The IMAX General Discussion Thread

[TServo2049]

Good grief, this makes me feel really lucky and really guilty - my main venue, Regal Hacienda Crossings 20 in Dublin, CA, is consistently a good experience. Sure, the tickets are $13 just for a regular 2D evening, but I go alone, and I don't buy concessions. They don't seem to be "forcing" 3D on anybody, the largest auditoriums are almost always 2D these days (except IMAX of course - even RPX seems to have gone almost exclusively 2D for the last 2 years, Iron Man 3 is the last time I remember the RPX being 3D only), if a film is playing 3D there are always plenty of convenient 2d show times. All the showings I go to are well-behaved, nobody talks loudly during the movie, kids only make noise on occasion, nobody texts, only extremely rarely does someone not silence their phone, and even though there are sometimes people who leave their popcorn behind, nobody makes serious messes. The auditorium is always clean when I come in for a showing, the sound never has problems, the projection doesn't have problems (the last time I had to complain to management was when they didn't open the curtains/masking to the right aspect ratio for Captain America 2 - though now, no theater I've been to seems to adjust the screen masking at all, they just leave it fully open). Just regular 2D is excellent on its own there.

All the major chain theaters in my area seem to be on about the same level. Even the old 6-screen that's closest to my house, though it gets crowded due to the small lobby size, is good, everyone quiets down during the movie.

The East Bay must just be extremely well-behaved, with managers that actually give a darn. Again, I feel guilty that I haven't experienced major theater problems anywhere since something like 1999.

Edited July 19, 2015 by TServo2049

[redfirebird2008]

Gautske, have you been to AMC Gulf Point 30 recently? Last time I went there it was a complete dump. That was 8 years ago for the Burton/Depp movie Sweeney Todd. That theater has a strong location since it's the intersection of some very high traffic freeways through Houston and as a result, it repeatedly shows up on RTH's list of biggest grossing theaters. It is a shithole though and that is a real shame.

[Gautske]

Gautske, have you been to AMC Gulf Point 30 recently? Last time I went there it was a complete dump. That was 8 years ago for the Burton/Depp movie Sweeney Todd. That theater has a strong location since it's the intersection of some very high traffic freeways through Houston and as a result, it repeatedly shows up on RTH's list of biggest grossing theaters. It is a shithole though and that is a real shame.

Cameron debates aside  , but, no I don't think so. I've probably last been there in the 90s, but I don't even remember that for certain. I know they were building a lot of the bigger theaters around that time, so if it's a newer theater built after 1999, then definitely not.

 

I've always been kind of underwhelmed by the AMC theaters. The one near me built in like 1996 was really huge (two-story) and nice at the time, but like I said it's gone to total hell now. The AMCs around Chicago that I remember weren't that well-matained either. Seeing how AMC now owns one of the nicer indie theaters I frequented in Wisconsin makes me kind of shudder thinking that it's probably going to fall into understaffed/undertrained disrepair as well, but oh well.

 

Thanks for the heads up on Gulf Point 30. If I ever get the urge to hit that theater up, I'll just remember what you said and that it's AMC. I would honestly be surprised if it wasn't a dump now if it was already a dump eight years ago. 

[Plain Old Tele]

David Pogue interviews the CTO of IMAX:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-future-of-imax-laser-projectors-smaller-175319209.html

[Webslinger]

Man, reading that article and scanning back through the previous page have reminded me that I really need to go see something at the Boeing IMAX when I'm back in Seattle. I haven't seen anything there since The Dark Knight Rises in 2012.

 

I guess it shows how far out of the loop I've been that I was pleasantly surprised to see that a few scenes of Batman v. Superman were filmed in IMAX (and on 70mm film, no less).

[redfirebird2008]

Curious to see how long it takes for them to install the IMAX laser projectors everywhere. Saw Cap 3 in digital IMAX last night and it looked great, but the airport sequence didn't fill the entire screen (expanded from 2.4:1 to 1.78:1). The laser projectors will allow the taller aspect ratio along the lines of 70mm IMAX film footage.

