Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IMAX Boasts 26% More James Bond ‘Skyfall’

This is topic IMAX Boasts 26% More James Bond ‘Skyfall’ in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=007266

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 10-24-2012, 01:44 PM:

IMAX Boasts 26% More James Bond ‘Skyfall’

Source: deadline.com

quote:
The filmmakers worked with the IMAX team in the post-production process to increase the aspect ratio of the film and designed the IMAX presentation of Skyfall to allow audiences to see up to 26% more of the originally captured image. The technical term for the proportional relationship between an image’s width and its height is called aspect ratio. A film made for CinemaScope 2.41:1, the standard in the industry, is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures. Like with Skyfall, we provide filmmakers with the ability to optimize their film’s aspect ratio for an IMAX screen during production by shooting with the extremely high-resolution IMAX camera (capable of up to IMAX® 1.43:1—up to 40% more of the picture) or in post-production (capable of up to IMAX® 1.90:1—up to 26% more of the picture). So what does this mean for moviegoers? You get to see much more of the original image, resulting in a full panoramic view that makes you feel part of the action.

[ 10-24-2012, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2012, 06:47 PM:

Cinemascope is 2.41:1 now? Why does it keep getting .01:1 wider every few years?

Anyway, I can't wait to be part of the action, fighting alongside James Bond and sharing a beer with him. Because Bond drinks beer.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 10-24-2012, 06:49 PM:

middle age spread.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-24-2012, 08:22 PM:

That's great, because every movie I've ever seen, I've wished there was more of the ground and sky showing. [Roll Eyes]

I think it's hilarious how every new innovation that comes along, they say it makes you "part of the action." I don't WANT to be part of the action, you morons....that's why I'm out here in the seats.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 10-26-2012, 03:23 PM:

It is just like old standard def TV only bigger! But still it is just what you watch on the old TV set honest just the best thing every standard def TV and square pictures.

A Giant step for man A Giant step backwards for Mankind!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-26-2012, 04:51 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
That's great, because every movie I've ever seen, I've wished there was more of the ground and sky showing.

Amen to that! All IMAX full frame does is screw up the composition of the image. [Mad]

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think it's hilarious how every new innovation that comes along, they say it makes you "part of the action." I don't WANT to be part of the action, you morons....that's why I'm out here in the seats.

The only new innovation that will EVER truly do that is the machine they built in the 1983 movie Brainstorm.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 10-26-2012, 05:28 PM:

2.20:1

Go 70mm or go home.

AJG

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-26-2012, 05:29 PM:

What? Now the boom mics at the top of the frame and gawkers behind the barracades on the set are now PART of the movie?

Used to be, we just cropped that shit out.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-27-2012, 01:29 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
The only new innovation that will EVER truly do that is the machine they built in the 1983 movie Brainstorm.

Yeah, I definitely wanted one of those. (There's a movie that would be ripe for a remake. It could actually work in Imax -- they could make the "playback" scenes fill the whole screen. Or in 3-D --- the "real life" scenes could be flat and the playbacks in 3-D.)

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-27-2012, 12:33 PM:

Now that I've seen Skyfall (best Bond movie since the Goldfinger/From Russia With Love era, by the way), I can concentrate on watching the frame composition when I QC my IMAX digital copy.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-27-2012, 02:58 PM:

I agree with Mike the studios would jump on the whole 3D thing (and unfortunately the full frame IMAX thing), but we humans see more WIDTH than HEIGHT. That's because our eyes are BESIDE each other, not one above the other. IMAX full screen ratio has always been dumb. 2.40 is the closest ratio to actual human vision.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-27-2012, 04:06 PM:

It's 2.41 now. 2.40 was just too narrow and restrictive.

quote: Brad Miller
we humans see more WIDTH than HEIGHT. That's because our eyes are BESIDE each other

Even with just one eyeball we see wider than we see tall. I mean that could be my caveman-like fore-brow limiting my height distance, but it seems to me that I still see wider when I close one eye.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-27-2012, 06:25 PM:

how can something be 'panoramic' when you're exposing more image vertically??

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-01-2012, 09:42 AM:

The article incorrectly states that CinemaScope is "is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures." This is not the case.

It also states that the scope aspect ratio is "the standard in the industry." Also inaccurate. It is one of two main standards, among several others.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-01-2012, 10:37 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
The article incorrectly states that CinemaScope is "is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures." This is not the case.

