Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Avengers 3 & 4 (aka Avengers Infinity War I & II) shot entirely in "Liemax"

This is topic Avengers 3 & 4 (aka Avengers Infinity War I & II) shot entirely in "Liemax" in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=002293

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-07-2015, 10:28 PM:

quote:
LOS ANGELES, May 7, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- On the heels of the colossal domestic opening of Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron, Marvel, the Russo brothers and IMAX Corporation (NYSE: IMAX) today announced that Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War – Parts 1 & 2, the two-part installment to the global blockbuster franchise, will be shot in their entirety using IMAX® and ARRI's next generation revolutionary 2D digital camera – a joint customized digital version of ARRI's new large format camera, the Alexa 65. The two-part Avengers saga marks the first time a Hollywood feature film will have been shot completely using IMAX® cameras and will feature IMAX's exclusive aspect ratio, providing moviegoers a uniquely immersive experience.

Prior to filming Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War – Parts 1 & 2, Joe and Anthony Russo, who also directed Marvel's Captain America: The Winter Soldier, will use the IMAX/ARRI 2D digital camera for select action sequences on the forthcoming Marvel's Captain America: Civil War, which will release in IMAX® theatres in May of 2016.

Joe and Anthony Russo stated, "The intent with the Infinity War films is to bring ten years of accumulative storytelling to an incredible climax. We felt that the best way to exploit the scale and scope required to close out the final chapter of these three phases, was to be the first films shot entirely on the IMAX/ARRI Digital camera."

"Over the years, IMAX has had the incredible good fortune to work with some of the world's finest, most talented filmmakers, who continue to push the envelope both technically and creatively," said Greg Foster, Senior Executive Vice President, IMAX Corp. and CEO of IMAX Entertainment. "We could not be more excited to deepen our partnership with Joe and Anthony Russo, a pair of filmmakers we believe are next-generation trailblazers. Marvel's Avengers franchise has become a global phenomenon and to have it pay off in this epic way using the IMAX/ARRI digital camera is the very definition of event movie-going."

The next-generation 2D digital camera – co-developed by IMAX and ARRI – is meant for use by today's leading filmmakers working in the IMAX® format. The joint solution is designed as a complementary tool to IMAX's high-resolution capture technologies – including its 3D digital and 15perf / 65mm film cameras. Moreover, IMAX worked with ARRI to achieve the highest level of digital image capture for playback on IMAX's xenon and new laser projection systems.

IMAX recently began rolling out its next-generation laser projection system, with more than 71 laser system deals signed globally to date. Such iconic venues to feature the new system include the newly retro-fitted Airbus IMAX Smithsonian Theatre at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA., and Seattle's Boeing IMAX Theatre at Pacific Science Center, both of which re-opened in time for the release of Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron – the first film to be re-mixed for IMAX's new 12 channel sound system at these IMAX with laser locations.

Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1 is slated for release in IMAX theatres on May 4, 2018; Part 2 will open on May 3, 2019.

The IMAX® 3D release of Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War – Parts 1 & 2 will be digitally re-mastered into the image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience® with proprietary IMAX DMR® (Digital Re-mastering) technology. The crystal-clear images, coupled with IMAX's customized theatre geometry and powerful digital audio, create a unique environment that will make audiences feel as if they are in the movie.

https://www.imax.com/corporate/press-releases/

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-07-2015, 10:46 PM:

It's interesting how there are really no specifics about this "joint-designed by IMAX & ARRI" modified Arri Alexa 65. What's going to be different between this camera and the standard Arri Alexa 65 any movie production not affiliated with IMAX can rent?

Is this new camera going to have a completely different image sensor and lens system to fit a taller aspect ratio? Or will it be an Arri Alexa 65 camera outfitted with some unusual vertically oriented anamorphic lenses to squeeze and unsqueeze a taller image? If I had to guess I would be guessing the latter. In the end those new laser-based projectors starting to roll out to some IMAX-labeled theaters are no more than 4K in resolution, and they'll be using vertically oriented anamorphic lenses to vertically fill taller screens.

