James Cameron's "Avatar"

[purpleoscar]

is it worth seeing this in a regular movie theater, or should i wait to see it in an imax theater?

imax

 

[OrARoundabout]

How long do you guys think it's gunna run in IMAX?

It's sold out again this weekend...hopefully I'll catch it on Monday

 

[LMP]

It'll run until March.

 

[OrARoundabout]

^Srsly

 

[LMP]

Yes.

 

[deep]

Is it worth seeing this in a regular movie theater, or should I wait to see it in an IMAX theater?

I have seen it 3 times, twice because I wanted to see the difference in the different formats,
and a 3rd time over the holidays because I went along with the family members I was visiting.

I enjoyed it the most in regular 2D.

I say you don't have to see it in 3D or IMAX

When I saw Watchmen in IMAX the screen was not 16:9 dimensions

it looked more like 16:12, yes the screen was a bit bigger, but not all of the image made it on the screen.

 

[Lancemc]

but not all of the image made it on the screen.

Unless there were some serious projection issues at your screening, I think you're a bit confused.

 

[deep]

A standard IMAX screen is 72.6 x 52.8 ft


to hit the 16 X 9 dimensions wouldn't it need to be 93.9 x 52.8 ft ?
(or 72.6 X 40.8 ft? )

 

[Lancemc]

A standard IMAX screen is 72.6 x 52.8 ft


to hit the 16 X 9 dimensions wouldn't it need to be 93.9 x 52.8 ft ?

I'm not arguing the dimensions of the screen with you. I'm just saying, they'll project different films in different aspect ratios... how is that any different from any other theater in the universe? You're still getting the "IMAX experience" regardless.

 

[deep]

If 16 X 9 will give you the entire 'Last Supper' in one still shot (see below)

an IMAX screen might give you a bigger image and perhaps a better image
but you will only see 'Jesus and 10 Apostles' in that one still shot

 

[Lancemc]

That's not true at all. Film aspect ratios aren't cropped when presented in IMAX.

 

[deep]

Seeing The Dark Knight a few times, including one IMAX
I seemed to recall the IMAX image being bigger and crisper
but not all (for want of better words) of the Apostles made it to the screen

If all of the 16 X 9 image made it to the IMAX screen then the film maker shot an extra 29% (above and/or below the 9 in the 16 x 9 shot) that was added for IMAX?

 

[Lancemc]

Seeing The Dark Knight a few times, including one IMAX
I seemed to recall the IMAX image being bigger and crisper
but not all (for want of better words) of the Apostles made it to the screen

If all of the 16 X 9 image made it to the IMAX screen then the film maker shot an extra 29% (above and/or below the 9 in the 16 x 9 shot) that was added?

I think what you're referring to is the number of shots in TDK that were shot especially with IMAX cameras and film in a more square aspect ratio, integrated into the 2.35 (or whatever it was) native ratio of the rest of the film. Which is why that film occasionally jumped between different aspect ratios in the IMAX screenings. Nothing was "lost" though. In fact, part of the image was lost when the film played non-IMAX screens, as the IMAX-specific bits were cropped to match the 2.35:1 of the rest of the film. Which is also how it is on DVD I believe.

In other words, a film shot in 2.35 is going to be projected in 2.35 on an IMAX screen, just like a 1.33 or something shot in native IMAX aspect ratio will be projected as such, just utilizing however much of the screen is needed. It's no different than any other normal theater in that regard.

 

[deep]

I do realize that when a film is shot in IMAX they use a different camera system. I am still watching a 32 inch old TV at home. I think that would have a 4 X 3 aspect? I prefer watching movies letter boxed with the black bars, top and bottom.

It just seems to me that because the IMAX screens are more square than the typical wider screen the sides are being loped off. For an IMAX image to have everything on a standard screen they would have to have extra 29% above or below available for IMAX filming, and I think that is what you implied.

I find it hard to believe there is that much available that does not have lighting and/or film set equipment in the way.

 

[Lancemc]

It just seems to me that because the IMAX screens are more square than the typical wider screen the sides are being loped off.

Yeah, except they aren't. End of story.

 

[deep]

this article is pretty good

Ask a critc: Lowdown on IMAX


an IMAX screen is 1.43:1 just a little wider than an old tv 1.33:1

Yes the film maker chooses what to put on the IMAX screen

TDK did switch between both wide screen images and the 1.43:1 aspect ratio.
I found the 1.43 scenes distracting, as resembling standard TV image aspect. Did Nolan lope off the sides because he deemed them not important to the film or did he shoot 29% more image above the wide screen image?

I think he loped off the sides, perhaps he did a little of both. I guess it is not fair to say something is missing because it is the film maker's choice.

I will back away from saying he loped off 2 of the 12 Apostles in the Last Supper. If anything he may have loped off some blank wall space of either side of the Monalisa.

I guess it may come down to personal preference. I just prefer watching the story or action on wider screens and don't like the aspect ratios switching during the film.

