Shifting aspect ratios for IMAX, can they not?

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by 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.)

Obviously it was repositioned to meet Nolan's final approval, but in general the shot's were visualized, shot, and rendered with 2.40 indicators in the middle of the frame, similar to how television shows still often used monitors with the 1.33 markers. Sure, just doing a straight center crop would render some wonky frames here and there, but in general it wouldn't be too much of a bother. You're playing fast and loose with caring about the framing in the first place.

I'm not sure I understand your open matte line of thinking. You can crop virtually any image to 2.40 and still keep the most important elements in tact. It's sort of arbitrary to designate 2.40 as the fall back ratio. Particularly with Interstellar, where the crop completely undersells the scope of some of the shots. Seeing clips from the crash docking sequence in 2.40 makes me cringe. It's "dead space" that adds size and scope.

[Geoff D]

How is it "playing fast and loose" with the framing to want something presented as I saw it in the cinema, and not some "wonky" home brew version? I'm not saying you can't have your IMAX version, what I hate is being denied the director-approved 2.40 version on Blu-ray, the version which I enjoyed a heck of a lot more than the 15/70 edition.

Still, I moaned about the exact opposite when Brad Bird wouldn't allow the IMAX version of Ghost Protocol to be released on Blu-ray, but that's because his IMAX stuff was framed far better than Nolan's and the switching from aspect to aspect wasn't nearly as arbitrary. I hate that facet of Nolan's IMAX shots even more than the dead space.

Capricious? Moi?

[jsobko]

It will be interesting to see how these new IMAX cameras work out. I believe the next Avengers will be shot completely with them.

[Geoff D]

It's basically an Alexa 65 with some IMAX modifications that might include the reverse anamorphosis needed to squeeze the traditional 1.44 IMAX image onto the 2.1 sensor of the camera. We'll get our first taste of it with Civil War I think.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Derb

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

A simpler solution then getting rid of an entire operating system is to simply turn off the auto-correct and auto-complete/suggestion feature. I did it the day I first turned on my iPhone and haven't looked back.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

A simpler solution then getting rid of an entire operating system is to simply turn off the auto-correct and auto-complete/suggestion feature. I did it the day I first turned on my iPhone and haven't looked back.

I'd rather shut down the whole company.

Thanks for the tip.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

How is it "playing fast and loose" with the framing to want something presented as I saw it in the cinema, and not some "wonky" home brew version? I'm not saying you can't have your IMAX version, what I hate is being denied the director-approved 2.40 version on Blu-ray, the version which I enjoyed a heck of a lot more than the 15/70 edition.

Still, I moaned about the exact opposite when Brad Bird wouldn't allow the IMAX version of Ghost Protocol to be released on Blu-ray, but that's because his IMAX stuff was framed far better than Nolan's and the switching from aspect to aspect wasn't nearly as arbitrary. I hate that facet of Nolan's IMAX shots even more than the dead space.

Capricious? Moi?

It's playing fast and loose because despite being a director approved crop to 2.40, it was still a crop Nolan made out of lack of a better option. It's "approved" in the same way that a studio might've let a director "approve" of a 1.33 crop from 2.40 for a VHS in 1991 (I have no idea if they actually gave the director any say back in the day). Like his framing or not, you're toying with the idea of picking the ratio you like, not the one the director intends. It's dangerous territory to be playing in when it comes to respecting the artists vision.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

It's playing fast and loose because despite being a director approved crop to 2.40, it was still a crop Nolan made out of lack of a better option. It's "approved" in the same way that a studio might've let a director "approve" of a 1.33 crop from 2.40 for a VHS in 1991 (I have no idea if they actually gave the director any say back in the day). Like his framing or not, you're toying with the idea of picking the ratio you like, not the one the director intends. It's dangerous territory to be playing in when it comes to respecting the artists vision.

I thought the pan and scan comparison might make an appearance. Hyperbole much? I still wonder how many people actually saw the ultimate 15/70 version that the director intended, instead of the other "dangerous" versions that he explicitly approved like the 1.90/2.40 for digital IMAX or the fixed 2.20 version that was released on 5-perf 70mm, for which some cinemas actually refurbished their projectors to be able to display it at the director's insistence. It's funny he'd go to all that trouble for just a few 70mm shows which would feature such a hideously deformed (akin to pan and scan, right?) version of the film.

Let's not forget the other small caveat: the 1.78/2.40 Blu-ray is also quite a bit removed from the original 1.44/2.40 "vision"; I can imagine you wrestling with your seemingly immutable movie morals, squirming in your seat as you watch this compromised version unfold in front of you. Or doesn't that count? All I'm asking for is a little bit of extra compromise to see it in 2.40 as I did in the cinema.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I thought the pan and scan comparison might make an appearance. Hyperbole much? I still wonder how many people actually saw the ultimate 15/70 version that the director intended, instead of the other "dangerous" versions that he explicitly approved like the 1.90/2.40 for digital IMAX or the fixed 2.20 version that was released on 5-perf 70mm, for which some cinemas actually refurbished their projectors to be able to display it at the director's insistence. It's funny he'd go to all that trouble for just a few 70mm shows which would feature such a hideously deformed (akin to pan and scan, right?) version of the film.

Let's not forget the other small caveat: the 1.78/2.40 Blu-ray is also quite a bit removed from the original 1.44/2.40 "vision"; I can imagine you wrestling with your seemingly immutable movie morals, squirming in your seat as you watch this compromised version unfold in front of you. Or doesn't that count? All I'm asking for is a little bit of extra compromise to see it in 2.40 as I did in the cinema.

