Avengers Infinity War + Endgame IMAX Digital 1.9:1 aspect ratio - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 23Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 45 Old 05-05-2019, 02:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Avengers Infinity War + Endgame IMAX Digital 1.9:1 aspect ratio

I apologize if there is already a thread about this.

Last night, my fiancée and I went to see Avengers: Endgame at one of the few IMAX theaters we have here in Michigan.
Quick aside for those in the Detroit area: we saw it at Henry Ford which isn’t advertised on the official IMAX website as having showtimes for the film. The only reason we thought to check it was I saw Interstellar there being it’s the only theater I know of in all of Michigan that has a 70mm IMAX Film projector and one of the few with an accompanying 1.43:1 screen (60ft tall at this theater).
Long story short: the experience was amazing and far, FAR better than the cropped DCI2K 2.35 aspect ratio release we saw the week before at our local cineplex. It’s quite obvious from the framing of most scenes that the film was intended to use the added screen height and, of course, the gain in resolution from DCI2K (essentially 1080p HD) to true 4K is astonishing. I was able to resolve far more of what was happening on screen with none of the fuzziness I experienced on my first go around. Endgame is advertised as being only the second Hollywood blockbuster filmed entirely in IMAX (the first was Infinity War). For those interested in the minutia, Infinity War and Endgame were both shot digitally on ARRI Alexa cameras and not the 70mm film cameras as used by Christopher Nolan to film specific scenes in his two Dark Knight films, Interstellar and Dunkirk. The Alexa can only capture video at up to 6K (70mm is said to be equivalent to 18K) but it’s still plenty for the final 4K IMAX digital laser projectors to display.

And this gets me to the point of my post:

The Ultra HD Blu-ray copy of Avengers: Infinity War is one of the most disappointing releases of all time. I wasn’t able to catch Infinity War in IMAX when it was still in theaters. Therefore I was looking forward to it’s home video release on 4K. While I do not assume my budget 4K projector, 100” screen and 5.0 surround system can compete with a true IMAX presentation, what we got with this disc is far below what even my humble HT can achieve. I expected the HD Blu-ray to be based on the DCI2K/2.35:1 version of the film. I did not expect the UHD Blu-ray to be based on the same version. Now, to be clear, the UHD copy does get DCI P3 color and HDR. And it is technically a higher resolution. But this was such a missed opportunity. At 1.9:1 the IMAX digital format is very close to 1.78 (16:9) and the resolution advantages of 4K versus HD are obvious.

I had a similar complaint when the UHD release of Bladerunner 2049 failed to include the 1.9:1 IMAX version— opting only to include the 2.35:1 version of the film. But it’s not at all the same situation as the UHD release of BR2049 is actually taken from the 4K version of the film and is discernibly higher quality. In addition, the IMAX version of the film is actually a reformat made from the raw footage specifically for IMAX. Br2049 was filmed and framed with 2.35:1 in mind.

So the question is: will Disney repeat this, IMO, mistake when they release Endgame later this year? Being that UHD Blu-ray is considered by many to be a niche format, wouldn’t it make sense to appeal to that niche audience by releasing these movies in the highest quality possible? Is Disney saving the IMAX versions for a special editions? Or does anyone think that the recent announcement for IMAX at home will help push Disney to release the higher quality version? What do you guys/gals think?
DunMunro likes this.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 12:37 AM
Member
 
