a 35mm-centric discussion, as said above it just doesn't happen often for 35 anamorphic to shoot and then crop.

But from looking at the JW3 specs again, they mention something verr interesting: the company is apparently using Ultra Vista lenses which are new 1.65x anamorphics designed for use with a VistaVision-sized aperture to deliver a 2.40-ish widescreen image. They're even mentioned in this tweet by Panavision: https://twitter.com/panavision/statu...13978522869763

And yet from that ^ image we can see that they're not using an 8-perf camera, that's a regular 4-perf arrangement. So what gives? Here's what I think: they're using the anamorphic UV glass with regular 4-perf, which on a 1.33 fullap negative would give a widescreen aspect of roughly 2.19:1, so cropping that down to 2:1 wouldn't be nearly so damaging. It may even be why Trevorrow doesn't want to do a 1.90 version because he'd only have to crop the image further, I think he knows full well that 'real' IMAX is 1.43 but the way that they're shooting the film - aside from flat 65 and VV VFX plates - ultimately precludes it.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I know IMDB isn't the ultimate oracle of truth, but it's strange that such specific "random" details about the cameras and lenses are up already: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8041270/technical, usually it's just the bare minimum. If he did shoot regular 2x 35 anamorphic just to crop it to 2:1 then that's verr unusual for a feature film.

It may be unusual, but Vittorio Storaro, whose work Colin Trevorrow repeatedly cited while speaking of his choice for 2.00:1 for Jurassic World (2015), used to crop his past 2.39:1 anamorphic films, like Apocalypse Now and Little Buddha, to 2.00:1. An interesting thing I found out while comparing Little Buddha's DVD (2.39:1) and Blu-ray (2.00:1), that the latter has more image vertically than the scope version, while the 2.39 version has less height, but slightly more width. I prefer the 2.00 version not because of the extra height, but the film looks beautiful compositionally in the narrower ratio and feels more magical, spiritual and intimate compared to the more "mainstream" look of the 2.39 version. The film was also released on 70mm (2.20:1) theatrically.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

https://twitter.com/panavision/statu...13978522869763

Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yet from that ^ image we can see that they're not using an 8-perf camera, that's a regular 4-perf arrangement. So what gives? Here's what I think: they're using the anamorphic UV glass with regular 4-perf, which on a 1.33 fullap negative would give a widescreen aspect of roughly 2.19:1, so cropping that down to 2:1 wouldn't be nearly so damaging. It may even be why Trevorrow doesn't want to do a 1.90 version because he'd only have to crop the image further, I think he knows full well that 'real' IMAX is 1.43 but the way that they're shooting the film - aside from flat 65 and VV VFX plates - ultimately precludes it.

They may have shot the 8-perf VFX plates with the Ultra Vista lenses as well. What would be the aspect ratio of the image if such a thing was done? Also, IMDB states that they are using Pananvision Super 70 and Red Comodo, but Colin has never mentioned those. Colin spoke of VistaVision, but IMDB does not acknowledge that. So, either Colin was wrong or IMDB is ill informed/has put some placeholder info. The Rd Comodo is likely being used for aerials, like it was done for Jurassic World.

[Geoff D]

I mean intentionally framed for the cropping right from the theatrical release, whereas Storaro cropped those movies after the fact, they were shot and composed for 2.35 on 35 anamorphic and he mutilated them just to shill his vision of a 2:1 future. You can like Little Buddha all you want but I damn near wept tears of joy when finally seeing Apocalypse Now in 2.35 for the first time, there are some gorgeous three point compositions in there that are literally ruined by the 2:1 crop.

If they used the UV lenses on VV then that’d generate a wide image of something like 2.42:1 when desqueezed so it wouldn’t be much use as a VFX plate! Generally you want a flat image with as little distortion as possible.

As for Panavision Super 70, that’s just fancy talk for 5-perf 65mm. Was I hallucinating or did you post a quote from Trev saying that they’ll be using 35, 65 and VistaVision? Can’t seem to find it. And yes, spot on, the Komodo is likely for aerials.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I mean intentionally framed for the cropping right from the theatrical release, whereas Storaro cropped those movies after the fact, they were shot and composed for 2.35 on 35 anamorphic and he mutilated them just to shill his vision of a 2:1 future. You can like Little Buddha all you want but I damn near wept tears of joy when finally seeing Apocalypse Now in 2.35 for the first time, there are some gorgeous three point compositions in there that are literally ruined by the 2:1 crop.

I only saw the 2:1 "mutilated" version of Apocalypse on DVD. This was before they restored the original 2.39:1 aspect ratio. Seeing that they really filmed an actual Buffalo being hacked to death alive, I'm never seeing that film ever again, full-frame or otherwise. The same goes for The Godfather.
As for Little Buddha, I loved the film compositionally much more in the 2.00:1 reformatted version than the 2.39:1 scope version which did not look special to me.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As for Panavision Super 70, that’s just fancy talk for 5-perf 65mm. Was I hallucinating or did you post a quote from Trev saying that they’ll be using 35, 65 and VistaVision? Can’t seem to find it. And yes, spot on, the Komodo is likely for aerials.

Geoffey, I know the difference between Super Panavision (2.20:1) and Ultra Panavision (2.76:1).

As for whether or not you were "hallucinating," depends on how you cooked your mushrooms last evening.

I may have posted that Trevorrow quote (or not) somewhere, sometime. Can't bother to find it now. In any case, I think most theatres in India and elsewhere will muck up the projection by either cropping it to 2.39:1 or showing it on scope screens with black bars on all four sides (like they did for JW and Dunkirk). Only flat format theatres can be expected to properly project it and there are only a few of those here. 95 % of screens we have in the cities/towns are 2.39:1.

Last time I almost got into a fight with the theatre manager (I'm exaggerating a wee bit) when I kept pestering him about how he was projecting it cropped and how I deserve to see the whole image bc I paid for it, blah, blah. They called up the distributor and corrected the dimensions after the interval. My friend wasn't too happy to see the image shrink inside the 2.39:1 screen though.

[Lee A Stewart]

Univisium

Univisium (macaronic Latin for "unity of images") is a proposed universal film format created by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, ASC, AIC and his son, Fabrizio, to unify all future theatrical and television films into one respective aspect ratio of 2:1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Univisium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

Vittorio Storaro did not create the 2.00:1 aspect ratio. he just renamed it. 2.00:1 was originally known as "Superscope" and it had been existing since the 1950s and was developed by Universal Pictures. Vera Cruz (1954) was the first to use this aspect ratio.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Vittorio Storaro did not create the 2.00:1 aspect ratio. he just renamed it. 2.00:1 was originally known as "Superscope" and it had been existing since the 1950s and was developed by Universal Pictures. Vera Cruz (1954) was the first to use this aspect ratio.

He was very vocal in trying to get other content makers to follow him. He even tried to get the aspect ratio of HDTV to be 2:1 instead of 16x9 during the Grand Alliance development. Of course he failed in his efforts.