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 05-08-2015, 12:16 AM:

Speaking of which, a couple months ago Vantage Film in Germany revealed that they're making three sets of "Hawk65" anamorphic lenses for 65mm sensors like that of the Alexa 65 (though they're not working in partnership with Arri). One of the series is specifically for IMAX ("Hawk65 MAX").

There are little to no details about them. I'd love to be able to wrap my head around how the IMAX ones are supposed to work.

Vantage Film
Film and Digital Times

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-08-2015, 12:30 AM:

That's interesting. If my guess is correct, the work from Hawk coincide with IMAX doing some strange version of 'scope, but rotated 90 degrees out of normal. The funny thing is if a movie is shot in that manner the optical effects on the image will be plainly obvious.

On the bright side, this kind of development could give the DCI folks a swift, unsettling kick in the ass. It might make them re-think their "no anamorphic allowed" point of view and perhaps consider doing 'scope correctly.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-08-2015, 01:37 AM:

Why would you even want to film those movies in 1.43:1 if 80% or more of your IMAX branded install base has a screen with an aspect ratio close to 1.85:1...?

Furthermore, this whole article reeks of IMAX. A lot of marketing bullshit, but extremely light on the specifics. It's great because it's IMAX™.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-08-2015, 06:56 PM:

quote:
make audiences feel as if they are in the movie.

I don't know what I hate more, this phrase or the stupid word "immersive" that is the biggest buzzword since "digital."

I don't WANT to be 'in the movie.' I want to WATCH the movie.

As far is immersive goes -- if a movie is any good, you can watch it on a 13" TV and be immersed in it.

Then there is this:

quote:
IMAX's customized theatre geometry

What the hell does that mean? The room was built to specific measurements and angles? Hello, every building is built that way.

Hey, maybe if I start advertising our "customized theatre geometry," I can raise my ticket prices to $14! [Razz]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 05-08-2015, 10:52 PM:

quote:
I don't know what I hate more, this phrase or the stupid word "immersive" that is the biggest buzzword since "digital."

I don't WANT to be 'in the movie.' I want to WATCH the movie.

As far is immersive goes -- if a movie is any good, you can watch it on a 13" TV and be immersed in it.

Then there is this:

Are hating this just now or has this been bugging you for a while? IMAX has been using their "IMAX Experience" and "Immersive" marketing lines since 2002 when the first DMR films were released.

Dolby uses taglines too, "Feel Every Dimension" or "Experience the Dolby Atmos difference at a theatre near you" and I am sure there are others.

Does "DTS: The Digital Experience" bother you? That was used back in 1993 for DTS.

I do agree that there is way too much use of the word "immerse" or "Experience" but if that is what brings them into the cinema, then I am all for it.

quote: Mike Blakesley
What the hell does that mean? The room was built to specific measurements and angles? Hello, every building is built that way.

I don't know if you have ever been to a classic IMAX Theater that is a GT or SR cinema (Like Scotiabank or Smithsonian) but the design is patented and the angles are patented as well. I rather like the classic GT theaters that were designed for 15/70 and now IMAX with Laser, the design and architecture are pretty cool and from the design patents all seats are within one screen distance from the screen. All the walls are usually covered with sound absorbing materials and the roof does this angled concave thing are the on newer builds, I am assuming its for sound or screen reflection or something. IMAX has always stressed viewing angles and geometry in their tech documents that date back to the 1970s.

As for the MPX locations, they are nowhere near as good as the SR or GT builds however the design where the screen is pulled up closer to the audience, the hidden emergency exit apparatus and viewing angles are indeed patented. Cinemark copied one of their designs and were forced to change the design due to this.

quote: Shawn M. Martin
Speaking of which, a couple months ago Vantage Film in Germany revealed that they're making three sets of "Hawk65" anamorphic lenses for 65mm sensors like that of the Alexa 65 (though they're not working in partnership with Arri). One of the series is specifically for IMAX ("Hawk65 MAX").

There are little to no details about them. I'd love to be able to wrap my head around how the IMAX ones are supposed to work

Dolby Vision with be requiring the Alexa 65 for their concept or experience. I am not 100% if it is required or if it is just recommended.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-08-2015, 11:30 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Are hating this just now or has this been bugging you for a while? IMAX has been using their "IMAX Experience" and "Immersive" marketing lines since 2002 when the first DMR films were released.