magi1500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Hi Sage!
I realize you weren’t asking about our thoughts on which aspect ratio is better, but I’d like to thoughtfully offer another point of view: I usually prefer the scope version. The filmmakers know the vast majority of filmgoers will see it at 2.4. So they compose the shots for that. When I see Endgame footage that compares the IMAX 1.9 version to the scope 2.4 version, all that extra footage above and below the scope frame that you can see in the IMAX version is just wasted space. Too much headroom just makes for a loose / sloppy composition. In my opinion, more isn’t always better. Sometimes more just means less focus... I have a CIH system. That means I am a niche within a niche! And I hope Disney’s UHD Endgame release matches Infinity War at a 2.4 AR. I understand why you would prefer the image fill your screen. But I respectfully disagree.
sage11x, Josh Z and seanbryan like this.
magi1500 is offline  
post #3 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 07:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by magi1500 View Post
Hi Sage!
I realize you weren’t asking about our thoughts on which aspect ratio is better, but I’d like to thoughtfully offer another point of view: I usually prefer the scope version. The filmmakers know the vast majority of filmgoers will see it at 2.4. So they compose the shots for that. When I see Endgame footage that compares the IMAX 1.9 version to the scope 2.4 version, all that extra footage above and below the scope frame that you can see in the IMAX version is just wasted space. Too much headroom just makes for a loose / sloppy composition. In my opinion, more isn’t always better. Sometimes more just means less focus... I have a CIH system. That means I am a niche within a niche! And I hope Disney’s UHD Endgame release matches Infinity War at a 2.4 AR. I understand why you would prefer the image fill your screen. But I respectfully disagree.
Actually, this is the exact kind of discussion I hoped to encourage.


I would agree with you on this as it concerns Bladerunner 2049. That movie was clearly framed for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio and the IMAX release was more of a 'gimmick' (it still would have been nice to have though).


But both Avengers were filmed with IMAX in mind and it's pretty clear to me that at least Endgame was framed for the 1.9:1 aspect and then cut down for 2.35:1. Scenes like the one where Tony is standing in the cockpit of the Benatar staring out into the void of space, some of the dialogue scenes especially those with Hulk, the ENTIRE last battle-- especially that scene where they are walking up to Thanos and the scene where both armies face off-- all were much more enjoyable and easier to watch (less claustrophobic) in 1.9:1.


Then there is that other issue-- one of resolution. Aspect ratios aside the UHD release of Infinity War is actually up converted from the DCI2K release. That is unforgivable when you consider this movie was filmed at 6K and there is a 4K version of the film already cut (it's the IMAX Digital version in the 1.9 aspect ratio). Clearly Disney did not want to spend the money to reframe the higher resolution IMAX version for 2.35. But why not release the IMAX version as-is? If someone like you would prefer the 2.35:1 and doesn't mind the low resolution-- that's fine. But it feels like punishment for someone like me with a 16:9 screen and a 4K projector when I lose not only a quarter of my screen real estate but also lose 75% of my resolution potential!
DunMunro likes this.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 09:11 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,547
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 2871
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Aspect ratios aside the UHD release of Infinity War is actually up converted from the DCI2K release.
Blu-rays are not transferred from DCI files. They both come from a common Digital Intermediate source.

If the specs are IMDb are correct, Infinity War shot shot at 6k but only had a 2k DI. Downrezzing to a 2k DI is still incredibly common, especially for movies with extensive VFX work, because a 4k workflow would be exponentially more expensive and time-consuming, and it's of the utmost importance to Marvel that these movies be cranked out on a clockwork schedule.

The studio wouldn't create a separate 4k DI just for IMAX theaters, which account for about 1% of cinema screens the movie would play on. If a 4k DI did exist, it'd be used as the master for everything downstream. Infinity War also had "4k" theatrical screenings that were not IMAX, and were 2.40:1 aspect ratio.

The only thing IMAX gets exclusively is the open-matte aspect ratio transfer.
sage11x, dschulz, sdurani and 2 others like this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #5 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 11:04 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Avengers Infinity War + Endgame IMAX Digital 1.9:1 aspect ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Blu-rays are not transferred from DCI files. They both come from a common Digital Intermediate source.



If the specs are IMDb are correct, Infinity War shot shot at 6k but only had a 2k DI. Downrezzing to a 2k DI is still incredibly common, especially for movies with extensive VFX work, because a 4k workflow would be exponentially more expensive and time-consuming, and it's of the utmost importance to Marvel that these movies be cranked out on a clockwork schedule.



