Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Poseidon: IMAX in Scope?

This is topic Poseidon: IMAX in Scope? in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000139

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-13-2006, 05:53 PM:

I saw Poseidon: The IMAX Experience, and was surprised it was in 'scope' on the IMAX screen, with the tops and bottoms of the screen blank.

Is this how the IMAX version is supposed to be, or were we shown a 35mm print and charged the $15 IMAX price?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-13-2006, 06:18 PM:

Starting with the second MATRIX film, all IMAX DMR conversions originally composed for the scope format(both Super 35 and true scope) have retained their OAR (or very close to it). The black bars at the top and bottom are normal for this format.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2006, 07:46 PM:

Which is all the more reason for such films to simply get a 5/70 blowup print.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-15-2006, 10:20 AM:

To compare approximate image areas:

A 2.39:1 image "letterboxed" on a 15-perf 70mm frame:
2.74 X 1.15 inches = 3.15 square inches

Normal 1.43:1 15-perf 70mm full frame projectable image area:
2.74 X 1.91 inches = 5.23 square inches

A 2.39:1 image "letterboxed" on a 5-perf 70mm frame:
1.912 x 0.800 inches = 1.53 square inches

Normal 2.20:1 5-perf 70mm projectable image area (SMPTE 152):
1.912 X 0.870 inches = 1.66 square inches

Normal 35mm "scope" 2.39:1 projectable image area (SMPTE 195):
0.825 x 0.690 inches = 0.57 square inches

Bottom line: the 2.39:1 image "letterboxed" on the 15-perf 70mm frame still has about twice the image area that a 5-perf 70mm print would allow. BOTH 70mm formats offer a significant increase in projectable image area over a 35mm "scope" print.

But IMHO, the main reason some distributors have released feature films to IMAX theatres is that they value the infrastructure that IMAX provides as part of their "DMR" feature release program.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-16-2006, 02:06 PM:

But wouldn't films shot on Super 35 be able to produce an image very close to IMAX full frame (they extract full frame from S35 for broadcast TV, no?) Or if not the entire IMAX ratio, at least reduce the wasted area and fill more of the screen? Letterboxing in the IMAX square is like cropped 1.85 -- a waste of film geography and resolution.

If they were to put an original scope image on the IMAX release print as a near full frame anamporphic image, they could use a much longer fl lens and all that DMX processing might not need to be as severe because the release print wouldn't have to be magnified as nearly much, ala Glen Breggren's ISCOvision. Then scope for IMAX would be the same as scope for 35mm. Nice an bright too!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-16-2006, 02:18 PM:

There was an industry program (headed by Dave Richards of MIT) called "Apex" that was evaluating the feasibility of using an anamorphic lens for projection of 8-perf 70mm to a widescreen aspect ratio. Not sure what the status is.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-16-2006, 03:14 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
But wouldn't films shot on Super 35 be able to produce an image very close to IMAX full frame (they extract full frame from S35 for broadcast TV, no?)

I believe APOLLO 13 used this technique.

quote: Frank Angel
Letterboxing in the IMAX square is like cropped 1.85 -- a waste of film geography and resolution.

A waste of film, yes. Resolution, no. IMAX is set up for one projection and lens throw, unlike 35mm.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-16-2006, 06:18 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
But wouldn't films shot on Super 35 be able to produce an image very close to IMAX full frame (they extract full frame from S35 for broadcast TV, no?) Or if not the entire IMAX ratio, at least reduce the wasted area and fill more of the screen? Letterboxing in the IMAX square is like cropped 1.85 -- a waste of film geography and resolution.

I read somewhere that they give the filmmakers this option, but no one does it because then the compositions would be all messed up.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-17-2006, 12:00 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
I read somewhere that they give the filmmakers this option, but no one does it because then the compositions would be all messed up.

Yah, that's the lip-service you hear off and on, but when it comes down to it, these same filmmakers never seem to bothered when their wide screen movies are presented 4:3 unletterboxed on broadcast TV to hundreds of millions of viewers. Anyone remember those horrific years of pan & scan abortions?

Ah me, the world if full of such odd contradictions.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-17-2006, 01:44 PM:

I would think that the filmmakers are very bothered by 4:3 broadcasts of their widescreen movies. The difference is that those are probably network or studio-controlled. With Imax, they have the freedom to do whatever they want. Either way, it seems preferable to lose image size in favor of composition.

