Imax re-formatting?? (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

All the FX shots like the Saturn 5 taking off, and anything done in post was hard-matted to 2.35:1

And no, they can't go back and re-render

Chop & Crop!

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

To Jeff Kleist...
Hard-matted to 235? Bummer! :frowning: It surely looks like shit then, huh? Sheesh.
As long as they don't pull that crap with masterworks like 2001 or Lawrence.
Thanks for presenting me with the truth, Jeff!
Gordy

 

[cafink]

I really wonder if the OAR fanatics are as rigid when they watch cable TV.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally, the answer is "yes."

 

[Jean-Michel]

I think maybe I'll see both of them now just to spite some people.

 

[Terrell]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally, the answer is "yes."

So you have never watched a single film on cable TV in P&S?

 

[Brian W.]

All the FX shots like the Saturn 5 taking off, and anything done in post was hard-matted to 2.35:1

Jeff, are you sure of this? I mean, it may be true, but LOTR, for example, had almost all (maybe all) of its effects work done in Super 35. I own both WS & P&S versions, and I've compared virtually every effects shot -- I've only found four so far that were actually hard matted on the P&S:

1 & 2: Both opticals inside Bag End with Gandalf and Bilbo (I think there are only two, believe it or not -- it appears everything else with those two actors is forced perspective or doubles). But I suspect there was a microphone in these shots or something and that they were actually shot Super 35, because the one optical with Frodo inside Bag End ("We'll put it away") and the optical with Bilbo going out the front door with Gandalf following are definitely open matte.

3: The rear angle shot of Sauron throwing the soldiers up into the air with his scepter is hard matted (the preceding front angle shot of this is definitely Super 35 -- lots more room at the top and bottom). Every other effects shot in the prologue is open matte -- I have compared it shot by shot.

4. POSSIBLY Gandalf galloping off towards Isengard (there's no extra room at the top, but it looks like there might be a bit extra at the bottom).

Maybe LOTR is the exception to the rule, though.

Now, if they were to do an IMAX LOTR, they could probably keep most of the width of the picture. What is IMAX, 1.66? The P&S LOTR looks to be -- from side to side -- roughly equivalent to a 1.78 presentation of the film, with more at the top and bottom to make it 1.33. The extra added width of 1.66 would bring it close to a 2.0 from side to side. (Which would still leave only seven kings in the prologue, however!)

 

[IanS]

I know EP2 was shot with new Panavision digital video cameras, but were these anamorphic lenses or were they spherical lenses ?

If they are the latter, then the IMAX presentation could look quite nice.

Ian

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Ian, Episode 2 has a "negative" of 1.78:1

However, all the effects were done for 2.35:1, and as you know, the entire movie is one big FX shot

While LOTR did their FX probably at 1.85:1, everything I've seen, including checking with a friend who knows people who worked on it says 2.35:1 FX shots

 

[Brian W.]

While LOTR did their FX probably at 1.85:1, everything I've seen, including checking with a friend who knows people who worked on it says 2.35:1 FX shots

So you mean they weren't shot in Super 35, just 1.85 and then matted to 2.35? I don't understand.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

OK, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here
Once they got them into the computer for FX work, they worked PROTECTING for 1.85:1, but targeting 2.35:1. So their canvas was a 1.85:1 frame (in theory) It's common to do this, even for anamorphic films. They'll shoot plates in VistaVision (http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml) which can have an AR of 1.66:1, 1.85:1, or 2:1
Every film is different, every filmmaker is different in how they like to do things. My research into it has turned up that Apollo 13 and Episode 2 both had the FX done at 2.35:1 ratios, so even though their raw negative was one ratio, the final product is overwhelmingly another.

 

[Brian W.]

they worked PROTECTING for 1.85:1, but targeting 2.35:1

I'm still not sure I understand, but my point was that, with LOTR anyway, taking into account the additional picture at the top and/or bottom, and allowing for the extra room at the sides that a 1.66 IMAX aspect ratio gives you over the 1.33 P&S aspect ratio, HORIZONTALLY you should still get roughly the equivalent of a 2.0 presentation of the 2.35 version, with it vertically matching the P&S DVD -- even in the effects shots. I'm not necessarily endorsing that, but do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Ken Cline]

Boy this is interesting. I'm going to an advanced screening of Apollo 13 next week at Universal. I'll try to post my thoughts on this subject.
It would be ashame if these were indeed hacked up.
-Ken
Link Removed

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It would be ashame if these were indeed hacked up.

Apollo 13 is indeed "hacked up." The recent Ebert & Roeber review confirmed that the film has been re-formatted and edited.

 

[Calvin Watts III]

I say that some or you are just going too damned far.
If IMAX was the new standard for theatre viewing, & everything was going to be reformatted, then fine...I could see your point.
I'd probably also agree with you.
But..as someone said..

IMax doesn't replace OAR... it is just an alternative and unique viewing experience that many people seem to enjoy.
Battles like this make me want to distance myself from the fanatical OAR crowd. Aren't there far more relevant and useful bones to pick?

IMAX is a specially formatted & different viewing experience. It's not gonna replace HDTV...nor is it going to replace your local theatre. I'd say it'll be okay.
Also, didn't I read they read that they are using a new format to remaster these films for IMAX?
IF that is true...then all of you who are complaing about how it's going to look should just shut up.
I was going to be nicer, but screw it,I'm mad
If AND When you go & see said film transfer at IMAX, & then you find it to be a bad transfer,digital artifacts,whatever..THEN you can go & trash it. Do whatever you like..
I'll respect your opinions then.
But to dismiss it outright? Then you've lost some of my respect.
(If I'm proven wrong about the remastering...then I'll shut up...)
I support OAR.
I beileve in OAR.
But that doesn't mean I'm not up for a new experience.
And there is a HUGE difference between a few IMAX theatres & Wal-Marts selling P&S DVD all over the planet.
Calvin
PS: Jason..I'm going to see both. At least I know I have a state of the art IMAX theatre within 5 minutes of me!

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

15 perf 70mm IMAX is 1.44:1
The VistaVision maximum aperture ratio is 1.50:1
Make of that what you will.
Gordy

 

[Jason Seaver]

What's amazing is, I've now got four IMAX screens within an hour of me (Aquarium, Museum of Science, Providence, and the furniture store), and I'm still not sure I'll get to see all of them - with Apollo 13, Attack Of The Cloens, Treasure Planet and The Lion King (along with the "Santa vs. The Snowman" 3-D short package) all coming out in the next three months or so, is there going to be enough screens to go around, especially if Disney pushes for exclusivity?

 

[Damin J Toell]

IMAX is a specially formatted & different viewing experience.

So is Pan & Scan.

DJ

 

[Carl C]

Well, this certainly puts a new spin on things:
From: http://www.liveupdater.com/jordansim...rtID=901260769

. A LucasFilm spokesperson told LFX that the editing will "maintain the integrity" of the story. "Episode II" has grossed over $300 million in conventional theaters since opening on May 19, 2002.
The first film to receive the DMR treatment, "Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience," will open in 20 IMAX theaters on Sept. 20.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

That was only to be expected. It IS a limitation of IMAX

Has anyone ever heard of an Intermission?

 

[Carl C]

Has anyone ever heard of an Intermission?

Good point. Indeed a lost art form.