The studio wouldn't create a separate 4k DI just for IMAX theaters, which account for about 1% of cinema screens the movie would play on. If a 4k DI did exist, it'd be used as the master for everything downstream. Infinity War also had "4k" theatrical screenings that were not IMAX, and were 2.40:1 aspect ratio.



The only thing IMAX gets exclusively is the open-matte aspect ratio transfer.


That isn’t the case here or, at least, that isn't what we’re told happened. IMAX has claimed there is an increase in quality due to a workflow performed at the higher resolution. That is why Infinity War and Endgame are credited as being the first two movies filmed entirely in IMAX.

Check out the following excerpts from the Engadget article: https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/26/...e-review-imax/

Directors Joe and Anthony Russo shot their Avengers films with a custom 6K version of ARRI's large-format Alexa 65 digital camera. That helped them get IMAX-sized picture quality without the format's film cameras, which are notoriously bulky, hard to operate and loud (not a great thing for dialog scenes). There's a quality cost -- IMAX says its film cameras offer a higher 18K resolution -- but the added flexibility was worth it, allowing the Russos to bring the Alexa 65 just about anywhere. Their 6K resolution is also more than enough for the new 4K laser projectors in IMAX theaters (most aren't equipped to support the company's traditional 70mm film). Those additional pixels don't go to waste, though, IMAX uses them to create a better quality image.

"While projectors don't show [18K] other than our film ones... we employ a lot of technology around that," IMAX CTO Brian Bonnick said in an interview with Engadget. "We scan the film into its digital form at the highest possible resolution, and we process it throughout the entire food chain at these higher resolutions. It's a technique called oversampling. What it means is that when you get to that 4K final content, because you've been processing it at a much higher resolution, you actually get a better quality image."

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Last edited by sage11x; 05-07-2019 at 11:17 AM.
sage11x is online now  
post #6 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 11:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,731
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1805 Post(s)
Liked: 1133
I'll watch it in whatever AR the filmmaker prefers it to be released in. If that is 1.9:1, great. If that is 2.40:1, great. I'm not owed a copy of the film in an AR that exists purely because it does. What I do wish is if they do release it in IMAX, quit CROPPING it. We don't need to go back to appeasing the "fill my screen" idiots.

As far as IMAX and their "upsampling magic" if there is a 2K interpositive that is going to limit the resolution to 2K. No way to get around it. I suppose that non-effects shots may be able to use the native resolution. But even if they would break up the film mastering sequence like that (and I'm not convinced they would) how many shots in Avengers DON'T have an effect of some kind?

jeahrens is offline  
post #7 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 11:27 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,547
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 2871
That IMAX interview is a lot of marketing speak, and I suggest you read it closely. All it's doing is touting that Infinity War and Endgame were the first major blockbuster movies shot entirely with Arri's new Alexa 65 "IMAX" camera. (Clint Eastwood's Sully preceded them, but that isn't considered a blockbuster.) Nowhere does it say that either movie had a 4k DI.

I don't have insider info about whether these movies did or did not have 4k DIs. All I'm saying is that if they did, that DI would be used as the basis for everything. IMAX doesn't get its own exclusive DI while everything else is stuck with 2k. What IMAX will do is apply its own proprietary "DMR" processing to the DI in order to add a little sharpening and a little DNR. They do this regardless of the source.

The part about "We scan the film into its digital form at the highest possible resolution" is boilerplate language referring to IMAX 15/70 film productions (Dunkirk, for example), and doesn't even have anything to do with these particular movies. Neither Infinity War nor Endgame had any film to scan.

The DI stage is where all VFX are added, and if Marvel didn't want to spend the money to render and composite all the CGI at 4k, that's not something IMAX can magically do for them.
seanbryan likes this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #8 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 11:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I'll watch it in whatever AR the filmmaker prefers it to be released in. If that is 1.9:1, great. If that is 2.40:1, great. I'm not owed a copy of the film in an AR that exists purely because it does. What I do wish is if they do release it in IMAX, quit CROPPING it. We don't need to go back to appeasing the "fill my screen" idiots.