Dolby uses taglines too, "Feel Every Dimension" or "Experience the Dolby Atmos difference at a theatre near you" and I am sure there are others.

Does "DTS: The Digital Experience" bother you? That was used back in 1993 for DTS.

I do agree that there is way too much use of the word "immerse" or "Experience" but if that is what brings them into the cinema, then I am all for it.

I never mentioned the word "experience" anywhere. I only mentioned these two things:

make audiences feel as if they are in the movie.

and

immersive

As I thought I made clear, I don't like the first one because it's stupid, and the second one is just meaningless. How long they have each been used has no bearing on it.

I have a newspaper article from almost sixty years ago about my theater when they first installed CinemaScope that says it'll make the audiences feel as if they're in the movie. It was stupid then (do you really WANT to be riding on that chariot with Ben-Hur, or even sitting in that dusty desert watching him? No, you want to be in the air conditioned theater) and it's still stupid today. You can be experiencing the sounds of an environment, but you're still sitting in a cushy chair in a temperature controlled room. "Making people feel like they're really there" is for theme park attractions, not movie theaters.

As for 'immersive,' until recently it was just a fancy way of saying 'surround sound,' which is what it is, no matter how many speakers there are. You can have one speaker on each side wall and it's still surround sound. Only recently has the word immersive been used as an industry buzzword, since everything from movies to refrigerators is now "digital" so we needed a new buzzword.

If Imax was using that word in 2002 I was blissfully unaware of it since the nearest Imax is about 500 miles from here. Besides, it's just not a word you hear people say. They'll say "That movie was really good!" but you never hear anyone say "That movie was so immersive!"

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 05-08-2015, 11:49 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I never mentioned the word "experience" anywhere. I only mentioned these two things:

make audiences feel as if they are in the movie.

and

immersive

I only mentioned "The IMAX Experience" because make audiences feel as if they are in the movie. is buried into their IMAX Experience marketing write up. The term immersive was never used by IMAX before DMR.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I don't like the first one because it's stupid, and the second one is just meaningless. How long they have each been used has no bearing on it.

I respectively disagree with you. I think what IMAX has done with their DMR IMAX Experience concept has been pretty influential, so stupid and meaningless IMO is not correct.

quote:
As for 'immersive,' until recently it was just a fancy way of saying 'surround sound,' which is what it is,

I have never once made the connection that immersive is a fancy way of saying surround sound. I always thought surround sound was surround sound and I have never heard anyone ever say otherwise.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-09-2015, 09:10 AM:

Well leaving aside for a minute that this is an Imax thread (sorry for derailing it), I wasn't talking about Imax with my comments, I was talking about the media and promotional departments of major exhibitors in general. It's like saying a movie is the "best movie of the year" in February. They're just puff phrases that don't tell anybody anything.

About the sound thing: I never said YOU said "immersive" was a fancy way of saying surround sound. I just stated a fact, that it IS that. Or I should say it WAS, until the mainstreaming of larger screens when the industry as a whole adopted it as the latest buzzword.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2015, 11:52 AM:

The term immersive definitely needs to go away.

I really do hope though that Human Centipede 3 is released in IMAX so all of the customers in the auditorium can feel as if they are in the movie.

It would be deserving for those who bought into the bullshit. [evil]

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-09-2015, 01:25 PM:

It's a pity movie makers often forget the most important immersive aspect of a movie: The Story.

For me, the perfect presentation is that utopian presentation where nothing else distracts me from the movie.

On the "scale of distraction" Digital (Xenon) IMAX scores rather high with their pixelated image, boomy sound system, their weirdly shaped, unmasked screens and "unique", "patented" theater layout that often obscures the bottom part of the image with the heads of the people sitting in front of you...

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I respectively disagree with you. I think what IMAX has done with their DMR IMAX Experience concept has been pretty influential, so stupid and meaningless IMO is not correct.

You know the problem here is that nobody actually knows what this "DMR IMAX Experience concept" actually is.

If you ask IMAX, a representative will tell you that it's their "more secret than Coke formula" to make your movie experience totally awesome and... imme®sive.