[WrathOfHan]

16 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

Curious to see how long it takes for them to install the IMAX laser projectors everywhere. Saw Cap 3 in digital IMAX last night and it looked great, but the airport sequence didn't fill the entire screen (expanded from 2.4:1 to 1.78:1). The laser projectors will allow the taller aspect ratio along the lines of 70mm IMAX film footage.

CW's IMAX footage wasn't filmed in 4:3

[redfirebird2008]

Just now, WrathOfHan said:

CW's IMAX footage wasn't filmed in 4:3

 

The screen I was watching it on wasn't 4:3 either. It wasn't a purpose-built IMAX auditorium, it was a renovated regular auditorium in 2013 at an old theater. During the IMAX sequence, there was a black bar at the bottom of the screen. During the rest of the film at 2.4:1, there was more black space at the bottom of the screen than at the top of the screen. The black bar at the top of the screen was similar to what a 2.4:1 film looks like on a 1.78:1 HDTV.

 

I believe they were centering the image based on the top of the screen. So then it ended up with extra black space at the bottom. And then when it went "full frame" to 1.78:1 during the IMAX scene, there was still a black bar at the bottom. If I had to guess, the screen was maybe 1.9:1 or something like that. The IMAX digital projector is limited to 1.78:1.

 

Same experience in the same auditorium with Interstellar as well.

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, redfirebird2008 said:

 

The screen I was watching it on wasn't 4:3 either. It wasn't a purpose-built IMAX auditorium, it was a renovated regular auditorium in 2013 at an old theater. During the IMAX sequence, there was a black bar at the bottom of the screen. During the rest of the film at 2.4:1, there was more black space at the bottom of the screen than at the top of the screen. The black bar at the top of the screen was similar to what a 2.4:1 film looks like on a 1.78:1 HDTV.

 

I believe they were centering the image based on the top of the screen. So then it ended up with extra black space at the bottom. And then when it went "full frame" to 1.78:1 during the IMAX scene, there was still a black bar at the bottom. If I had to guess, the screen was maybe 1.9:1 or something like that. The IMAX digital projector is limited to 1.78:1.

 

Same experience in the same auditorium with Interstellar as well.

 

I think the IMAX digital cameras acquire at a 1.9:1 AR, or thereabouts.

[redfirebird2008]

Just now, Telemachos said:

 

I think the IMAX digital cameras acquire at a 1.9:1 AR, or thereabouts.

 

But I don't think they are projecting it that way on the digital projectors. I've been in a purpose-built IMAX auditorium with a 4:3 screen many times and this screen I was watching last night was wider for sure.

[Plain Old Tele]

Just now, redfirebird2008 said:

 

But I don't think they are projecting it that way on the digital projectors. I've been in a purpose-built IMAX auditorium with a 4:3 screen many times and this screen I was watching last night was wider for sure.

 

Sure, I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that even in a true IMAX auditorium, the effect won't be the same as traditional IMAX.

[redfirebird2008]

Just now, Telemachos said:

 

Sure, I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that even in a true IMAX auditorium, the effect won't be the same as traditional IMAX.

 

Of course not. Only way to get that is capture at 4:3 and project at 4:3 with full resolution of course. I'm just curious to see when they finally ditch the 1.78 projection and go 1.90 through the laser projectors even in the renovated screens like my local theater. Still though, the digital projection at 1.78 looked great even in the non-IMAX sequences. They probably don't have much incentive to make the projector upgrades across the world at this point. Most people are probably very satisfied with the image quality, especially in the renovated auditoriums like the one I described.

[redfirebird2008]

Thought some more about it and I got the aspect ratios mixed up. 1.78 is taller than 1.90, just like how a 1.85 Blu-ray has very small black bars at the top and bottom of a 1.78 HDTV screen. 1.90 should be even wider than 1.85. There is Regal's RPX format in the auditorium next to this IMAX screen and the RPX is at 1.85 ratio. The IMAX screen definitely has a more square appearance than the 1.85 RPX screen, which means it can't be a 1.90 IMAX screen. 