As far as IMAX and their "upsampling magic" if there is a 2K interpositive that is going to limit the resolution to 2K. No way to get around it. I suppose that non-effects shots may be able to use the native resolution. But even if they would break up the film mastering sequence like that (and I'm not convinced they would) how many shots in Avengers DON'T have an effect of some kind?
Yeesh. Maybe I'm taking your post the wrong way but to clarify: I don't feel I'm owed anything. I am, however, dissatisfied with the quality of the Infinity War UHD Bluray release and I'm anticipating being disappointed in the Endgame release if they repeat what they did with Infinity War.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #9 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 11:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chirpie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Olathe, Kansas
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 83 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The studio wouldn't create a separate 4k DI just for IMAX theaters, which account for about 1% of cinema screens the movie would play on.
Even if you toss the lieMax screens out and keep the 4k and above ones only, surely it's higher than 1%? Also, any theater that projects 4k could look better if they created a 1.9 aspect ratio 4k DI and then cropped it down... and I know it was almost 20% of all theaters back in 2017 were 4K. It's gotta be past 20% by now. Maybe it's still too small to spend the cash, but it's not THAT small of a market that they'd be catering to. (But as we all know, black levels and dynamic range are the real heroes in this argument anyway...)
chirpie is online now  
post #10 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 12:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
That IMAX interview is a lot of marketing speak, and I suggest you read it closely. All it's doing is touting that Infinity War and Endgame were the first major blockbuster movies shot entirely with Arri's new Alexa 65 "IMAX" camera. (Clint Eastwood's Sully preceded them, but that isn't considered a blockbuster.) Nowhere does it say that either movie had a 4k DI.

I don't have insider info about whether these movies did or did not have 4k DIs. All I'm saying is that if they did, that DI would be used as the basis for everything. IMAX doesn't get its own exclusive DI while everything else is stuck with 2k. What IMAX will do is apply its own proprietary "DMR" processing to the DI in order to add a little sharpening and a little DNR. They do this regardless of the source.

The part about "We scan the film into its digital form at the highest possible resolution" is boilerplate language referring to IMAX 15/70 film productions (Dunkirk, for example), and doesn't even have anything to do with these particular movies. Neither Infinity War nor Endgame had any film to scan.

The DI stage is where all VFX are added, and if Marvel didn't want to spend the money to render and composite all the CGI at 4k, that's not something IMAX can magically do for them.
I appreciate your input. Maybe you're right and it is marketing speak-- I was under the impression that the Arri Alexa has been able to shoot 6K for some time as long as it was recording "open-gate". I didn't even realize that there was a separate Alexa used for IMAX.


In either case, 2K intermediary or not, there is a massive difference in detail between the DCI 2K presentation and the IMAX 4K presentation. This was apparent to me early on when Tony is recording the message for Pepper. In the 2K image the partially formed IronMan helmet was fuzzy and pixelated. In 4K I could see individual circuits and fine edges inside the helmet that were simply absent in the 2K release. The climatic battle at the end is likely rendered in a lower resolution considering it's a CGI-heavy scene. Still, characters and detail in the background that were simply a blur in the 2K presentation were easily discernible in the IMAX 4K presentation. If the IMAX version is based on the same 2K intermediary then IMAX is practicing some voodoo magic as it is a much sharper and more detailed image. While I'd love to blame the DCI2K theater here the truth is the overall quality was great. I could easily pick out individual pixels in DCI2K so this was clearly not a focus issue.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #11 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 12:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,547
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 2871
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post
Even if you toss the lieMax screens out and keep the 4k and above ones only, surely it's higher than 1%?
Box Office Mojo says that Endgame opened in 4,662 theaters, which I believe refers only to the United States. Wikipedia has a list of IMAX venues capable of either 15/70 film or laser projection, excluding those with only 2k projection. It lists 52 screens in the U.S.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_venues

So, 1.1%.