I wasn't making a false equivalency. Nolan went through the trouble of making people repair and use their 35 and 5/70 equipment because he loves film and seemingly does everything in his power to keep it alive in theaters. That doesn't mean he's in love with the fact he had to crop the 1.44 scenes down to 2.40 and 2.20 for the print's distribution.

I'll agree with you that in making the 15/70 version the, as you sarcastically put it, the "ultimate" and purest form of the movie that Nolan's sort of blatantly disregarding how 95% of people would see it. I think that bleeds into the filmmaking as well, since without that towering screen and rumbling sound, I don't think the movie works nearly as well. It's built as an experience, which undercuts conventional theaters. This is in contrast to something like The Dark Knight, which used IMAX and an IMAX theater not as a intrical part of achieving the film's goals, but as an added bonus for those lucky enough to see it that way.

Either way, like I said, it isn't much different than if a studio were to have let a director approve of a 1.33 crop from 2.40. The director would be "approving" it because the only other option is that somebody else does it.

I did previously say that after seeing it in 15/70 that even a 16:9 crop annoyed me. It's the most logical of the options for presenting the film as Nolan wants it on BD, though. The desired effect he wants is for the IMAX scenes to fill up the screen and get as "big" as possible. Switching to 1.44 on a 16:9 screen doesn't do that.

[Geoff D]

There we are then; you're annoyed with the Blu-ray image because it's not tall enough, I'm annoyed with it because it's not narrow enough. It'd be nice if you could just accept that instead of lecturing me on how "dangerous" it is, like this is 1995 and I'm some mook who wants his 4:3 screen filled.

Nolan strikes me as being a bit like Kubrick with all his aspect ratios and whatnot: he exerts such a huge amount of control over how his work is presented in whatever format you see it in that I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything with the 2.40 version. I might still have to get the 2.40 DVD just to fill that gap, so to speak.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There we are then; you're annoyed with the Blu-ray image because it's not tall enough, I'm annoyed with it because it's not narrow enough. It'd be nice if you could just accept that instead of lecturing me on how "dangerous" it is, like this is 1995 and I'm some mook who wants his 4:3 screen filled.

Nolan strikes me as being a bit like Kubrick with all his aspect ratios and whatnot: he exerts such a huge amount of control over how his work is presented in whatever format you see it in that I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything with the 2.40 version. I might still have to get the 2.40 DVD just to fill that gap, so to speak.

I'm not particularly annoyed with the 16:9 crop. It fills the screen, which is the intended effect. If I like... lived in an IMAX theater or something it'd annoy me, lol.

I just look at something like this-

[Show spoiler]

... and can't help but feel like I'd be missing out and that each crop would be a series of hard decisions for the filmmaker to make.

[Geoff D]

Fair enough. But I've never given in to that 'I'm missing something' way of thinking with Nolan's stuff because his 1.44 framing is terminally uninspired IMO. He plays things so safe and has used it in an increasingly arbitrary fashion over the course of his movies that I honestly find it to be more of a distraction. And the thing about Interstellar is that some of the space shots are framed against the blackness of space (well, duh!) so the extra height is completely wasted because there's just a dark void there anyway.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

annoyed

Re: Annoyance

Some projectionists are annoyed that two feature motion pictures have been recently released in non-standard aspect ratios of 2.2:1 and 2.0:1.

The choice was to use either flat or scope as a container for these unusual aspect ratios. The annoyance from some projectionists is because the features have black bars above/below (letterbox) of 40 pixels top/bottom for instance for the 2.0:1 movie. Since most exhibition is limited in ability to adapt to make changes in theaters. This is due to the wide variety of masking options in the field (if present at all) and the ability to change masking between trailers and the feature.

Personally, I’m more interested if this portends a true shift in future practice….http://variety.com/2015/film/news/pa...ws-1201536116/

[Geoff D]

I know, I read the thread a few weeks ago on the film-tech forums about Tomorrowland which segued into talk about JW.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I know, I read the thread a few weeks ago on the film-tech forums about Tomorrowland which segued into talk about JW.

I didn’t get to read the thread in thee outside forum/chat room….just heard second hand about it (the projectionists having their panties in a knot over the matter).

I’d doubt they know/realize the true reason why Brad B. chose the 2.20:1 aspect ratio.

[Geoff D]

I know why he liked his taller IMAX version, but do tell why he chose 2.20.

[Geoff D]

Aw, I thought it was something more complicated (and less obvious) than “Brad wanted to honor the old 65mm format” as noted in the ASC article below.

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/Ju...land/page1.php

[Spike M.]

I only see it as a problem for projectionists working with a 2.40 screen that masks to 16:9, which is seemingly almost no one these days.

[Geoff D]

Seemingly being the right word, as these non-standard (for DCPs) ratios have caused a fair bit of consternation amongst the theatrical projection community. If the powers that be get around to updating the DCP specs it'd be prudent to include a few more ratios IMO so they can maximise the resolution and won't have to hard encode borders into the image, the masking of which is partly what's caused the griping about Tomorrowland (being 2.20 in a flat 1.85 container).

[Coenskubrick]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Seemingly being the right word, as these non-standard (for DCPs) ratios have caused a fair bit of consternation amongst the theatrical projection community. If the powers that be get around to updating the DCP specs it'd be prudent to include a few more ratios IMO so they can maximise the resolution and won't have to hard encode borders into the image, the masking of which is partly what's caused the griping about Tomorrowland (being 2.20 in a flat 1.85 container).

That is interesting. I never realised this would be an issue. I thought you could make DCPs in whatever ratio you wanted.