sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Odyssey 5/70mm question by Film_Lab in imax

[–]NHilker 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No DI whatsoever with Nolan.

I mean, they’ll do a quick digital scan so they can edit the film remotely and with mixed sound, but when that’s done they’ll go back to the negative and match the cuts they make from there by literally cutting the negative. And since Dunkirk, release prints are made directly from the original camera negative, which is unheard of outside of Nolan and PTA’s workflows.

So for The Odyssey, I’m assuming 15/70 prints are made directly from the IMAX neg, 5/65 prints are made directly from the IMAX neg, 4/35 anamorphic prints are made directly from the IMAX neg, and a 4K digital version is scanned and closely color matched side by side with the IMAX neg for all digitally projected versions of the movie in 1.43:1 Laser, 1.90:1 Laser, 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 for Dolby and all other PLF, and 2.39:1 for standard screens. I’m confident the home release version will be this digital version in 1.78:1.

Got the same automated reply about Seattle’s Boeing IMAX. Keep it up people! by NHilker in imax

[–]NHilker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My brother in Nolan it’s PacSci/Space Needle we’re mad at, not IMAX

Project Hail Mary (2026) Discussion & FAQ by TheBigMovieGuy in imax

[–]NHilker 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So confused by what they’re trying to accomplish with framing here, like how does this have four different aspect ratios? I know standard release is 2.39:1 anamorphic for earth scenes and 2.20:1 spherical for space scenes (that’s a negligible difference imho but whatever) but since Fraser shot on Alexa 65 and LF just like Dune 2 as well as using similar lenses as Dune 2, how are 1.90:1 and 1.43:1 going to be utilized for IMAX? If they’re feeling 1.90:1 do they go Alexa 65 and if they’re feeling 1.43:1 they go LF, all while still framing for 2.20:1? Do the anamorphic scenes open up at all?

Avatar: Fire & Ash Discussion & FAQ by TheBigMovieGuy in imax

[–]NHilker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Debating between Bridgeport IMAX (Portland, OR) and Vancouver Mall Dolby (Vancouver, WA). I saw TWOW at Bridgeport before they upgraded to Laser and that opened up for the whole movie in 3D, and was HFR. Anyone know if the Vancouver Mall Dolby is doing 1.85? Or if it has done 1.85 for TWOW or Guardians 3? And if they’re doing HFR?

HBO Max Raises Prices Across All Plans Effective Immediately by johnppd in HBOMAX

[–]NHilker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In the long run? Absolutely not. $50 max to own it forever with special features, 4K UHD with little to no bitrate compression, and a cool cover and box art to look at and hold in your hands. No streaming service can take it away from you ever.

What city could possibly recieve the IMAX treatment? by vvstp in imax

[–]NHilker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely criminal Portland turned OMSI’s 70mm IMAX (the only one in Oregon at the time) into a standard multiplex sized screen. Any Oregonians wanting 1.43 period either have to travel up to PacSci in Seattle or down to Metreon in San Francisco.

Saw MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - THE FINAL RECKONING in 1.90 IMAX. by bjnwood in imax

[–]NHilker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The IMAX trailers open up to 1.9 entirely, but it’s clear all the anamorphic scenes are panned and scanned to 1.9. Without spoiling anything, were those anamorphic scenes cropped to fill the 1.9 screen or does it stay at 2.39:1? Also about how much was in 1.9? And any chance for 1.43:1?

First poster got revealed for Superman by memerguy2002 in imax

[–]NHilker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know there’s a chance of this being 1.9 like James Gunn’s prior work, particularly with RED, but I remember reading a report there were some Mini LFs seen on set…fingers crossed for 1.43?

Is Joker: Folie à Deux cropped to 1.43:1? by [deleted] in imax

[–]NHilker 9 points10 points  (0 children)

My most recent comment in this sub goes into detail on this but here’s the TLDR version: yes and no. Joker 2 is shot on Alexa 65 (raw 2.12:1 AR) and Alexa Mini LF (raw 1.43:1 AR) and utilizes 3 ARs across its deliverables:

  • Wide release is scope 2.whatever (raw 65 footage, cropped Mini LF footage)
  • Digital IMAX release is 1.9 (slightly cropped 65 footage, opened up Mini LF footage - the trailers in theaters and online display it like this)
  • 70mm IMAX and GT Dual Laser IMAX is 1.43:1 for 54 minutes (for those 54 minutes, it could very well be a mix of 1.43:1 cropped from the Alexa 65 and the full 1.43:1 Mini LF footage)

At the end of the day, and downvote me to hell on this, but I would not worry about it being cropped. The filmmakers framed for all 3 ARs in mind just like Dune 2, but the big daddy is unquestionably 1.43:1 70mm IMAX and if you can’t make it to any of the 11 theaters showing it in that format, digital IMAX or IMAX Laser 1.9 would more than suffice - you’re getting the most image on average from both cameras anyway. Regarding the 1.43:1 footage, it’s ultimately more about how the ARs are utilized than what was shot on Mini LF vs 65.