Quote:
Also, any theater that projects 4k could look better if they created a 1.9 aspect ratio 4k DI and then cropped it down...
Which is what's done in the cases of movies that do have 4k DIs.

Quote:
and I know it was almost 20% of all theaters back in 2017 were 4K. It's gotta be past 20% by now. Maybe it's still too small to spend the cash, but it's not THAT small of a market that they'd be catering to. (But as we all know, black levels and dynamic range are the real heroes in this argument anyway...)
It's not just money, but also time. Rendering that much data significantly slows down the workflow. It also limits the outside vendors the studio can work with. (Productions like these will split VFX work among dozens of FX houses.) And at the end of the day, most viewers legitimately cannot tell the difference between 2k and 4k resolution. As you say, it's the black levels and dynamic range that make HDR stand out, not the pixel count.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #12 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 12:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,731
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1805 Post(s)
Liked: 1133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Yeesh. Maybe I'm taking your post the wrong way but to clarify: I don't feel I'm owed anything. I am, however, dissatisfied with the quality of the Infinity War UHD Bluray release and I'm anticipating being disappointed in the Endgame release if they repeat what they did with Infinity War.
You're disappointed you're getting what the director wants to release? Infinity War looked pretty awesome on UHD considering the 2K interpositive. I wouldn't have been disappointed with a 1.9:1 release, but the Russo's ultimately preferred the scope framing.

jeahrens is offline  
post #13 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 01:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,731
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1805 Post(s)
Liked: 1133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I appreciate your input. Maybe you're right and it is marketing speak-- I was under the impression that the Arri Alexa has been able to shoot 6K for some time as long as it was recording "open-gate". I didn't even realize that there was a separate Alexa used for IMAX.


In either case, 2K intermediary or not, there is a massive difference in detail between the DCI 2K presentation and the IMAX 4K presentation. This was apparent to me early on when Tony is recording the message for Pepper. In the 2K image the partially formed IronMan helmet was fuzzy and pixelated. In 4K I could see individual circuits and fine edges inside the helmet that were simply absent in the 2K release. The climatic battle at the end is likely rendered in a lower resolution considering it's a CGI-heavy scene. Still, characters and detail in the background that were simply a blur in the 2K presentation were easily discernible in the IMAX 4K presentation. If the IMAX version is based on the same 2K intermediary then IMAX is practicing some voodoo magic as it is a much sharper and more detailed image. While I'd love to blame the DCI2K theater here the truth is the overall quality was great. I could easily pick out individual pixels in DCI2K so this was clearly not a focus issue.
You're most likely seeing differences in the projection hardware. Nothing is going to create data beyond what the 2K DI contains. The IMAX may look at bit better, but you're not creating information that isn't there no matter what.

If you want to see what a 4K end to end disc looks like check out Blade Runner 2049 or Murder on the Orient Express.

jeahrens is offline  
post #14 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 04:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
You're most likely seeing differences in the projection hardware. Nothing is going to create data beyond what the 2K DI contains. The IMAX may look at bit better, but you're not creating information that isn't there no matter what.



If you want to see what a 4K end to end disc looks like check out Blade Runner 2049 or Murder on the Orient Express.


If you read my original post, I specifically used BR2049 as a reference point. Yes, BR2049 looks fantastic. Yes, it looks MUCH better than Infinity War (although to be fair, BR2049 has Oscar worthy lighting and the lighting in the MCU movies is... not).

BR2049 also got an IMAX release at 1.9:1 (apparently recut from the raw footage) but the director made clear that 2.35 was the intended aspect ratio for the film. Would still love to have the version formatted for IMAX because, well why not?

Avengers appears to be different here. It was very clear to me that the directors made good use of the extra height. The framing seemed specifically tailored to take advantage of the 1.9:1 aspect ratio. Whether marketing or not the Russo’s did pay lip service to the idea that the 1.9:1 was their ‘intended’ version for both Infinity War and Endgame.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #15 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 04:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Avengers Infinity War + Endgame IMAX Digital 1.9:1 aspect ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
You're most likely seeing differences in the projection hardware. Nothing is going to create data beyond what the 2K DI contains. The IMAX may look at bit better, but you're not creating information that isn't there no matter what.



