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.

[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.

[antennahead]

Not that my opinion matters, but I too hate switching aspect ratios in a film.

[AmishParadise]

I own a 150" 1.78:1 projector screen and use black velvet masking, horizontal masking for aspect ratios north of 1.78:1 and vertical masking for aspect ratios south of 1.78:1. The end result, a black hole surrounding the visible image area.

Not interested in leaving large portions of my projector screen unmasked, because for a few minutes during a scene or two in a scope film the aspect ratio opens up and is taller. It's not worth the trade-off for me.

My solution, using BD Rebuilder I re-author the given Blu-ray creating a version with a fixed aspect ratio, i.e. enabling the "Use AVS Filters during encoding" option adding the command to crop each frame down to the widest of aspect ratios used followed by the command to add the black bars back to the given frame.

[truelies]

It's better just film every movie at 1.78:1 like avitar. 2.35:1 not using all part of the screen both in theaters and TV.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by truelies

It's better just film every movie at 1.78:1 like avitar. 2.35:1 not using all part of the screen both in theaters and TV.

Better for whom?

[JohnCN]

Shifting aspect ratios may be OK on a projection screen or very large screen TV viewed from a close distance. However, those of us with 2.35:1 screens like me are frustrated because we have to view the movie with bars at the top AND sides except during IMAX segments when the image reaches the top and bottom of the screen. It seems the disc production companies care somewhat about us because captions are within the picture frame. So why not offer two versions of the movie on the disc or separate discs. Christopher Nolan films and my latest acquisition, Top Gun Maverick I just found out today, shifts from 2.39:1 to 1.85:1 (approximately).