 

So either this particular IMAX screen legitimately is 1.33 (4:3) or it's something in between 1.33 and 1.90, maybe 1.66 perhaps. I've seen a number of Blu-rays released in that 1.66 aspect ratio and it leads to pillarboxing with black bars on the right and left side of the 1.78 HDTV screen. Some of Kubrick's films were released like that even though it wasn't the original aspect ratio (strange decision). Dr. Strangelove was one of them:

 

 

 

If the IMAX screen I'm discussing is actually 1.33 aspect, then the seating arrangement makes a huge difference in perception. At the purpose-built old school IMAX I've been to in Houston, the screen shape looks more like a square than the digital IMAX I've been describing. The seating arrangement in the digital IMAX is just like you'd expect from any stadium seating auditorium at a modern theater. 

[Plain Old Tele]

I believe STRANGELOVE was actually released in a variable-AR format... both 1.33 and 1.66. Not that this has anything to do with anything.

[redfirebird2008]

2 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

I believe STRANGELOVE was actually released in a variable-AR format... both 1.33 and 1.66. Not that this has anything to do with anything.

 

According to the Blu-ray.com review it was released at 1.85:1 here in the States. There is an article on High Def Digest about controversy over Barry Lyndon's Blu-ray using a 1.78:1 aspect (fully cropped to fill the HDTV screen) whereas Lolita and Clockwork Orange were both released at 1.66:1 the same year. Apparently Kubrick preferred 1.66:1, which is/was a European standard. His films ended up being shown in 1.85:1 here in America due to the different theater specs. Here's a good article that talks about all of the issues with Kubrick's aspect ratios, haha. 

 

http://reviews.antagonyecstasy.com/2014/05/kubrick-and-his-ratios.html

 

Dr. Strangelove: A relatively straightforward case: in 1964, the film was distributed with the intention that it should be cropped to a 1.66:1 ratio, though it was undoubtedly, in the United States, shown at 1.85:1 at times. Like most movies on VHS, this 1.66:1 image was cropped to 1.33:1, and the issue only shows up in 1999, when the first incarnation of the Stanley Kubrick Collection came out on DVD, with Kubrick having, allegedly, personally approved each of the films contained therein. Though it's worth pointing out that Dr. Strangelove was an exact reprint of an earlier DVD - the label on the disc hadn't even been changed.

This version included a "multi-ratio" print, which meant, in essence, that the bulk of the film was in 1.33:1, with some shots in 1.66:1. This was because the available print (which was not the long-lost original camera negative) had several sequences hard-matted. What I can only assume was bureaucratic idiocy led to the assumption that the open-matte version of the film was correct, even though the vast majority of widescreen films would have had un-matted distribution prints, and by 1964, the idea of a film in the square-ish Academy ratio is utterly preposterous. The 2009 DVD and Blu-Ray release returned the entire film to 1.66:1, and the whole affair should be considered a closed case now.

[cannastop]

Have any of you watched a movie that was in a wide screen format but still put on IMAX anyways? Do they just project the image on only part of the screen?

[Plain Old Tele]

40 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Have any of you watched a movie that was in a wide screen format but still put on IMAX anyways? Do they just project the image on only part of the screen?

 

They crop and reframe slightly, blow the image up as large as possible, and yes, it's only projected on part of the screen (from edge to edge horizontally, leaving space at the top and bottom).

[cannastop]

4 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

They crop and reframe slightly, blow the image up as large as possible, and yes, it's only projected on part of the screen (from edge to edge horizontally, leaving space at the top and bottom).

Hmm. Well, I really don't like cropping, so I guess I'll be a little less likely to see a movie in IMAX.

 

It just reminds me of inattentive theaters that don't show 1:2.39 movies in the proper ratio.

[Plain Old Tele]

11 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Hmm. Well, I really don't like cropping, so I guess I'll be a little less likely to see a movie in IMAX.

 

It's not particularly noticeable. I'm usually a stickler for aspect ratios, but generally the spectacle benefits of IMAX outweigh the negatives (which honestly usually have more to do with a slightly softer and/grainier image than any cropping). IMAX has a proprietary process for uprezzing the footage and it usually looks pretty good these days.

[WrathOfHan]

13 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Hmm. Well, I really don't like cropping, so I guess I'll be a little less likely to see a movie in IMAX.

 

It just reminds me of inattentive theaters that don't show 1:2.39 movies in the proper ratio.

Movies aren't cropped but they are letterboxed without masking.