If you want to see what a 4K end to end disc looks like check out Blade Runner 2049 or Murder on the Orient Express.


See my post above. I have BR2049 and it’s one of the reasons Infinity War looked so lackluster to me. I’m also not convinced 2.35:1 was the intended aspect ratio for Infinity War or Endgame. Very clearly the Russo’s have mentioned that the movie “requires” the use of the larger frame. They shot the movie using custom IMAX cameras in the larger frame. You say that’s marketing. Well, OK. But if it walks like a duck and talks like duck... If the directors say this is the definitive version and of my three viewing it really seems like the superior version... isn’t this he ‘intended’ way to watch the film?

Edit: wrong quote but I can’t change it so whatever.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Last edited by sage11x; 05-07-2019 at 04:14 PM.
sage11x is online now  
post #16 of 45 Old 05-07-2019, 04:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
And at the end of the day, most viewers legitimately cannot tell the difference between 2k and 4k resolution. As you say, it's the black levels and dynamic range that make HDR stand out, not the pixel count.

Gotta say, I vehemently disagree with this statement.

If you’re talking tiny TVs, sure. I never much noticed the limitations of 1080p on any of my TVs, whether that be 55” or even 80”. But once you get to the screen sizes projection can create... eh, I’m sorry but 4K as a resolution starts to become pretty damn important.

Bringing it back to the subject at hand. To my eye, the pixel grid on DCI2K is very noticeable. In IMAX, even sitting close to a 62’ tall screen, there was no discernible pixel grid and none of the softness you get when upscaling HD to 4K (which I do like versus just plain HD).

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #17 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 07:54 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,547
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 2871
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Avengers appears to be different here. It was very clear to me that the directors made good use of the extra height. The framing seemed specifically tailored to take advantage of the 1.9:1 aspect ratio. Whether marketing or not the Russo’s did pay lip service to the idea that the 1.9:1 was their ‘intended’ version for both Infinity War and Endgame.
If that were true, it's very strange that the Blu-ray, 3D, and UHD editions of the movie are all 2.40:1. I'd assume that the directors would have some say if they felt strongly that 1.9:1 was their intended ratio. Perhaps it might be possible that the studio overruled them, but why bother? The franchise already has other entries that are either 1.85:1 (The Avengers, Ant-Man) or variable ratio (Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, etc.) on at least some home video releases.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #18 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 10:02 AM
Member
 
magi1500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Posts: 130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 32
First image I found on Google comparing the two versions. Which one is a more pleasing composition? Which one directs your eye where it is supposed to go? To me, it seems pretty clear that one has wasted / negative space that detracts from the image rather than adds to it. I know which version I prefer; I know which version they composed the shot for. Again, I totally respect why someone would prefer the image fill their screen. But if we’re talking about satisfying a niche audience (& I agree that’s what physical media is now), I believe that niche audience are the cinema nuts that prefer the scope version.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	avengers pic.png
Views:	48
Size:	107.8 KB
ID:	2564180  
Josh Z likes this.

Last edited by magi1500; 05-08-2019 at 10:10 AM.
magi1500 is offline  
post #19 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 10:28 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,548
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6957 Post(s)
Liked: 5935
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Very clearly the Russo’s have mentioned that the movie “requires” the use of the larger frame.
If the taller aspect ratio was a requirement, then why didn't they release Infinity War and Endgame in the 1.85 aspect ratio (very close to the 1.89 aspect ratio of IMAX), consistent with the original Avengers movie?
Josh Z likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #20 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 12:48 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
If that were true, it's very strange that the Blu-ray, 3D, and UHD editions of the movie are all 2.40:1. I'd assume that the directors would have some say if they felt strongly that 1.9:1 was their intended ratio. Perhaps it might be possible that the studio overruled them, but why bother? The franchise already has other entries that are either 1.85:1 (The Avengers, Ant-Man) or variable ratio (Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, etc.) on at least some home video releases.
Laziness? Saving it for a later, 'double dip' release? Maybe with IMAX getting into the home game there was some negotiation to save it? I don't know man, why do movie studios do any of the things they do? Newline specifically gimped the initial LOTR bluray release with the knowledge that they would release the complete set later.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #21 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 12:51 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
If the taller aspect ratio was a requirement, then why didn't they release Infinity War and Endgame in the 1.85 aspect ratio (very close to the 1.89 aspect ratio of IMAX), consistent with the original Avengers movie?
Because they filmed it using custom Arri Alexa 65 IMAX cameras using the proprietary IMAX aspect ratio of 1.9:1.