 

[deep]

well,

looks like your information is good

In Imax presentations of The Dark Knight, shots filmed in Imax will fill the screen, and material shot in 35mm anamorphic will appear in the center of the frame. (Hard cuts are planned between the two types of images.) For standard 35mm presentations, a 2.40:1 image will be extracted from the Imax footage; Nolan and editor Lee Smith could choose which portion of the frame to extract, depending on the shot. “Even in the 2.40:1 presentations, the Imax sequences will be sharper and clearer, with improved contrast and no trace of grain,” says Pfister.

American Cinematographer: Batman Looms Larger

I saw StarTrek in a crowded IMAX theather, I had to sit very near the front on the side. I was too close to enjoy the whole image.

I will go back to IMAX and sit in the back of the theater and see how I like viewing from that location.

I just think our human vision is more suited for a wide screen verses a square screen.

 

[Zoomerang96]

An appalling story. I was insulted by how predictable it was... great effects, yes. that's where the goodness ends. I'd rather watch an episode of Roseann than endure such a pansy ass story. The two sides are painted in such extreme colours that there is no conflict whatsoever. If I wasn't writing from my phone and if I cared enough I'd be more precise in my reasoning, but I'm not and I don't.

 

[purpleoscar]

Yeah, except they aren't. End of story.

Exactly. Another example would be Kubrick's movies on DVD. Instead of "Pan and scan" he chose to use the entire negative so movies like The Shining you can see the opening shots with helicopter blades that you wouldn't see in the theater. This was to avoid the pan and scan that many early DVDs had.

Imax has more lines of resolution. Unless a person is sensitive to headaches from 3D they should opt for the IMAX presentation.

 

[powerhour24]

this article is pretty good

Ask a critc: Lowdown on IMAX


an IMAX screen is 1.43:1 just a little wider than an old tv 1.33:1

Yes the film maker chooses what to put on the IMAX screen

TDK did switch between both wide screen images and the 1.43:1 aspect ratio.
I found the 1.43 scenes distracting, as resembling standard TV image aspect. Did Nolan lope off the sides because he deemed them not important to the film or did he shoot 29% more image above the wide screen image?

I think he loped off the sides, perhaps he did a little of both. I guess it is not fair to say something is missing because it is the film maker's choice.

I will back away from saying he loped off 2 of the 12 Apostles in the Last Supper. If anything he may have loped off some blank wall space of either side of the Monalisa.

I guess it may come down to personal preference. I just prefer watching the story or action on wider screens and don't like the aspect ratios switching during the film.

The IMAX-shot scenes put you right in the action, on a six story screen those scenes in Hong Kong make you feel like you're right there looking up at those buildings. I think the aspect-ratio change would be aggravating on home video, but it didn't bother me at all in theater.

 

[OrARoundabout]

TDK did switch between both wide screen images and the 1.43:1 aspect ratio.
I found the 1.43 scenes distracting, as resembling standard TV image aspect. Did Nolan lope off the sides because he deemed them not important to the film or did he shoot 29% more image above the wide screen image?

Was Avatar all in 1.43.1?

 

[Lancemc]

Was Avatar all in 1.43.1?

Avatar in IMAX is shown in 1.85:1 it's full native aspect ratio. You have nothing to worry about. This whole discussion was fairly ridiculous to begin with, really.

 

[powerhour24]

Avatar in IMAX is just a DMR, like all other Hollywood films that have been released in IMAX except for TDK.

 

[OrARoundabout]

^

 

[deep]

This cartoon will certainly pass Titanic, could go over 2 billion.

 

[UberBeaver]

An appalling story. I was insulted by how predictable it was... great effects, yes. that's where the goodness ends. I'd rather watch an episode of Roseann than endure such a pansy ass story. The two sides are painted in such extreme colours that there is no conflict whatsoever. If I wasn't writing from my phone and if I cared enough I'd be more precise in my reasoning, but I'm not and I don't.

Thank you for confirming what I knew this would be. I've resisted the hype because I know I'll just walk out feeling ripped off like goddamn Titanic all over again.

 

[powerhour24]

UB its not the most original story but don't miss out on an awesome theatrical experience for that counter-culture reason. Its not on the level with Titanic in terms of annoying hype versus enjoyment.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Arpanet
originally posted June 4, 1977

re: starwars
An appalling story. I was insulted by how predictable it was... great effects, yes. that's where the goodness ends. I'd rather watch an episode of Maude than endure such a pansy ass story. The two sides are painted in such extreme colours that there is no conflict whatsoever. If I wasn't writing in my Pinto and if I cared enough I'd be more precise in my reasoning, but I'm not and I don't.

 

[UberBeaver]

UB its not the most original story but don't miss out on an awesome theatrical experience for that counter-culture reason. Its not on the level with Titanic in terms of annoying hype versus enjoyment.

I'm not counter culture, per se. I just fucking hate James Cameron and his awful movies. I'm also not a big special effects person - I mean, I like them if they bring something "more" to the table, but when they're the main course and the appetizers, I'll pass, if you get my culinary references.

 

[No spoken words]

I'm not counter culture, per se. I just fucking hate James Cameron and his awful movies. I'm also not a big special effects person - I mean, I like them if they bring something "more" to the table, but when they're the main course and the appetizers, I'll pass, if you get my culinary references.

Eat shit.

Did you pick up on that culinary reference?