From an objective standpoint and using nothing but your most basic level of common sense, you should already know this is just marketing poop with nothing behind it. Or, commonly referred to as snake oil.

If somebody is trying to sell you something and he/she/it cannot even explain the basic inner workings, because it's super secret, it's just hogwash.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 05-09-2015, 05:21 PM:

I don't think the term immersive has to go away, I think that as long as it's actually true, why not? I've been to quite a few theaters with a truly immersive experience, free from distractions and their theater was perfect from the presentation to the staff. I was truly immersed in the experience, now the movies may not have been great, but it was just that feeling that it was me and the movie, without the usual distractions. That's what I'd pay extra for.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2015, 09:12 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Dolby uses taglines too, "Feel Every Dimension" or "Experience the Dolby Atmos difference at a theatre near you" and I am sure there are others.

There is a specific, unique difference between Dolby Atmos and FAKE IMAX. Dolby Atmos actually delivers a more elaborate, advanced form of surround sound over conventional 5.1 or 7.1 surround. That is an improvement, something worthy of advertising. IMAX DIGITAL DOES NOT DO THAT. The bullshit digital version of IMAX gives viewers a HDTV resolution image and tries to sell it as being better than 15-perf 70mm. It is only ordinary 2K video projection housed in a fancy IMAX-branded wrapper and sold for a very high price. It is a LIE.

Even "IMAX with Laser" doesn't provide anything specifically unique which no other theater with a 4K laser projector could provide. And their 12-channel sound system is really hardly any different that what you would find in a Cinemark XD theater with Auro 11.1.

But you already know this, Terry. We've gone round and round on it. But you keep on keeping this round and round nonsense going because you haven't yet pissed off any of the moderators bad enough to show you the door.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 05-09-2015, 10:33 PM:

Bobby, it truly is astonishing how much time and effort (although overwhelmingly negative) you give IMAX. You would think that because IMAX Digital is not for you, you would just move on. From reading many of your posts you really do have a lot to offer, but it is unfortunate that you can't just discuss with an open mind the merits and/or the negative qualities of IMAX either in 1570, Xenon or now in IMAX with Laser, a mature open minded discussion with you would be rewarding. Recently, I was given the opportunity to view a demo of Dolby's new Dolby Cinema concept complete with demos of their Dolby Vision and I have to say it simply looked and sounded marvellous. I really hope that the media, movie fans, and the buyers at the major chains will put as much effort and passion into "embracing" and "buying into" the Dolby Cinema concept as you have into your hatred for IMAX.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2015, 11:22 PM:

Terry, Bobby has been around for a long time and even though you don't agree with him, he is logical, he understands the technology and something you have no ability to do...he understands marketing vs. reality.

So I tell you what, when you can prove to me that you do not work for IMAX, I'll let you back on the forums. In the meantime, I'm tired of getting complaints about your non-stop IMAX promotion on these forums, so you're gone until such time you can prove to me that you aren't being compensated by IMAX for your non-stop marketing efforts here.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2015, 11:25 PM:

Terry, unlike you, I deal in specifics, not marketing bullshit and sheeple brand worship. Try as you might to defend your beloved IMAX brand, that company is not even a shadow of its former self with the role it has played in severely deteriorating the movie-going experience.

IMAX played a leading role in killing off film before it needed to be eliminated. That company also played a leading role in forcing TV screen like common width screens onto the movie-going public.

Don't talk to me about any about-face attitudes towards Dolby to justify your IMAX fanboy nonsense, which incidentally could be related to IMAX having to license Dolby 3D technology for its laser-based projection systems. I've been absolutely critical of Dolby when it came to their lossy Dolby Digital sound format and how they were trying to use brinksmanship tactics against DTS back in the 1990s. I've been a huge fan of DTS for a very long time. Nevertheless, Dolby Atmos has been the biggest development in movie theater sound since early 1990s, and I have no hesitation of acknowledging that. Nor do I have any hesitation of criticizing how DTS' Open MDA format is going to be misused and mis-marketed in the very same manner IMAX has been doing to lie to the general movie-going public.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 05-09-2015, 11:48 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Even "IMAX with Laser" doesn't provide anything specifically unique which no other theater with a 4K laser projector could provide.