And I placed "requires" in quotes because it is literally the exact word Joe Russo uses when describing the 1.9:1 aspect ratio in the video I linked to in the post. Come one man, it's in the video. I'm not even asking you to read here just watch the video.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #22 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 12:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,731
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1805 Post(s)
Liked: 1133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Laziness? Saving it for a later, 'double dip' release? Maybe with IMAX getting into the home game there was some negotiation to save it? I don't know man, why do movie studios do any of the things they do? Newline specifically gimped the initial LOTR bluray release with the knowledge that they would release the complete set later.
In the case of Infinity War there was a post (on BluRay.com I believe) where the VFX artists stated that scope was the directors preferred AR and it was released this way because of it.

An IMAX enhanced double dip could be a factor. Time will tell. I would imagine the Russo's wouldn't protest it since it has a theatrical version in that AR. Just hope they don't crop it 1.78:1.
sage11x likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #23 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 01:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by magi1500 View Post
First image I found on Google comparing the two versions. Which one is a more pleasing composition? Which one directs your eye where it is supposed to go? To me, it seems pretty clear that one has wasted / negative space that detracts from the image rather than adds to it. I know which version I prefer; I know which version they composed the shot for. Again, I totally respect why someone would prefer the image fill their screen. But if we’re talking about satisfying a niche audience (& I agree that’s what physical media is now), I believe that niche audience are the cinema nuts that prefer the scope version.


So you took one frame and based your opinion on that one frame? Well, hell, why did I waste 3 hours watching the movie?


In all seriousness though, I disagree. There are several shots throughout the film where the tops of peoples heads are missing and, in particular, the action scenes benefit a LOT from the increased screen real estate. I'm quite sure that Russo's, being professional directors and all, would have probably planned for the 2.35:1 aspect ratio when they were filming and compositing the shots to make sure the movie worked in both formats.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #24 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 01:06 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Avengers Infinity War + Endgame IMAX Digital 1.9:1 aspect ratio

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
In the case of Infinity War there was a post (on BluRay.com I believe) where the VFX artists stated that scope was the directors preferred AR and it was released this way because of it.

An IMAX enhanced double dip could be a factor. Time will tell. I would imagine the Russo's wouldn't protest it since it has a theatrical version in that AR. Just hope they don't crop it 1.78:1.
Well Infinity War was the first Hollywood blockbuster to be filmed entirely in IMAX and the Russos paid similar lip service to the 1.9:1 IMAX version of Infinity War as the definitive version... in fact...




I just found the interview where the Russo's explain why the IMAX version was not on Bluray and it's NOT because it's not the preferred AR! It IS something to do with the IMAX licensing. So this must have something to do with IMAX launching their own line of "IMAX Approved" products...


What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #25 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 01:07 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,547
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 2871
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Because they filmed it using custom Arri Alexa 65 IMAX cameras using the proprietary IMAX aspect ratio of 1.9:1.
1.85:1 is a fraction of a hair's breadth different than 1.9:1. There is really no effective difference between them that any viewer will ever notice. Had the Russos truly composed the movie for the narrower ratio, they could have released it to all theaters at 1.85:1, just as the first Avengers movie had been.