Well, that's not quite true. When someone like a James Cameron shoots a movie with the Super 35 process, only part of the image the movie camera captures is used. Maybe a Cameron movie isn't shot with the spherical lens that makes a CinemaScope movie a CinemaScope movie, but then how many movies are shot with actual CinemaScope lenses any more? Plus, with digital cinematography, the camera captures far more image than the filmmaker will use, regardless of where they ultimately set the aspect ratio.

quote: Manny Knowles
It also states that the scope aspect ratio is "the standard in the industry." Also inaccurate. It is one of two main standards, among several others.

While it is one of two main standards, my theatre plays about 50% more 2.39:1 features as it does 1.85:1 features on any given week. I can't even remember a time when I had as many or more flat features than scope.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2012, 12:36 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
When someone like a James Cameron shoots a movie with the Super 35 process, only part of the image the movie camera captures is used. Maybe a Cameron movie isn't shot with the spherical lens that makes a CinemaScope movie a CinemaScope movie, but then how many movies are shot with actual CinemaScope lenses any more?

Lots of movies are still shot using anamorphic "CinemaScope" lenses. I saw Looper recently; that one was filmed anamorphic (Panavision 35mm cameras & lenses). The 35mm portions of the last 3 Batman movies were all filmed anamorphic. There's lots of others. The anamorphic look is very distinctive, enough so that lots of music videos and even TV commercials are shot with anamorphic lenses to gain that "movie look."

The Super35 process has been popular over the past 25 years, primarily as a means of producing home video safe widescreen that would work better than old 4:3 ratio TV sets. Now that 16:9 ratio TV sets are standard the home video safe widescreen issue has become a non-issue. Fitting a 2.39:1 image into a 16:9 TV set produces only minor letterboxing. I can't recall any movie releases on Blu-ray having separate "full screen" and "widescreen" versions.

Even though Super35 is technically home video safe portions of such movies like The Matrix and Titanic are still panned and scanned or severely cropped for 4:3 TV sets either for compositional issues (like keeping a close-up from turning into a medium close shot) or if the CGI/motion graphics effects were rendered in 2.39:1 aspect ratio. And then there's the newer issue of how the movie's digital intermediate is rendered. It's actually cheaper to render a 2K digital intermediate in 2.39:1 than to add more pixels to the top and bottom of the frame to fill out a 1.77:1 HDTV aspect ratio. If the finished movie is a 2.39:1 ratio digital intermediate then it would have to be panned and scanned for 4:3 TV sets regardless of how it was filmed or videotaped.

Anymore, the decision to shoot spherical or anamorphic has everything to do with how the cinematographer or director wants the shot to look rather than concerns over aspect ratio.

quote: Edward Havens
Plus, with digital cinematography, the camera captures far more image than the filmmaker will use, regardless of where they ultimately set the aspect ratio.

Modern video cameras typically record in the HDTV 16:9 aspect ratio. It doesn't take much cropping into that frame to make a 'scope ratio image.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-01-2012, 02:57 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Lots of movies are still shot using anamorphic "CinemaScope" lenses. I saw Looper recently; that one was filmed anamorphic (Panavision 35mm cameras & lenses). The 35mm portions of the last 3 Batman movies were all filmed anamorphic. There's lots of others. The anamorphic look is very distinctive, enough so that lots of music videos and even TV commercials are shot with anamorphic lenses to gain that "movie look."

If only I had asked about music videos and commercials, or movies shot eight years ago. [Roll Eyes]

Face it, the vast majority of 2012 theatrical releases are shot digitally, on Red Ones and Red Epics, Arri Alexas, Panavision Genesises, Sony CineAltas, Fusion Camera Systems. Even the films that are being shot on 35mm outside the Dark Knight Rises are mainly shot on 35mm with some digital. Even Willy Pfister used a Phantom HD Camera for some shots in Inception, and we all know how Nolan feels about digital cinematography.

But since Skyfall was shot on an Arri Alexa, the "conversion" from 2.39:1 scope to 1.89:1 IMAX diigtal shouldn't be too obtrusive.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-02-2012, 06:55 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
but then how many movies are shot with actual CinemaScope lenses any more? Plus, with digital cinematography, the camera captures far more image than the filmmaker will use, regardless of where they ultimately set the aspect ratio.

Anamorphic in digital, especially with the Arri Alexa is the latest thing. A brand new lens was released recently so expect a return of THAT look [Smile]

quote: Brad Miller
but we humans see more WIDTH than HEIGHT. That's because our eyes are BESIDE each other, not one above the other. IMAX full screen ratio has always been dumb. 2.40 is the closest ratio to actual human vision.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
how can something be 'panoramic' when you're exposing more image vertically?