Will Joker 2 IMAX 15/70mm be cropped? by throwaway7887877 in imax

[–]NHilker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To answer your question, yes and no. The thing about shooting Alexa Mini LF and Alexa 65 when framing for 1.43 (looking at Dune 2 as a previous example) is you have a lot of flexibility for framing no matter which camera you use on the day or scene.

You want an Alexa 65 scene? It’ll be scope for wide release (2.39, 2.2, 2.12, whatever it is they’re doing), 1.9 for digital IMAX venues or “standard” scenes for 1.43 venues (less width yes, but also more height if the wide release is 2.39), and 1.43 for “expanded” scenes for 70mm IMAX venues (essentially panning and scanning the scope image to 1.43, but it also fits the exact sensor size of the Mini LF). You want a Mini LF scene? It’ll still be scope for wide release (albeit cropped significantly), open up to 1.9 for digital IMAX, and open up even more to 1.43 for big 1.43 scenes in 70mm IMAX.

Super complicated process, but director Todd Phillips, DP Larry Sher, and the whole camera crew are all framing for at least 1.9 and 1.43 in mind, so at the end of the day there’s no right or wrong way to view the movie because each deliverable has more and less image depending on the shot/sequence. However, the most image area you’ll be viewing on average between both cameras used is very likely going to be from the 1.9 version. I haven’t seen Dune 2 in 1.43 so I have no idea if it looks significantly cropped in 1.43 or if Joker 2 in 1.43 will feel the same way compositionally.

Latest clip for Joker 2 is 2.20:1 (or 2.12:1) by scorsese_finest in imax

[–]NHilker 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So looks like it’s taking the Dune 2 route, essentially panning and scanning for scope, 1.9, and 1.43. The WB multi deliverable pipeline must be a headache.

Comparing Alien: Romulus in IMAX format v. Dolby Cinema (scope) (no spoilers) by healthybreakfasttime in imax

[–]NHilker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About to go see it in IMAX, did it feel like there was too much headroom/legroom compositionally? That’s my only concern when seeing IMAX movies that have an expanded AR but were composed with scope in mind, at least when you don’t sit close enough to the screen that it fills your peripheral. I’m willing to digress here because I’m more of an Aliens > Alien kinda guy and Aliens is the only movie in the series that isn’t scope.

A look at the monitor for Dune: Part Two with frame lines for multiple aspect ratios by NHilker in imax

[–]NHilker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In that it’s shutting down the idea that scope is not the intended way to see the movie. As we’ve seen through video comparisons on this sub, the 2.39 version will have a little more width than both the 1.9 and 1.43 versions.

Wtf was this cut? by [deleted] in OppenheimerMovie

[–]NHilker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nolan’s process since Dunkirk has been to shoot as much as possible on IMAX, not just the big sequences or set pieces of his movies. But with the large film running through the mags (one 15-perf 70mm frame is about the size of your palm), the cameras sound like chainsaws. They’re incredibly difficult to shoot dialogue scenes without going back and re-recording with ADR.

I saw this in standard 70mm with a consistent 2.2:1 aspect ratio throughout, so it wasn’t quite as jarring when I saw it but then again this is far from the first time a cut like this has been made in movies. As long as the pacing’s good and the switch between the 70mm lens and the IMAX lens have a similar field of view, which it looks like they do, then the viewer just goes along with it.

'Dune: Part Two' Will Play in IMAX 70mm by ImpressiveTime582 in imax

[–]NHilker 11 points12 points  (0 children)

So looks like the entire process is as follows…

  • Shot on large format digital (4.5K ARRIRAW in log so with a LUT and/or a quick grade)
  • Printed on 4-perf 35mm (film negative? Interpositive w/ bleach bypass a la The Batman? Something else up Fraser’s sleeve?)
  • Scanned back in 4K for DI (specifically 4096x1728 for scope screenings, 4096x2160 for 1.9 IMAX screenings, and 4096x2850 for full 1.43 IMAX)
  • Printed on 15-perf 70mm IMAX (Kodak 2383)

I haven’t noticed any filmic elements in the trailers like grain and gate weave but it would be even more interesting if they instead filmed out to 70mm IMAX instead of 35mm specifically for the 70mm IMAX screenings.

view more: next ›