Why is IMAX not wide screen?

[hendra]

I often wonder why Imax is not wide screen. Why is Imax aspect ratio closer to 1.33:1 but movie theater is closer to 2.4:1? Does Imax camera have a technical limitation that makes it difficult to make a movie at 2.4:1?

[BStecke]

Part of the point of IMAX is the size, but if you get much wider than 2.4, you start getting too wide for people's field of vision. So, they just make it bigger overall. That's not any sort of technical answer, merely my own speculation

[mjbethancourt]

Imax is widescreen, it's just not 2.5:1.

[RiseDarthVader]

IMAX probably mainly chose the 1.33:1 ratio because it is the most immersive. It just fills your vision much better then 2.40:1. For example when you watch the 2.40:1 scenes in IMAX for The Dark Knight or Transformers while it is huge it just does not give that wow holy crap it is huge that you get with 1.33:1

[BLUCanadian]

isnt Imax 1.44:1 not 1.33:1

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by BLUCanadian

isnt Imax 1.44:1 not 1.33:1

Yes... and feature-film Imax is usually 1.78:1.

[RiseDarthVader]

IMAX Sydney says it is 1.33:1

[Deciazulado]

1.43

[blu1183]

What's the difference between imax? Just bigger picture or is it hi def also?

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by blu1183

What's the difference between imax? Just bigger picture or is it hi def also?

I think Imax cameras have the highest digital resolution availible (about 10,000*7,000 I believe) and film based Imax productions are shot at 70mm (Far higher than the digital Imax cameras I think). But has anyone ever heard of Cinerama? It was made before Cinemascope, in fact Cinemascope was called the poor mans Cinerama at the time. Cinerama used a curved screen to cover your whole eyesight, almost as if your whole eye sight sees the whole picture, rather than with Imax where you have this really large screen where you need to pan your head to see what is happening. Some people actually prefer the Cinerama method, but films to make them in cinerama format were extremely expensive and require remodeling of the theater, unlike cinemascope where you just needed a wider screen, which was a far cheaper alternative to cinemascope. I wished the cinerama format lasted alot longer, only a few movies were shot in Cinerama (How the West was Won is availible on Blu ray, and offers both the Cinerama version (which looks curved and actually disjointed if you watch it on a TV or small projection screen) and the 2.85:1 normal theatrical version (A very wide movie).

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by blu1183

What's the difference between imax? Just bigger picture or is it hi def also?

It's beyond hi-def. An imax film is usually shot using 70mm film which is usually at 7k (and has better colours etc), 35mm film is used for most films (which is said to be around 4k), HD cameras are at 1.08k (the same as blu ray, however a scope film can take full advantage of all pixels available when recording know using a specialised lense). The disadvantage to Imax cameras is ther large, heavy and hard to move around., they are also loud which makes shotting dialogue near on impossible unless you want to dub everything.

In all honesty for the normal theatre experience one is not going to be able to tell the difference between 4k 35mm and 1.08k in terms of the pixels, rather other factors set them apart (and there is a lot of positives and negatives for both digital cameras and film).

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by blu1183

What's the difference between imax? Just bigger picture or is it hi def also?

Anamorphic 35mm Widescreen

Enjoy.

[Sammy]

Nice post... Pictures worth thousands of words. IMHO film is most always of a higher resolution than digital as it is a chemical process that absorbs the entire light spectrum and is not set to a certain number of pixels. As those pictures demonstrate, using larger film provides for more depth and detail to be chemically absorbed.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Yes... and feature-film Imax is usually 1.78:1.

IMAX-Digital screens are 1.78

Films like The Dark Knight and Transformers 2 where select scene were shot in 1.43 those scenes were later recomposed to 1.78 for IMAX-Digital and HiDef home video blu-ray release.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

It's beyond hi-def. An imax film is usually shot using 70mm film which is usually at 7k (and has better colours etc), 35mm film is used for most films (which is said to be around 4k), HD cameras are at 1.08k (the same as blu ray, however a scope film can take full advantage of all pixels available when recording know using a specialised lense). The disadvantage to Imax cameras is ther large, heavy and hard to move around., they are also loud which makes shotting dialogue near on impossible unless you want to dub everything.