IMAX ideal was that it is two cinemascope screens on top of each other, hence why they have a speaker channel for the top of screen. During the old NASA movies, the shuttle launches the camera would not follow, the audience would simply look up and up and up to follow the action to the top of the giant screen.
IMAX films were composed differently than normal features with the eye line being at 1/3 from the bottom of the frame.

quote: Brad Miller
Amen to that! All IMAX full frame does is screw up the composition of the image.

I saw both IMAX and digital versions of Dark Knight Rises and both looked professionally composed in their respective formats, how exactly do you think it screws it up?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-05-2012, 09:16 PM:

I stand by what I wrote.

Ed, you've disagreed with too many people too many times. It's easy to dismiss your point of view now. It's clear that you simply have a compulsion to disagree.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-06-2012, 12:05 AM:

^^^^ What Manny said. [thumbsup]

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-06-2012, 02:14 AM:

Manny, and if I disagree with you, does that make me more compulsive? [Razz]

If you notice, I don't just disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I bring facts and figures to back up my point of view. Stand by what you wrote all you want, but dismiss me with facts and figures to back it up, not some worthless flippant remark that Tony can jump on the bandwagon with.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-06-2012, 01:45 PM:

I've said all that I have to say about this, and you.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-06-2012, 02:47 PM:

Arriflex website Arri group

quote:
Can I use anamorphic lenses with ALEXA?

Yes. You can use both traditional anamorphic lenses with a 2x squeeze factor as well as anamorphic lenses with a 1.3x squeeze factor with ALEXA cameras.

When using the ALEXA and ALEXA Plus cameras, which are capable of 16:9 but not 4:3 sensor mode, using the 1.3x anamorphic lenses will provide a slightly more efficient use of the sensor’s 16:9 aspect ratio and thus a slightly higher resolution and less noise in the final image. However, since ALEXA has a very sharp image and a very low noise level to begin with, the ‘conventional’ 2x squeeze anamorphic lenses work as well. In that case you need to crop the 16:9 (1.78:1) image in post to 1.195:1, before de-squeezing the image to 2.39:1.

When using the ALEXA M or ALEXA Studio, it is much better to use 4:3 sensor mode when shooting with anamorphic 2x squeeze factor lenses.

Anamorphic de-squeezing in the viewfinder and on the MON OUT is available as a software license key for purchase for the ALEXA and ALEXA Plus. It is always included in the ALEXA Studio. This feature will work for 2x and 1.3x anamorphic lenses. 16:9 vs. 4:3 Sensor Modes

The 4:3 sensor area is taller than the 16:9 sensor area, but not wider. Any distribution formats that are limited by the sensor's width (1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.39:1 flat and 2.39:1 with 1.3x anamorphic squeeze) do not gain resolution by using 4:3 sensor mode. However, in 4:3 sensor mode those formats gain the ability for significant vertical repositioning. The one format that gains significant resolution in 4:3 sensor mode is 2.39:1 with 2x anamorphic squeeze (traditional CinemaScope).

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-06-2012, 07:56 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
If you notice, I don't just disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I bring facts and figures to back up my point of view. Stand by what you wrote all you want, but dismiss me with facts and figures to back it up, not some worthless flippant remark that Tony can jump on the bandwagon with.

Edward, once again in this thread you have shown your arrogance (and I am NOT the only person who sees it obviously.)

You would still have credibility IF you got your facts right, which you did NOT here:

quote: Edward Havens
...Maybe a Cameron movie isn't shot with the spherical lens that makes a CinemaScope movie a CinemaScope movie...

Ummm, an anamorphic lens is NOT spherical....flat lenses are spherical. [Wink]

And there's this little gem in response to Bobby's very relevant post in this discussion:

quote: Edward Havens
If only I had asked about music videos and commercials, or movies shot eight years ago.

Dude, grow up and quit trolling like a spoiled brat teenager.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-07-2012, 04:15 AM:

So one mistake makes everything I say irrelevant, Tony?

Is that really a path YOU of all people want to go down?

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-07-2012, 10:40 AM:

No, your continuous arrogance and smart ass attitude is what makes everything you say irrelevant. You continue to prove it with every post you make. Like Mike said in the other thread, you have the Tom Petrov disease.

Candidly, I would have been giving you respect if you came on here acting civil and proving me wrong about you. Sadly, that is not to be I guess.

Everyone has bad days or whatever and sometimes that spill over onto the forum in a random thread....but your posts are consistently argumentative, arrogant or smart ass in a mean-spirited way.