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 05-17-2006, 04:34 PM:

I think this all stems from when IMAX DMR'd SW EP 2. It was converted from the original scope image to fill the IMAX screen, I am assuming they did pan and scan to do that. I know I fielded a lot of complaints from our guests about it, I could only imagine how may calls IMAX got themselves. So, they probably decided to offer the fimmakers both either full screen or do wide screen with the original intended aspect ratio. I asked DKP about why Matrix was letter boexed when it first came out and I was told it's beacuse the directors wanted the film to be in its original aspect ratio. I am assuming they do this for all films now. I know Ant Bully will be full screen beacuse the trailer is full.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-17-2006, 08:20 PM:

Actually, the IMAX version of "Star Wars Episode II Attack Of The Clones" was a combination of being letterboxed and panned-and-scanned. The active image area was in the ballpark of 1.85:1 (1.81:1 according to DKP) and, if I remember correctly, the matting was entirely at the top of the frame rather than being split equally top and bottom.

This clearly was a compromise and attempt to please everyone, but in the end I think this sort of thing pleases no one. The general audience would prefer the screen filled with image; the film buffs knowledgeable about the technology would prefer the original ratio letterboxed.

Just another reason why this IMAX DMR stuff was a bad idea.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-17-2006, 10:39 PM:

quote: Dan Suomi
I fielded a lot of complaints from our guests

Complaints or no complaints, they bought tickets, right? IMAX tried to enter mainstream cinema and succeeded, as far as I can tell. Not SUCH a bad idea, after all. Even if they DO compromise a little integrity by not fully utilizing the system's capabilities.

We get people complaining when the movie they wanted to see was NOT in IMAX! "Sorry, ma'am. The National CineMedia 'Big Screen Concerts' aren't in IMAX." "But it says 'Big Screen', and the website said the IMAX theatre!" "Yes, ma'am, but only so far as our megaplex is called the Irvine Spectrum 20 Plus IMAX ... that doesn't mean every movie or event will be in the IMAX auditorium." "Well, it should be!"

[Shrug]

Ant Bully should fill most of the screen because it's from a flat movie. Robots also was flat, and its IMAX version filled the screen beautifully; a much more effective use of the IMAX aspect ratio.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-18-2006, 01:37 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
Just another reason why this IMAX DMR stuff was a bad idea.

But in the end, they solved the problem by not compromising, and making what the film buffs (and God) know to be the right choice.

And what are the other reasons? Everyone keeps talking about how the industry should bring back 70mm. As John's numbers indicate, this is twice as good. The only argument I've heard against Imax DMR is that it wastes a lot of film. But who really cares? Sure, ticket prices may be a bit higher, but if you compare it grain to grain or whatever with 35mm, you're still getting more emulsion for your money. [Smile]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-21-2006, 04:59 PM:

I specifically went into the city to see a film in the Sony IMAX Theatre at Lincoln Center (for the life of me I cannot remember the title). I thought, how great is this, being able to finally see major Hollywood titles in IMAX. I didn't mind paying a premium ticket price. I had only seen APOLLO 13 at the SMPTE demo of DMX in this theatre and had been waiting for the next time I could see a feature in IMAX. When I saw this title was playing, I was couldn't wait to see it.

When the lights dimmed, we were treated to a few 35mm trailers, which surprised me a little, but I figured that was the easiest way for the theatre to cross-plug their other screens. The trailers looked drab and lifeless on the huge screen and pretty soft focus at that. Then, just before the feature started, here comes a snipe stating something like, "The following feature motion picture will be presented in standard 35mm projection; this does not represent the superior image quality of the IMAX Experience." I was so stunned that I literally said loud enough for everyone to hear, "Then what the hell did I just pay $15 for?" It got a chear. I thought I was going to see an IMAX conversion.

Now that's downright dirty pool.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-21-2006, 06:23 PM:

Agreed! I'm sorry the theatre didn't make that more clear BEFORE you bought the ticket.

When we play 35mm films in our IMAX auditorium we use the same snipe. We are also not to use the word "IMAX" anywhere near the movie we're playing in there. It's referred to as "Giant Screen" by box office, customer service, etc. We only charge a $1 premium over normal ticket prices for Giant Screen.

I admit it's going to continue being confusing for people, whether or not the particular film they want to pay to see is 35mm or a 15/70 DMR. And advertisements and such aren't helping much, even if they're accurate. They're even wrong sometimes: I don't know if it's been corrected, but 777-FILM was clearly saying Poseidon at our theatre was in 3D, which it isn't, and I don't know WHERE they got the ticket prices they were ascribing to us!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-22-2006, 06:49 PM:

quote:
And what are the other reasons [IMAX DMR was a bad idea]?

Simple: 5-perf 70mm would better and more cheaply accommodate what is being done.

quote: John Pytlak
But IMHO, the main reason some distributors have released feature films to IMAX theatres is that they value the infrastructure that IMAX provides as part of their "DMR" feature release program.

That's a valid point, John. However, IMHO, a viable infrastructure was in place during the '80s and into the early '90s until the industry destroyed it by falling in love with digital sound, stadium seating, and megaplex construction.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-23-2006, 02:17 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
Simple: 5-perf 70mm would better and more cheaply accommodate what is being done.

What exactly do you mean by this? I understand it would be cheaper, but what do you mean by better?

