Interstellar in Imax 70mm Film - Page 12 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 214Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #331 of 385 Old 12-17-2014, 04:20 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,509
Mentioned: 204 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5986 Post(s)
Liked: 5117
Good lord! Have you not seen it yet? Go see it!
Scott Simonian is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #332 of 385 Old 12-19-2014, 12:49 AM
Member
 
nikolouzosr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Just watched it in Sydney IMAX. Biggest screen in the world, but I can't say that I cared much for the visual aspect.
When full screen I have to admit it was something else. Other than that, it just seem like a low bitrate 720p. Very poor quality.
I haven't been to the cinema for a couple of years now, so I have nothing to compare it with.
I can't really comment on the sound before I watch it first in my home theatre.
The dialogue quality was atrocious. I didn't understand what they were saying for at least half the movie. I double checked with the group of friends and they felt the same.
Plot wise I have to admit I got quite bored.
I apologise to all the fans out there, but this is my genuine opinion

Projector: Epson EH-TW3200, Screen: Visivo Electric Screen PRO 117"
AVR: Yamaha RX-V2081
L/R Speakers: Yamaha NS-690III, Center: Yamaha NS-670,
L/R Surrounds: Yamaha NS-30X, Front Heights: Klipsch RS-25
Subs: Klipsch RW-12D, Crystal Acoustics THX-12 SUB
Source: Laptop - MPC-HC & ffdshow
nikolouzosr is offline  
post #333 of 385 Old 12-19-2014, 05:18 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post
Good lord! Have you not seen it yet? Go see it!
You saw it Scott, you liked it?
NorthSky is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #334 of 385 Old 12-19-2014, 05:19 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 21,509
Mentioned: 204 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5986 Post(s)
Liked: 5117
Scott Simonian is offline  
post #335 of 385 Old 12-19-2014, 06:14 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3562
Alright, finally saw it. But not @ an IMAX theater.

The screen's size was roughly 40x25' and had twelve surround speakers; four on each sides and four @ the back rear.
@ high volume the speakers behind the screen were distorting, on some scenes (very bad), and it takes people like I and you to know that.

Ok, my screen is small compared to the real IMAX theaters, and I would have to go back again when they will project it @ my real IMAX theater, in 70mm (most likely January 2015).

Picture quality: Nothing impressive here from such a tiny screen and low res. ...Many artifacts of course, like with most all movies. ...Aliasing effects/moving lines, unfocused pictures from horizontally moving cameras, light's fluctuations (minors), foggy print without definition, brief; details missing aplenty. ...And them shots in space, nothing different than any recent space movies. ...And the wormhole is a simple ride a la 'Nolan', ...CGI graphics created...pouf.

So too bad for me because there are simply not enough real IMAX theaters in the world, and I only live on a small island of the Pacific ocean out of the Canadian west coast: Vancouver Island, and in Victoria we are now.

All in all some films can only be viewed by the few fortunate ones; people living near big city centers of the world.
That's the name of the game with everything else in life. ...It's just the way it is.

Sound quality: Nothing exceptional here either; lots of organ and synthesizer music.
Here's an honest question: How many people could truly hear 100% of all the dialogue in that flick, and with them actors? ...Now you know where I'm coming from, and each person hears differently. Personally I thought the dialog was just normal as in most movies, and I sure missed few lines just like in also most movies; it's a me thing and not necessarily that particular flick with them actor's and actresses' own voices and the way they were recorded and ADR or not and with all the music behind plus the foley sound effects.

The overall volume was definitely too loud, way too loud. But I'm sure it's a theater thing from whoever is running the show in the front projector boot (kid smoking too much of that now legal stuff).
I did not bring my SPL meter but I estimate some sustained 115dB in some scenes. And our seats were shaking inside of us, and with us.
Our ears were truly assaulted by all that boring organ music. ...And by them way too loud sound effects @ times.
You could feel the threshold of pain entering the orifice of both ears and exalting inside in total disharmony and discomfort. ...Too late, the damage is done!
The three other people I went with did enjoy the audio ride, like a bunch of kids unaware that they just put a coffin nail in each of their two ears (age: 27, 60, and 75, plus me, also 60).