Like I said earlier, when other people notice it too, it's proof it's not me vs. you.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-07-2012, 12:22 PM:

One claim I would like to see substantiated with specific, verifiable facts is this:

quote: Edward Havens
Face it, the vast majority of 2012 theatrical releases are shot digitally, on Red Ones and Red Epics, Arri Alexas, Panavision Genesises, Sony CineAltas, Fusion Camera Systems.

Of movies from major studios that actually play in commercial movie theaters, many still appear to be shot on film. Even some seemingly all-video productions like Prometheus mixed in some use of 35mm film.

In terms of looking at movie releases in absolute numbers, throwing in all the straight-to-DVD shit releases and dozens of indie features that at best make it into a handful of theaters (if any at all), that would help that "movies in digital" figure. Lots of indie productions have been shooting on video for more than a decade -primarily out of budget limits. I've channel surfed past Independent Film Channel in disgust at times when confronted with a "movie" shot using SD MiniDV gear and then cropped to 'scope proportions.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-07-2012, 06:14 PM:

Bobby, I've only had an hour or so to tally this, but this is what I have so far of movies from 2011-2013 that, from the info out there, were exclusively or primarily shot digitally, with the system used:

2 Days in New York (Arri Alexa)
42 (Red Epic MX)
47 Ronin (Arri Alexa)
A Few Best Men (Arri Alexa)
A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (Panavision Genesis)
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (Arri Alexa)
Act of Valor (Canon EOS 5D Mark II)
After Earth (Sony F65)
Albert Nobbs (Red One MX)
Amour (Arri Alexa)
Anonymous (Arri Alexa)
Argo (Arri Alexa)
Bachelorette (Red One MX)
Bernie (Arri Alexa)
Broken City (Arri Alexa)
Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star (Panavision Genesis)
Captain America: The First Avenger (Panavision Genesis)
Cedar Rapids (Arriflex D-21)
Celeste and Jesse Forever (Arri Alexa)
Chronicle (Arri Alexa)
Contagion (Red One MX)
Cosmopolis (Arri Alexa)
Dolphin Tale (Red One MX)
Dredd (Red One MX)
Drive (Arri Alexa)
Drive Angry (Red One MX, Silicon Imaging SI-2K)
Elysium (Red Epic MX)
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (Arri Alexa)
Final Destination 5 (Arri Alexa)
Flight (Red Epic MX)
Friends With Kids (Arri Alexa)
Gambit (Arri Alexa)
Gangster Squad (Arri Alexa)
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (Red One MX)
Gone (Red Epic MX)
Gravity (Arri Alexa)
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (Arri Alexa)
Haywire (Red One MX)
Headshot (Red One MX)
Hello I Must Be Going (Arri Alexa)
Here Comes the Boom (Arri Alexa)
Hitchcock (Red Epic MX)
Horrible Bosses (Panavision Genesis)
Hugo (Arri Alexa)
Immortals (Panavision Genesis)
In Time (Arri Alexa)
Jack and Jill (Arri Alexa)
Jack the Giant Killer (Red Epic MX)
Killer Joe (Arri Alexa)
Lawless (Arri Alexa)
Lay the Favorite (Sony CineAlta F35)
Life of Pi (Arri Alexa)
Like Crazy (Canon EOS 7D)
Mad Max: Fury Road (Arri Alexa)
Magic Mike (Red Epic MX)
Margin Call (Red One MX)
Melancholia (Arri Alexa)
Men in Black III (Arri Alexa)
Mr. Popper's Penguins (Arri Alexa)
Our Idiot Brother (Red One MX)
Oz: The Great and Powerful (Red Epic MX)
Pacific Rim (Red Epic MX)
Parker (Red Epic MX)
Pina Sony HDC-1500
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Red One MX)
Pitch Perfect (Arri Alexa)
Prom (Arri Alexa)
Prometheus (Red Epic MX)
R.I.P.D. (Arri Alexa)
Rampart (Arri Alexa)
Resident Evil: Retribution (Red Epic MX)
Robot and Frank (Arri Alexa)
Rock of Ages (Arri Alexa)
Ruby Sparks (Arri Alexa)
Sanctum (Fusion Camera System)
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (Arri Alexa)
Shark Night 3D (Fusion Camera System, Sony CineAlta F35)
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (Arri Alexa)
Skyfall (Arri Alexa)
Sparkle (Arri Alexa)
Spy Kids: All the Time in the World (Arri Alexa)
Stand Up Guys (Red Epic MX)
Ted (Panavision Genesis)
Texas Chainsaw 3D (Red Epic MX)
That's My Boy (Red Epic MX)
The Amazing Spider-Man (Red Epic MX)
The Avengers (Arri Alexa, Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EOS 7D)
The Campaign (Arri Alexa)
The Devil's Double (Red One MX)
The Dictator (Arri Alexa)
The Five-Year Engagement (Arri Alexa)
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (Red One MX, Red Epic MX)
The Great Gatsby (Red Epic MX)
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Red Epic MX)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Red Epic MX)
The Hobbit: There and Back Again (Red Epic MX)
The Lincoln Lawyer (Red One MX)
The Man with the Iron Fists (Red One MX)
The Muppets (Red One MX, Red Epic MX)
The Three Musketeers (Arri Alexa)
The Watch (Arri Alexa)
Think Like a Man (Red Epic MX)
This Is 40 (Arri Alexa)
Total Recall (Red Epic MX)
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Sony CineAlta F35)
Underworld: Awakening (Red Epic MX)
What to Expect When You're Expecting (Arri Alexa)
World War Z (Arri Alexa)
Young Adult (Arri Alexa)
Zero Dark Thirty (Arri Alexa)
Zookeeper (Panavision Genesis)