Interesting how that didn't happen.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #26 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 01:13 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,548
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6957 Post(s)
Liked: 5935
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Come one man, it's in the video.
As others have been saying, it is marketing hyperbole. Not complaining, as that is standard for promotion. BTW, I preferred the IMAX version, taller aspect ratio and all. Despite that, it was apparent that the image was safety'd for 2.35.
sage11x likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #27 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 01:16 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,547
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3824 Post(s)
Liked: 2871
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
I just found the interview where the Russo's explain why the IMAX version was not on Bluray and it's NOT because it's not the preferred AR! It IS something to do with the IMAX licensing. So this must have something to do with IMAX launching their own line of "IMAX Approved" products...
Yeaaaaaaaah... That sounds like a lot of horsepucky. If IMAX had exclusive ownership of the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, how is it that literally hundreds of movies are released at that ratio outside of IMAX theaters every year, and have been for decades before IMAX even existed?

This wouldn't be the first time that a director was asked a question about some technical aspect of filmmaking that he probably leaves in the hands of another collaborator (i.e. the cinematographer) and bluffed an answer that doesn't actually make any sense.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #28 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 01:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
1.85:1 is a fraction of a hair's breadth different than 1.9:1. There is really no effective difference between them that any viewer will ever notice. Had the Russos truly composed the movie for the narrower ratio, they could have released it to all theaters at 1.85:1, just as the first Avengers movie had been.

Interesting how that didn't happen.



Watch the video in my post above. The Russos wanted the IMAX Blu-Ray release but apparently IMAX has final decision over that. It appears IMAX has a lot of control over the distribution.


Everyone keeps arguing with me that the 2.35 is the intended version 'just because' while I'm posting links to articles and interviews that show that, yes, the IMAX version is not some bastard and perhaps is the definitive version of these films.

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
post #29 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,731
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1805 Post(s)
Liked: 1133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sage11x View Post
Watch the video in my post above. The Russos wanted the IMAX Blu-Ray release but apparently IMAX has final decision over that. It appears IMAX has a lot of control over the distribution.


Everyone keeps arguing with me that the 2.35 is the intended version 'just because' while I'm posting links to articles and interviews that show that, yes, the IMAX version is not some bastard and perhaps is the definitive version of these films.
Never seen the video before, just repeating what I'd heard when this came up before.

Like Josh I do find it suspect that IMAX can hold a film for ransom. Seems like they could release a 1.9:1 cut with no IMAX branding. Guess we'll see what happens. Probably has something to do with a contract somewhere if that's the case.
sage11x likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #30 of 45 Old 05-08-2019, 01:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sage11x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Howell, MI
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 184 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2630 Post(s)
Liked: 2577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Yeaaaaaaaah... That sounds like a lot of horsepucky. If IMAX had exclusive ownership of the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, how is it that literally hundreds of movies are released at that ratio outside of IMAX theaters every year, and have been for decades before IMAX even existed?

This wouldn't be the first time that a director was asked a question about some technical aspect of filmmaking that he probably leaves in the hands of another collaborator (i.e. the cinematographer) and bluffed an answer that doesn't actually make any sense.
No offense but now I feel like you're being a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.


So, what you're telling me is that it is your opinion that IMAX just took some extra image at the top and bottom of the frame and slapped an IMAX logo on it and called it a day? I'm sorry. I appreciate your input and respect your knowledge Josh, I really do, but I disagree. There is just too much pointing to the fact that the Russos made these movies with both aspect ratios in mind. At the WORST you could argue that they are compromised in both aspects but I have yet to hear one legitimate argument that the movies were intended from the beginning only to be 2.35 other that sheer speculation.


The IMAX versions exist. The movies were filmed using IMAX cameras. The Russos, marketing or not, have paid lip service to the IMAX versions having an advantage over the wide release DCI 2.35:1. I personally feel the IMAX version was superior.


And none of this changes the fact that I'm the customer. Disney, I want the IMAX version. Take my money damnit!

What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems to be more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer...

-- Excerpt from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
sage11x is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Blu-ray Software

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off