The storyline: Yep, that was the best part of it, for me, and for our quartet. The ending was really Christopher Nolan's style, which is good.
CGI effects were cool @ the end; the only true intrusion inside my soul (about ten minutes or plus so from this two hours and forty minutes flick).
But a film is a totality, and this wasn't a total film experience; just too many walks in space and not enough true substance.
A film is supposed to be entertaining, a sci-fi flick; yes it was, but a guy like me is not into froot loops (cereals) without real milk.
'2001: A Space Odyssey' ... too much stuff that Nolan "copied in verisimilitude of the neuroscience". ...2001 it ain't, and never will.
Both are totally differential in their unique sameness. ...Orbiting in the space relativity of someone's only one restricted vision of infinity in a non-free world of space exploration.

I could have wrote a very long post if I truly wanted to put my mind and heart into it, but I won't. ...Because this is the end. /// 'Interstellar'
KBMAN, skibum5000, pjd813 and 1 others like this.
NorthSky is offline  
post #336 of 385 Old 12-19-2014, 06:16 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post
Yeah. Saw it twice.
Give me the link(s) of your review(s), would you please?
NorthSky is offline  
post #337 of 385 Old 01-18-2015, 05:17 AM
Member
 
rodpaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Attended the 6 PM showing at the Airbus IMAX Theater Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (70mm) last night. Very interesting movie, but the audio was so loud that many people in the theatre were actually putting their fingers in their ears! Senseless and certainly potentially damaging audio levels!
-Rod
(retired SMPTE member)
skibum5000 likes this.

Last edited by rodpaine; 01-18-2015 at 05:37 AM.
rodpaine is offline  
post #338 of 385 Old 01-29-2015, 03:03 PM
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Star of the Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 16,643
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7012 Post(s)
Liked: 3562
Looking forward to the Blu.
NorthSky is offline  
post #339 of 385 Old 01-29-2015, 04:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rezzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Matrix
Posts: 9,868
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1038 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Will try to catch it this weekend at my local (real) IMAX screen before it gets pulled.
rezzy is offline  
post #340 of 385 Old 01-07-2016, 08:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodpaine View Post
Attended the 6 PM showing at the Airbus IMAX Theater Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (70mm) last night. Very interesting movie, but the audio was so loud that many people in the theatre were actually putting their fingers in their ears! Senseless and certainly potentially damaging audio levels!
-Rod
(retired SMPTE member)
Seriously, what is up with the ear-splitting, damaging levels used these days? I'm sure it drives more people away than gets one who would never have come at a reasonable volume level. It's getting to be disgusting. Practically everyone will have severe tinnitus in another 10 years.

By any chance did you TFA at the Airbus IMAX? The two laser options on the East Coast are there and Jordan's in Reading, MA. I'd prefer whichever one has some sort of sane volume level, but I fear neither. Wondering which is the lesser evil or if both are too evil. Jordan's apparently has buttkickers, not sure if that means they go even more insane with volume or maybe hold back a little since the seat is vibrating (ugh??).

I find the audio quality terrible these days since it's too loud to tell if the speakers are good.
skibum5000 is offline  
post #341 of 385 Old 01-21-2016, 10:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,826
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodpaine View Post
Attended the 6 PM showing at the Airbus IMAX Theater Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (70mm) last night. Very interesting movie, but the audio was so loud that many people in the theatre were actually putting their fingers in their ears! Senseless and certainly potentially damaging audio levels!
-Rod
(retired SMPTE member)
I'm pretty sure they are gonna git hit by class action lawsuits for hearing damage that will stick one of these days and be just as sorry as will all the people with mushy highs and tinnitus.
skibum5000 is offline  
post #342 of 385 Old 01-21-2016, 10:49 PM
Newbie
 
Megab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The first IMAX movie I went to see was almost my last. I LOVE powerful sound, but this was in a smaller IMAX theater, and I don't think they adjust the sound to compensate. Painfully, crazy loud. Like...front row rock concert level loud.