I have to go study for my Business class midterm, so I'll have to continue my search later, but as you can see, that's a pretty significant list of bigger Hollywood and top-flight independent movies. But yes, I conceded it's not quite a slam-dunk of all the biggest productions shot digitally... yet.

As for you Tony... you've been rude and condescending towards me since I first showed up, and you get what you give. Those who live in glass houses... you know, blah blah blah. You've contributed nothing to this thread but personal attacks on me, so just keep being the excellent dick with blinders on that you are. [beer]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-07-2012, 08:55 PM:

I don't have time to go through all those films, but just checking a few of them via IMDB and their tech specs page shows the films on your list aren't all shot 100% on video.

Argo was a mix of 35mm, 16mm and digital footage. The Total Recall remake mixed Panavision anamorphic 35mm footage with Red video camera footage and even some Super35mm shots. The Avengers mixed Arri 35mm film camera footage and Arri digital footage -along with HDSLR stuff from Canon 5D mark II and 7D cameras.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 11-08-2012, 05:13 AM:

Bobby, I never said every single one of my examples was 100% shot digitally. I said exclusively or primarily.

I will concede, after some more reading, Argo only shot digitally while on location in Turkey, while employing 35mm for the majority of its shoot, along with 16mm and even some 8mm film.

In an interview with Total Recall DP Paul Cameron a few months back, he clearly states "In the end, we used very little film, only in crash housings for second unit."

In interviews with The ASC and with Arri, The Avengers DP Seamus McGarvey spells out how 35mm was only used in high-speed shots, as HFR was not yet available on the Alexa during production.

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 11-08-2012, 12:26 PM:

Men in Black III was 99% film. The Alexa was only used for some of that nighttime bike chase.

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 11-08-2012, 06:20 PM:

Also, just for comparison's sake, here's a list of 2011-2013 films that I know of that are either totally or primarily shot on film:

2 Guns
30 Minutes or Less
50/50
360
A Better Life
A Dangerous Method
A Good Day to Die Hard
A Separation
A Single Shot
A Thousand Words
Abduction
Alex Cross
Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked
American Reunion
Anna Karenina
Arbitrage
Argo
Arthur
Attack the Block
August: Osage County
Bad Teacher
Barney's Version
Battle Los Angeles
Battleship
Beastly
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Beautiful Creatures
Being Flynn
Belle du Seigneur
Big Miracle
Big Mommas House 3
Blitz
Bridesmaids
Bullet to the Head
Captain Phillips
Carnage
Casa de mi Padre
Cloud Atlas
Colombiana
Conan the Barbarian
Contraband
Coriolanus
Cowboys & Aliens
Crazy Stupid Love
Dark Shadows
Deadfall
Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2
Diary of a Wimpy Kid 3
Django Unchained
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark
Don Jon's Addiction
Dream House
Dylan Dog: Dead of Night
Emperor
Everything Must Go
Fast Five
Fast Six
Footloose
Footnote
For Ellen
For Greater Glory
Fun Size
G.I. Joe Retaliation
Great Expectations
Green Lantern
Hall Pass
Hanna
Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Headhunters
Hick
Hop
House at the End of the Street
Hysteria
I Am Number Four
I Don't Know How She Does It
Inside Llewyn Davis
In the Land of Blood and Honey
J. Edgar
Jack Reacher
Jane Eyre
Jayne Mansfield's Car
John Carter
Johnny English Reborn
Joyful Noise
Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer
Killer Elite
Killing Them Softly
Larry Crowne
Les Miserables
Limitless
Lincoln
Lola Versus
Looper
Madea's Big Happy Family
Man of Steel
Man on a Ledge
Martha Marcy May Marlene
Meek's Cutoff
Men in Black III
Midnight's Children
Midnight in Paris
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Moneyball
Monte Carlo
Moonrise Kingdom
My Week with Marilyn
Nightingale
No Strings Attached
Now Is Good
Now You See Me
One Day
One for the Money
Pain & Gain
Parental Guidance
Pariah
Passion
Paul
People Like Us
Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters
Playing for Keeps
Premium Rush
Priest
Promised Land
Red 2
Red Dawn
Red Riding Hood
Restless
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Safe
Safe House
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen
Samsara
Savages
Saving Mr. Banks
Scream 4
Season of the Witch
Seven Days in Utopia
Seven Psychopaths
Shame
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Silver Linings Playbook
Snow White and the Huntsman
Something Borrowed
Soul Surfer
Source Code
Star Trek Into Darkness
Stoker
Stolen
Straw Dogs
Sucker Punch
Super 8
Take Me Home Tonight
Take Shelter
Taken 2
The Adjustment Bureau
The Apparition
The Artist
The Art of Getting By
The Beaver
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
The Big Year
The Bourne Legacy
The Butler
The Cabin in the Woods
The Change-Up
The Cold Light of Day
The Company Men
The Company You Keep
The Conspirator
The Dark Knight Rises
The Debt
The Deep Blue Sea
The Descendants
The Dilemma
The Eagle
The Expendables 2
The Green Hornet
The Grey
The Guard
The Guilt Trip
The Hangover Part 2
The Heat
The Help
The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Hunter
The Ides of March
The Impossible
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
The Intouchables
The Iron Lady
The Lady
The Lone Ranger
The Lucky One
The Master
The Mechanic
The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
The Odd Life of Timothy Green
The Paperboy
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
The Place Beyond the Pines
The Possession
The Raven
The Rite
The Rum Diary
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
The Sitter
The Skin I Live In
The Spectacular Now
The Thing
The Three Stooges
The Tree of Life
The Vow
The Way Back
The Wolf of Wall Street
The Woman in Black
The Words
This Means War
Thor
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
To Rome with Love
Tower Heist
Trespass
Trouble with the Curve
Twelve Years a Slave
Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1
Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2
Two Mothers
Unknown
Upside Down
W.E.
Wanderlust
War Horse
Warrior
Water for Elephants
We Bought a Zoo
We Need to Talk About Kevin
What's Your Number
What Maisie Knew
Win Win
Won't Back Down
Wrath of the Titans
Wuthering Heights
X-Men First Class
Your Highness

Posted by Tom Tomlinson (Member # 703) on 11-09-2012, 12:04 AM:

I saw it in Digital imax here in NYC and I thought I saw a title card come up before the trailers saying the following presentation wasn't DMR'ed which I remember Roger Deakens saying that. Maybe I misread it.
Then the trailers went and the movie. The movie looked 2.39 to me and the Columbia logo at the beginning was cropping of the top of the word columbia.

I stayed for the end credits and of course the imax QC title card came up.
Confusing?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-09-2012, 09:03 AM:

Opening up the frame to show 26% more of the captured image doesn't do much for me when the average IMAX presentation is going to be showing a smaller picture than the super-sized auditoriums out there from Cinemark (XD), Marcus (UltraScreen), and the like.

I did a quick check at two local UltraScreens and the only IMAX theater in the Milwaukee area, and even with the expanded aspect ratio of the IMAX presentation, its image size will only be 63% of the size of the image projected by the smaller of the UltraScreens in town.

That runs counter to the hype being repeated by the original article, but that's what happens when you have a 50' wide IMAX screen competing with a 70' or 75' wide UltraScreen.

On top of that, the price for the UltraScreen for an evening show (adult) is $11.00 while the IMAX show at the AMC is $14.50.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2012, 12:20 PM:

Another obvious question: why pay extra to see the movie in "IMAX Digital" when the projected image is 2K resolution while other regular d-cinema theaters might be showing it in sharper 4K resolution and with no extra surcharge?

