Jurassic Park taller IMAX version?

[Riddhi2011]

How'd it have been. if Jurassic Park received a taller IMAX version, only for the original 15/70 IMAX theaters with a 1.44:1 aspect ratio.
Of course it wouldn't fill the entire screen but maybe something like the DMR version of Apollo 13 which had a taller IMAX version. This can be an interesting discussion...

[DC UNIVERSE.]

Taller version? you mean bigger version... Anyway 1:44:1 fills the entire IMAX screen,so it doesn't need any dmr treatment.

[42041]

Are they even making 15/70 prints for it? As I understand, it's 6-day engagement at IMAX venues...

[DC UNIVERSE.]

I'm sorry I misread the question, jurrasick will receive a DMR treatment

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by DC UNIVERSE.

Taller version? you mean bigger version... Anyway 1:44:1 fills the entire IMAX screen,so it doesn't need any dmr treatment.

No no! It is not possible to create a Full 1.44:1 print of Jurassic Park. As the VFX were mostly rendered in a 16:10 aspect ratio, which is slightly taller than 1.66:1 but not as tall as 1.44:1. Only the non CG shots, which were filmed in Full aperture (1.33:1) can be frmatted to 1.44:1, the CG shots to fit 1.44:1 would have to be re-positioned like the CG shots in Titanic!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by 42041

Are they even making 15/70 prints for it? As I understand, it's 6-day engagement at IMAX venues...

I have no idea if they are making a 15/70mm release print. I strongly suspect that there won't be any taller version, because making such, just for a week release would be waste of money.
I suspect they just took a hard-matted 1.85: print and restored it to 2K HD.
But here we are discussing what if we had such a version?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by DC UNIVERSE.

I'm sorry I misread the question, jurrasick will receive a DMR treatment

Yes, it will receive a DMR treatment, but not in a taller IMAX aspect ratio, like Apollo 13 received (2.39:1 to 1.66:1). I suspect that they will have a slightly cropped aspect ratio of 1.90:1 playing everywhere!

[Riddhi2011]

Lets look at how a taller IMAX version of Jurassic Park would have looked.
Below will be images from various open-matte or Full aperture sources-

1. First some Full aperture shots from 35mm source-
(i) Nublar!.JPG
(ii) 1282691644-3639-0 fullflmcl.JPG

2. And here are the same shots in Widescreen-
(i) vlcsnap-2013-01-22-13h48m32s148.jpg
(ii) vlcsnap-2013-01-22-14h21m25s206.jpg

[Riddhi2011]

Here's how they'd look in a 1.44:1 aspect ratio(Full IMAX)-
(i) Nublar Imax.jpg
(ii) That unusual tree IMAX.JPG

[Riddhi2011]

Now as I said unless one would like to make a shifting aspect ratio like The Dark Knight, 1.44:1 aspect ratio cannot be used, here's why-
Though the Full aperture non CG shots would work in 1.44:1 because they have a lot of headroom, the CG plate shots were mostly all 16:10, as a result they were shot tightly, so even though the plates would have a taller aperture size than the matted widescreen version, they'd still not be enough to make a 1.44:1 version out of them.
Because the images would look very big and in-your-face, with the characters heads near the top portion of the IMAX frame.
Here are some examples-
1. Plate shots-
(i)
Malcolm plate.jpg
(ii)
vlcsnap-2013-01-22-15h46m56s50.jpg

And here are the widescreen versions-
(i)
vlcsnap-2013-01-22-15h51m44s129.jpg
(ii)
vlcsnap-2013-01-22-16h22m06s173.jpg

So there is no way a Full 1.44:1 IMAX version can be crafted from these plates, but a taller version, that is 16:10 or 1.66:1 version can still be made from the plates posted above the widescreen images.

[Dubstar]

^ interestingly, I remember seeing shots of Jeff Goldblum's character running away from the T-Rex (two above stills) on a 'making of' with the open-matted image showing more of his legs.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

^ interestingly, I remember seeing shots of Jeff Goldblum's character running away from the T-Rex (two above stills) on a 'making of' with the open-matted image showing more of his legs.

Really? Where?? Can you please try to remember the source?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Lets look at how a taller IMAX version of Jurassic Park would have looked.
Below will be images from various open-matte or Full aperture sources-

Considering the framing, looks like an IMAX print made from the full-aperture 35mm neg would give you some major neck pain...
Regardless, I doubt they're making any prints so the issue is moot.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I have no idea if they are making a 15/70mm release print.?

There will not be a 15/70 print for JP3D. The movie is a 6 day release only.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Really? Where?? Can you please try to remember the source?

jeesh, you're really testing my memory here. It's a special effects making of featurette and the monitor of one of the SFX crew is playing it and it essentially shows more leg room, it's funny footage since it almost looks balletic on Jeff's acting part. I can't believe it's not on the bluray or the DVD - but I'll give a look see.

Originally Posted by pagemaster

There will not be a 15/70 print for JP3D. The movie is a 6 day release only.

which is a shame since it'd be great and appropriate to see a movie like this at a Science Center where the screen is 4:3 and shows only IMAX 15/70 films.

EDIT: strike everything I said about the expanded framing of Jeff's running, as I recall now it was a fx plate before the animation was added, so while there was extra horizontal footage, it was cropped when the FX was added during post production.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by 42041

Considering the framing, looks like an IMAX print made from the full-aperture 35mm neg would give you some major neck pain...
Regardless, I doubt they're making any prints so the issue is moot.

that is why I suggested 16:10 or 1.66:1. As those ratios would have made it look a bit more immersive but still mot full IMAX, hence not a pain in the neck. As for 3D the more ommersive, the better. In many scenes, especially the cgi, the slightly open-matte hdtv version has a bit more vertigo and looks less cramped. I,ll present some examples shortly.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

jeesh, you're really testing my memory here. It's a special effects making of featurette and the monitor of one of the SFX crew is playing it and it essentially shows more leg room, it's funny footage since it almost looks balletic on Jeff's acting part. I can't believe it's not on the bluray or the DVD - but I'll give a look see.



which is a shame since it'd be great and appropriate to see a movie like this at a Science Center where the screen is 4:3 and shows only IMAX 15/70 films.

EDIT: strike everything I said about the expanded framing of Jeff's running, as I recall now it was a fx plate before the animation was added, so while there was extra horizontal footage, it was cropped when the FX was added during post production.

.Yes, but the effects shots after rendering weren't hard-matted to 1.85:1. . A clear evidence of this is the difference in framing between the hdtv version and the laserdisc 1.85:1 version. I cannot post pics now cause I'm out of town . But I'm geting back to
orrow and I'lll ppst the comparisons then.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

which is a shame since it'd be great and appropriate to see a movie like this at a Science Center where the screen is 4:3 and shows only IMAX 15/70 films.
.

Not sure what the obsession is when a film that was originally filmed in 35mm is blown up to 70mm. IMAX works when the movie is filmed in 70mm IMAX and not for a 35mm blow up.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

So there is no way a Full 1.44:1 IMAX version can be crafted from these plates, but a taller version, that is 16:10 or 1.66:1 version can still be made from the plates posted above the widescreen images.

You can still show 1:85 in 15/70 so what is the issue. It will have a letterbox on top. No big deal. They are not going to show it in 15/70 anyway.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Not sure what the obsession is when a film that was originally filmed in 35mm is blown up to 70mm. IMAX works when the movie is filmed in 70mm IMAX and not for a 35mm blow up.

my point was, that if there's extra image, why not open it up and show it on the 4:3 screens with little to no black bars above and below the image.