In all honesty for the normal theatre experience one is not going to be able to tell the difference between 4k 35mm and 1.08k in terms of the pixels, rather other factors set them apart (and there is a lot of positives and negatives for both digital cameras and film).

not according to American Cinematographer - the DP for the 'The Dark Knight' stated 35mm can be as high as 6k. Baraka's 70mm print was scanned to hidef (blu-ray) via 8K technology.

IMAX cameras may be heavy and hard to move around, but watch a movie like Journey to Amazing Caves and you'll see some incredible cinematography and what with a skilled camera person can be accomplish with such a behemoth of a camera. Most Hollywood camera DP would think twice about base jumping with a camera that large, but that hasn't stopped some.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

I think Imax cameras have the highest digital resolution availible (about 10,000*7,000 I believe) and film based Imax productions are shot at 70mm (Far higher than the digital Imax cameras I think). But has anyone ever heard of Cinerama? It was made before Cinemascope, in fact Cinemascope was called the poor mans Cinerama at the time. Cinerama used a curved screen to cover your whole eyesight, almost as if your whole eye sight sees the whole picture, rather than with Imax where you have this really large screen where you need to pan your head to see what is happening. Some people actually prefer the Cinerama method, but films to make them in cinerama format were extremely expensive and require remodeling of the theater, unlike cinemascope where you just needed a wider screen, which was a far cheaper alternative to cinemascope. I wished the cinerama format lasted alot longer, only a few movies were shot in Cinerama (How the West was Won is availible on Blu ray, and offers both the Cinerama version (which looks curved and actually disjointed if you watch it on a TV or small projection screen) and the 2.85:1 normal theatrical version (A very wide movie).

I think it was in the documentary 'This is Cinerama' (on the 'How the West Was Won' SE) that attributes that the inventor of Cinerama was so impressed with IMAX, he was quoted as saying 'well I wish I had invented THAT'

It is totally dependent on what theatres and screens you see a movie where it's most beneficial. Case in point, AMC and Regal have very box like auditoriums (Tysons Corner/Gallery Place) the more of the image can encompass the wall - the more I feel like the image is impressive. A film like 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' where it's aspect ration was 1.66, it took so much of the wall, the imagery was forward and center, a wide screen movie (2.35) the screen doesn't stretch out, but the masking comes down and up resulting in loss of screen - that's not visually exciting. But then see a movie where the auditorium is stretched out horizontally, the wider the movie, you can see why 2.35 films can, and should impress (i.e, The Uptown [DC], the Arclight Dome, Seattle Cinerama)

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

In all honesty for the normal theatre experience one is not going to be able to tell the difference between 4k 35mm and 1.08k in terms of the pixels, rather other factors set them apart (and there is a lot of positives and negatives for both digital cameras and film).

If by 1.08k you mean 1080p, 1080p is equivalent to 2K for widescreen movies, not 1K.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Anamorphic 35mm Widescreen

Enjoy.

One of the coolest examples EVER.

3000 words, right there.

That first one is a stretch of the 35mm, right? (I seem to recall asking this before)

[Canada]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Part of the point of IMAX is the size, but if you get much wider than 2.4, you start getting too wide for people's field of vision. So, they just make it bigger overall. That's not any sort of technical answer, merely my own speculation

I had a problem when I went to go see Transformers in the IMAX, at the end when the film when then Autobots were battling the Desepticons I actually had to turn my head left or right to see what was going on at the very sides of the frame.

[NL197]

As part of the "Focus Points" featurettes on The Dark Knight BD, there is mention of not utilizing the top of the IMAX frame as much because a person's field of vision isn't naturally that high so it's mostly dead space. That certainly played a key factor in modifying the image to 1.78 for Blu-ray.

Where you sit in an IMAX theater is really where you can tell if it's more immersive or not, because if you sit too close to get a 'bigger' image, you'll be looking all over the place to keep up with the action and that can be very distracting.

Personally, I've always sat at the very top of the theater I've been to, because it allows for looking straight across, and downward without having to miss anything.