I can see some value with IMAX Digital when it comes to showing digital 3D movies in a brighter fashion. But I don't see the point to it at all when it comes to 2D movies. It's HDTV resolution blown up to a sort of big screen. The IMAX branded sound systems don't set any high water marks for quality, certainly not like the sound quality I heard at the long dead GCC Northpark Mall 1-2 theater in Dallas.

If IMAX Digital was presenting a better digital image and digital audio than any other standard or premium commercial theater I could see the point to the surcharge for their flavor of digital. But they're not delivering that.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 11-10-2012, 05:58 PM:

I just came back from the 3:20 showing of Skyfall at the recently-opened BTX auditorium in the Bow Tie Reston Town Center 11. The tickets were $2 cheaper than the 3:30 showing at the digital IMAX in the AMC Tyson's Corner 16.

This auditorium is out-fitted with a Christie 4K projector on a pretty darn huge 2.35:1 screen. That already looks better than IMAX's 2K projectors (which ironically are made in part by Christie). Unlike AMC's ETX or IMAX, the scope image fit onto the entire screen, instead of having unmasked scope image on a flat (1.78-1.90:1) screen. The bad news is, if the auditorium ever plays a flat film, which is very unlikely, there won't be any masking to play that flat film properly.

The sound in the auditorium was pretty cool, obviously louder than most theaters, but loud in a good way. They played a Dolby trailer before the film, and that just KICKED ASS! There was only one example of "bad loud" in the entire movie. The opening sequence gave me bad memories of the overly-bombastic and somewhat compressed mix made for The Dark Knight Rises, and Adele's "Skyfall" didn't get much of an upgrade from its dynamically deficient counterpart in the form of a single from iTunes. So it's either the mix of the film, or the auditorium still has some EQ-ing to do.

So if you want to see Skyfall in IMAX but not sure about how much you're going to get for your money, look someplace else, someplace GOOD.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2012, 11:34 PM:

My main problem with all of these "big" screen EXTREME theaters (IMAX falls into this category) is that they seem to be desperately trying to duplicate the outdoor concert experience when it comes to the sound. Dialog is especially harsh with increased treble to give it that same extra "clarity" that the very first CDs on the market did. I'm almost convinced that there are is no volume control in a digital IMAX installation, at least not for stuff that is in "proper digital IMAX".

I still haven't heard RPX yet because I just don't want to spend extra for it. I'll tag along if someone else buys. [Smile]

Also, I heard IMAX is supposed to be going 4K in the near future. We'll see how long it takes them to make the changes.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2012, 11:38 PM:

Making a system that is loud is cheap and any yahoo can do the B-chain (by ear even). Making a system that is loud and doesn't hurt people's ears is more expensive and requires actual tools (such as the D2) and a tech who actually understands the art of tuning a room (not a robot dialing to the meter).

I'm in agreement with Joe. I've never heard an IMAX that I thought sounded good. They have all sounded bad.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 11-10-2012, 11:57 PM:

I'll be the first to admit that I can't pick up some of the sound issues others talk about, however I think our IMAX sounds good. It sounds as good if not better then our "regular" screens. The dialog sounds crisp and clear without any "affects" to it. The bass is thumping when needs be and not over bearing when it shouldn't be. Then again, I am no expert and my ears are not the greatest. [Smile]

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-11-2012, 01:04 PM:

Yep, I agree with the above posts, I have yet to hear an IMAX setup that sounds good. It is always harsh, ragged sounding and way too loud.

Interesting point about IMAX not having a volume control (fader)...in the few booths I have entered I don't recall seeing a fader....

3......2.......1.......
[Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-12-2012, 08:59 AM:

Friday night I watched Skyfall on the IMAX Digital screen at the Warren Theaters complex in Moore, OK. I intended to get balcony seat tickets for me and my date in one of the two "Grand Auditoriums" but those shows were sold out. So we settled for a late show in the "IMAX" house instead. BTW, that sold out too (thank you Internet and advance online ticket sales).

The sound quality was a little better than I expected. It wasn't harsh sounding, so it seemed like some attention was paid to the EQ. The volume was at a comfortable level too. The bass levels were ok, but could have used a little more thump. This auditorium was fairly big (I'm guessing 600-700 seats) so I suppose the sheer level of cubic airspace in the room could have been a challenge in attaining the chest thumping levels of sub bass I like. The two big upper rear corner speakers common to IMAX theaters do not do a good job of providing back wall surround coverage. IMHO, IMAX needs to make a deal with Dolby and adopt that new Atmos audio format otherwise it will be a source of IMAX vs. Dolby conflict in the future.