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-23-2006, 03:10 PM:

Well, for one thing, I think it is retarded that the IMAX prints are being letterboxed.

I'm not suggesting filling the IMAX frame with the image of a widescreen movie; I'm suggesting they shouldn't be using IMAX at all! When I claim 5-perf can better accommodate what's being done, this is one of the things I'm referring to. Simply put, scope films better "fit" the frame of a 5-perf 70mm print and also end up filling the whole theatre screen in the process.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-23-2006, 06:56 PM:

Would you stop complaining if the Imax locations masked the screen to fit the aspect ratio instead of leaving the unused portion blank?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-24-2006, 10:41 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
I'm not suggesting filling the IMAX frame with the image of a widescreen movie; I'm suggesting they shouldn't be using IMAX at all! When I claim 5-perf can better accommodate what's being done, this is one of the things I'm referring to. Simply put, scope films better "fit" the frame of a 5-perf 70mm print and also end up filling the whole theatre screen in the process.

Isn't this kind of like saying, "Citizen Kane will be better on DVD than Blu-ray because the image will utilize every pixel on DVD, but need to be pillarboxed on Blu-ray"? Even so, you're still getting more resolution on Blu-ray. The same's true with Imax vs. 5-perf 70mm.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-24-2006, 08:32 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Isn't this kind of like saying, "Citizen Kane will be better on DVD than Blu-ray because the image will utilize every pixel on DVD, but need to be pillarboxed on Blu-ray"?

Uh, no. You're arguing resolution; I'm arguing shape.

Like I stated earlier, 5-perf 70 better accommodates widescreen movies, and the industry once had a viable model in place. (And if I have to state it one more time, I'm going to yell it in caps.)

And, no, I don't think the final IMAX DMR print necessarily has more resolution (despite the possibility for such) because of the digital processing that's being used. As an example, I thought "V For Vendetta" looked like crap (except for the close-ups). Jeez, I'm starting to sound like Myers. [Smile]

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 05-25-2006, 11:47 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
the industry once had a viable model in place. (And if I have to state it one more time, I'm going to yell it in caps.)

He wasn't contending this point that you made.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-26-2006, 12:41 AM:

And what's your point?

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-26-2006, 01:23 AM:

At the risk of taking this thread off-topic (too late!):

quote: Michael Coate
Simply put, scope films better "fit" the frame of a 5-perf 70mm print and also end up filling the whole theatre screen in the process.

quote: Adam Martin
Would you stop complaining if the Imax locations masked the screen to fit the aspect ratio instead of leaving the unused portion blank?

You skipped right over the question that I asked.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-26-2006, 02:16 AM:

So what. Considering I haven't been complaining, I thought you asked a knuckle-headed question that didn't deserve a reply. [Razz]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-26-2006, 08:33 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
And, no, I don't think the final IMAX DMR print necessarily has more resolution (despite the possibility for such)

Possibly not. But there would be less grain from the positive IMAX print and that would help in the same way that a 35mm film blown up to 5 perf 70mm would.

quote: Michael Coate
Simply put, scope films better "fit" the frame of a 5-perf 70mm print and also end up filling the whole theatre screen in the process.

So are you against 1.85 films being blown up to 5 perf 70mm while retaining their OAR? (I know you would be against cropping to fill the whole frame).

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 05-26-2006, 03:40 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
And what's your point?

Well, you said you were about to the point of yelling in caps ... I was noting that what you were about at the point of yelling about was not in contention.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-26-2006, 04:28 PM:

quote: Michael Coate
I thought you asked a knuckle-headed question that didn't deserve a reply.

I'm asking the question because I want to know the answer.

So I'll ask it a third time: If Imax theaters masked the screens to the aspect ratio of the printed image area, would you still think that it is an inappropriate use of the larger film format because it "doesn't fit"?

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-27-2006, 08:47 PM:

Don't know how on-off topic this is but is the Poseidon IMAX Experience headed to the UK, specifically London?

Could you really have masking for an IMAX screen?

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 05-27-2006, 11:28 PM:

The 8/70 theatre I worked at had top, bottom and side adjustable masking. Set for flat all were "in", for scope the sides were wide open, and 8/70 all were wide open.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-28-2006, 01:17 AM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Don't know how on-off topic this is but is the Poseidon IMAX Experience headed to the UK, specifically London?

yes.

quote:
UNITED KINGDOM (June 1, 2006, except where noted)
Birmingham: Thinktank IMAX (TBD)
Bradford: IMAX Theatre at the National Museum of Photography, Film & TV (TBD)
Bristol: IMAX At-Bristol
Glasgow: Glasgow Science Centre IMAX
London: bfi London IMAX

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-28-2006, 09:13 PM:

Thanks, am suprised something is opening in IMAX concurrently with Odeon in Central London, very unusual.