I have to push back a bit on this. I am in agreement with the forum consensus that LieMax is a disaster, and I also really dislike the common width/no masking paradigm that IMAX led the charge on.

But - there is a camp at IMAX that has been holding out for a projection system good enough to replace 15/70 film projection in the really big IMAX auditoriums, and they think they have finally got it with their new laser projectors. And I think they have - I've seen footage of native 15/70 film material, scanned at 8k, mastered at 4k for projection on this rig, and the footage was amazing. It was the first time in my life I've seen digital projection look as good as really good film. Part of it is the dual 4K system with the overlapping pixels, and some of it has to do with the Kodak voodoo that IMAX acquired - but it is a very different beast from standard 4K digital cinema.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-10-2015, 12:54 AM:

I have no doubt the 4K laser-based system IMAX is now deploying in a select few of its IMAX-branded theaters is going to be a tremendous improvement over the HDTV resolution Xenon-based systems they installed in hundreds upon hundreds of theaters worldwide.

Still I remain not convinced 4K resolution is a replacement for 15/65mm originated material. For me, 4K is an appropriate replacement for 35mm. I think 8K has to be the base target for 70mm, if not a bit higher than that. Obviously IMAX has to do something to remain in business until 8K projectors become available. 4K and laser is the next obvious step.

The thing I want to see for myself with a 4K laser-based IMAX installation is if they can show a properly focused image. All I've seen with their 2K Xenon systems is big, slightly out of focus imagery. Any kind of projection system needs optimal focus for optimal color and contrast. This would kind of get back to the "scope done right" angle and common height screens.

At any rate IMAX clearly doesn't have plans to replace all the Xenon-based 2K systems currently in service with new 4K laser-based systems. There is some press circulating about more than 70 orders in place for 4K laser-based IMAX projectors.

Out of personal interest with what is going on in my town, Carmike has tentative plans to put an IMAX-branded screen in their new Patroit 13 multiplex they're building here in Lawton. At first I thought the IMAX thing was a done deal at this new multiplex, but through the rumor mill I heard Carmike is still on the fence about it. And that is despite site signs installed on the construction site showing the big blue IMAX logo. For theater operators, image and sound quality obviously isn't the deciding factor. It's the business model. They have a hard time justifying letting IMAX dictate what movies will be played and for how long as well as giving up a bunch of the box office take to IMAX and the movie studios. This problem is at the core of why theater chains have their own private label premium screen concepts. The sad thing is when they create a private label concept it is usually a cheaper knock-off of Lie-MAX. Single projector, conventional sound, bigger than usual screen, bigger than usual price.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-10-2015, 01:45 AM:

Daniel, have you seen the other iteration of RGB laser-based systems out there, like the Christie, Christie/Dolby and Barco setup? And how do they compare to each other?

I've not yet seen laser-based IMAX and none of the IMAX theaters around here have released any press release nor have I heard rumors about impending upgrades. So, I will withhold judgement about that particular system.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Still I remain not convinced 4K resolution is a replacement for 15/65mm originated material. For me, 4K is an appropriate replacement for 35mm. I think 8K has to be the base target for 70mm, if not a bit higher than that. Obviously IMAX has to do something to remain in business until 8K projectors become available. 4K and laser is the next obvious step.

I've always wondered why nobody except a few planetariums have gone the route of stitching multiple images together to one single image. So not just two images layered over each other, but tiled and blended together. So, why didn't IMAX use a whole array of digital projectors to create for example, an 8K image? If there was one corporation where this would have made sense, it was IMAX, because they do have access to content where it will make a difference.

Well, we probably know the reasons, but it's still a shame so much people bought into this blatant ripoff.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 05-10-2015, 11:39 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Daniel, have you seen the other iteration of RGB laser-based systems out there, like the Christie, Christie/Dolby and Barco setup? And how do they compare to each other?

Not yet in a real world environment - I've seen some demos at NAB under conditions that made it hard to make any real evaluations. I am very much looking forward to seeing them though, and there are some installations happening around Los Angeles that will give me a chance to check them out.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-10-2015, 03:41 PM:

I don't think we need "experiences" or Imersion" technology what the industry needs is good films with plots and acting that involve the audience not being just numbed by technology