Biggest problem: image resolution. While the projected image in this theater was acceptably bright and even, it was seriously wanting in terms of native resolution. 2K simply is not good enough for large screens (and this screen wasn't as big as a real IMAX screen made for 15/70 projectors). Closeups of actors faces appeared out of focus due to the lack of resolution. Anything dealing with graphics, like computer screen images or the end titles, appeared kind of blurry. Aliasing was also an issue. One really noticeable example was on the grill of the classic Aston Martin car as it drove on a Scottish road late in the movie. If IMAX is going to put twin 4K DLP projectors in these theaters (and presumably show 4K native material) it would be a big help.

The movie itself was pretty damn good. I'll get a copy when it comes out on Blu-ray.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-12-2012, 02:48 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The bass levels were ok, but could have used a little more thump.

One seat can make a huge difference with LFE. Maybe you shoulda traded seats with your date. [Big Grin]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-12-2012, 09:45 PM:

You people must live near some really crappy Imax houses. I have thought for years that sound quality was one of the format's biggest achievements.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-13-2012, 11:17 AM:

I've visited a decent number of IMAX screens over the years. Most IMAX sound systems are designed more for sheer bombast rather than achieving finely tuned high levels of sound quality. I'm with Joe on this, the audio character will sound more like that of a concert arena than a high quality movie theater. I've never liked the surround setup at IMAX theaters. It's usually just two big enclosures stuffed up in the rear corners of the room. Sometimes that's way above the head.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-13-2012, 06:07 PM:

Yeah the only time I remember ever hearing surround sound in an IMAX auditorium is during the IMAX "powering up" logo at the beginning when they enhance everything for crystal clarity. And even then, the surrounds are very faint sounding. Regular auditoriums do a better job at surround coverage.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 11-13-2012, 09:02 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
One really noticeable example was on the grill of the classic Aston Martin car as it drove on a Scottish road late in the movie.

That was something also evident in the 4K version I saw at the BTX in Reston. Everything else looked astonishing at the showing I went to. I think it has to do with source material and not a fault of the projector or anything.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2012, 12:00 PM:

That makes me wonder what kind of camera was used to get that shot. There wouldn't have been any aliasing issues in camera if Skyfall had been shot on film (that wouldn't prevent certain problems from happening in the digital intermediate stage). I think the burning building footage would have looked better too; visually it was the low point of the movie for me.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-29-2012, 10:10 PM:

quote: Connor Wilson
I just came back from the 3:20 showing of Skyfall at the recently-opened BTX auditorium in the Bow Tie Reston Town Center 11. The tickets were $2 cheaper than the 3:30 showing at the digital IMAX in the AMC Tyson's Corner 16.

This auditorium is out-fitted with a Christie 4K projector on a pretty darn huge 2.35:1 screen. That already looks better than IMAX's 2K projectors (which ironically are made in part by Christie). Unlike AMC's ETX or IMAX, the scope image fit onto the entire screen, instead of having unmasked scope image on a flat (1.78-1.90:1) screen. The bad news is, if the auditorium ever plays a flat film, which is very unlikely, there won't be any masking to play that flat film properly.

The sound in the auditorium was pretty cool, obviously louder than most theaters, but loud in a good way. They played a Dolby trailer before the film, and that just KICKED ASS! There was only one example of "bad loud" in the entire movie. The opening sequence gave me bad memories of the overly-bombastic and somewhat compressed mix made for The Dark Knight Rises, and Adele's "Skyfall" didn't get much of an upgrade from its dynamically deficient counterpart in the form of a single from iTunes. So it's either the mix of the film, or the auditorium still has some EQ-ing to do.

So if you want to see Skyfall in IMAX but not sure about how much you're going to get for your money, look someplace else, someplace GOOD.

I went to see 'Skyfall' last night in 15/70 IMAX over at Udvar Hazy - it both looked and sounded fantastic! why didn't you go over there?

as for 'The Dark Knight Rises' mix, I saw it three times, once in 15/70 IMAX (Natural History Musuem) - and utter mush of sound, at AMC Mazza PCM audio - volume set way too low for my taste, and at the Avalon (35mm) and guess which one was the best - it was the latter (go figure?)

I thought I had heard that the Bow Tie BTX auditorium is getting the Atmos makeover for the engagement of 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' (and 48fps playback to boot!)

is the Christie projector a single projector? I know that the dual projector over on the ETX screen (at Tysons) has been so hit and miss - I swear I want to hurt someone when they don't align the two projector's properly (or inadvertantly don't set the brightness level correctly for either 2D or 3D presentations)