Shifting aspect ratios for IMAX, can they not?

[Coenskubrick]

You know what I mean, they shoot all the Imax stuff in Imax but then go shoot the rest in 2.35:1. WHY do they do this? It's so irritating. Nolan is the biggest perpetrator. If you want to fill up the vertical space for IMAX stuff why would you not want to for the rest of the film?

[singhcr]

IMAX cameras are expensive. The film is also very expensive, and the cameras make a lot of noise. It is considered impractical to shoot an entire movie with an IMAX camera, hence the shifting aspect ratios.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by singhcr

IMAX cameras are expensive. The film is also very expensive, and the cameras make a lot of noise. It is considered impractical to shoot an entire movie with an IMAX camera, hence the shifting aspect ratios.

This, plus the whole point of IMAX is to enhance the spectacle of certain sequences by giving them a larger-than-life quality; you lose this effect when the entire film is presented in IMAX aspect ratio rather than just select portions expanding to fill up the entire screen.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

While I don't let it bother me too much, I do find the shifting aspect ratios kind of annoying. I'd rather the entire film be in the same aspect ratio, even if only certain scenes are filmed using Imax cameras.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

It really doesn't bother me at all. In fact, the first time that I actually noticed it was in Hunger Games: Catching Fire. And it was done brilliantly!



That transition is epic.

[Coenskubrick]

Originally Posted by singhcr

IMAX cameras are expensive. The film is also very expensive, and the cameras make a lot of noise. It is considered impractical to shoot an entire movie with an IMAX camera, hence the shifting aspect ratios.

All they have to do is not shoot anamorphic. Unless you're watching it in true IMAX (which is taller than a regular screen), a regular 1.78 or 1.85 ratio will make the segments line up to the viewer.

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

It really doesn't bother me at all. In fact, the first time that I actually noticed it was in Hunger Games: Catching Fire. And it was done brilliantly!



That transition is epic.

That does look epic, but most of the time it just seems to cut in and out of IMAX footage arbitrarily.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

All they have to do is not shoot anamorphic. Unless you're watching it in true IMAX (which is taller than a regular screen), a regular 1.78 or 1.85 ratio will make the segments line up to the viewer.

That's true. Good point.

[Geoff D]

I like shifting aspects when they're done well, like with the above Catching Fire or Star Trek Into Darkness. But the damned near random stuff you get in a Nolan movie or the last Transformers really ticks me off. And don't get me started on simply opening up 2.35 films to fit the digital IMAX screen as a permanent aspect change, I hate that shit.

[PenguinMaster]

While I don't mind the aspect ratio change, I think it would make more sense to frame the rest of the movie in 1.85 instead of 2.35. This shouldn't be done in post-production, they should plan for the movie to be mostly 1.85 with 1.44 IMAX scenes from the beginning. That way there would be a much less drastic change (with likely no change for the Blu-ray version as the entire movie would be 1.78).

[sandman slim]

I don't really mind this when its done properly, with a whole scene in a different ratio. But that "big screen" edition of one of the Transformers movies is nearly unwatchable. A two second IMAX shot, and back to 2.40. Fourteen seconds... and back to 2.40. Completely ridiculous.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

You know what I mean, they shoot all the Imax stuff in Imax but then go shoot the rest in 2.35:1. WHY do they do this? It's so irritating. Nolan is the biggest perpetrator. If you want to fill up the vertical space for IMAX stuff why would you not want to for the rest of the film?

I personally love it, as long as the IMAX sequences are shot in IMAX. The great cinematic experiences were Interstellar, Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall (not shot in IMAX) and Hunger Games 2.

I know the new IMAX is not the same as the 70MM but I still think it is best experience possible outside of the home.

[bailey1987]

Personally I think it is just a symbolic way of saying "it won't be long before the entire film is filmed that way".

[in2video2]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Personally I think it is just a symbolic way of saying "it won't be long before the entire film is filmed that way".

Or it won't be long before 70MM and IMAX technologies merge.

[Derb]

Have no idea about this imax stuff.

I was watching Interstellar 4K up scaled & when ever the imax scene appeared it blew the crap out of any image I've seen on BD period. I went back & then looked at the compression. To my surprise the MB/S didn't jump at all when going from 2.39 to 1.78.

So space ain't an issue..

Why can't they release both a 2.35 & IMAX only version BD?

[Spike M.]

There was a pretty big online uproar when M:I4 wasn't released with shifting ratios. Big enough that it drew Bird's attention on twitter. Can't win.

I can't imagine watching TDK/R or Interstellar entirely in 2.40. After seeing Interstellar in 15/70, I was barely okay with the crop to 16:9. Clearly, that's the frame Nolan intended for home viewing, though.

Long live the intended aspect ratio.

[Geoff D]

Bah, I'd love to have Interstellar on Blu-ray in fixed 2.40, just like the version I saw in the cinema. Nolan's IMAX stuff is a literal waste of space IMO.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Bah, I'd love to have Interstellar on Blu-ray in fixed 2.40, just like the version I saw in the cinema. Nolan's IMAX stuff is a literal waste of space IMO.

You can always join team VLC and click that little "2.40:1" option under "crop". You can even tweak the color while you're at it.

The space sequences, particularly in that 25 minute full frame stretch from the docking crash to the tesseract, were stunning filling a proper IMAX screen. Seeing it in 16:9 isn't the same, but it's certainly better than 2.40.

[Geoff D]

The 2.40 version wasn't just a straight centre crop, it was repositioned in certain shots. I saw it in 15/70 as well BTW, but I just don't like the way that Nolan uses IMAX. He shoots his stuff widescreen safe instead of going full tilt and it feels like I'm watching an open matte version rather than something that's genuinely composed for that 1.44 frame. (Same reasoning why I don't like those fixed 1.90 IMAX versions that other movies have gotten.)

[Derb]

The IMAX shots upconverted to 4K from Interstellar look better then Netlix's House of Cards in Semi-Native 4K.

So basically if it ain't in politically correct aspect ratio, nobody needs to bother with it. Memba the days when Universal introduced us to Full Screen DVDs?.. Those were the days.

Ps,

iOS from Apple needs to go. I mean literally every single word I type is auto corrected. their, nope.. There, nope.. Tied, nope.. The, Yes!! Thank you apple for letting me type THE

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Derb

The IMAX shots upconverted to 4K from Interstellar look better then Netlix's House of Cards in Semi-Native 4K.

Because compression. Even the BDA have privately admitted that a well-mastered 2K source on disc will beat the average 4K stream.