That said, every other IMAX I've been to since then has got it right. Either that, or I went deaf enough from the first one that it doesn't bother me anymore.
Megab is offline  
post #343 of 385 Old 10-25-2016, 02:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
If the 5/70 mm prints were always planned to be croppings of the 2.39:1 anamorphic 35 mm negative, then wouldn't that make Nolan's prime composition the 2.2:1 aspect ratio?
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #344 of 385 Old 10-26-2016, 10:59 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,236
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4444 Post(s)
Liked: 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
If the 5/70 mm prints were always planned to be croppings of the 2.39:1 anamorphic 35 mm negative, then wouldn't that make Nolan's prime composition the 2.2:1 aspect ratio?
Where do you get that from?

Interstellar was shot with a mix of 35mm film at 2.39:1 and IMAX 15/70 film at 1.43:1. In IMAX theaters, the 35mm portions are letterboxed in the center of the frame while the IMAX portions expand in height to fill the whole screen.

That only happens in IMAX theaters, however. In all other theaters, the IMAX footage is cropped to 2.39:1 to match the rest of the movie. Because the majority of viewers will see it this way, the IMAX shots have to be composed so that they're safe for cropping - meaning that they don't contain any critical picture content above or below the 2.39:1 frame lines. The top and bottom of the screen is mostly extra headroom and footroom.

I watched Interstellar on Blu-ray cropped to fill my 2.35:1 Constant Height screen, and at no point did it ever feel like anything was missing.

From that perspective, 2.39:1 is by necessity the movie's "prime" composition, though I suspect that Christopher Nolan would argue that he'd prefer you to watch it in IMAX.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #345 of 385 Old 10-26-2016, 11:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I watched Interstellar on Blu-ray cropped to fill my 2.35:1 Constant Height screen, and at no point did it ever feel like anything was missing.
I too watched Interstellar cropped on my scope screen, knowing it was composed for scope.
What I question is, since the movie was also printed in regular 5 perforations 70 mm film, I doubt that it was a letterboxed presentation, thus the sides must have been cropped from the wider 2.39:1.
So, Nolan and Hoytema may have protected for 2.39:1 and from that, the 2.2:1, because Nolan probably planned way before that Interstellar was going to receive a 5/70 mm release too, don't you think?
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #346 of 385 Old 10-26-2016, 01:39 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,236
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4444 Post(s)
Liked: 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
I too watched Interstellar cropped on my scope screen, knowing it was composed for scope.
What I question is, since the movie was also printed in regular 5 perforations 70 mm film, I doubt that it was a letterboxed presentation, thus the sides must have been cropped from the wider 2.39:1.
So, Nolan and Hoytema may have protected for 2.39:1 and from that, the 2.2:1, because Nolan probably planned way before that Interstellar was going to receive a 5/70 mm release too, don't you think?
I didn't see the 70mm presentation. It may have been letterboxed. I wouldn't rule that out.

Even if it was cropped, that doesn't necessarily mean anything about intent. The difference between 2.2:1 and 2.39:1 is pretty small. It's actually within the "TV Safe" margins that most cinematographers protect for anyway.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #347 of 385 Old 10-26-2016, 01:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I just tried a 2.2:1 crop and, yeah, the difference is negligible. Considering that the Blu-ray is actually a DCP cropped from 2048 to 1920 and we don't lose much yet, I guess 2.39:1 was indeed the main goal.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #348 of 385 Old 10-27-2016, 11:22 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,236
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4444 Post(s)
Liked: 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
I just tried a 2.2:1 crop and, yeah, the difference is negligible. Considering that the Blu-ray is actually a DCP cropped from 2048 to 1920 and we don't lose much yet, I guess 2.39:1 was indeed the main goal.
It's not necessarily cropped from the DCP. It may have been scaled down without losing any picture information.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #349 of 385 Old 10-27-2016, 12:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I'm sure of it. Someone on another website has shown an IMAX frame with the Blu-ray frame superimposed and it's missing part of the sides.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #350 of 385 Old 10-30-2016, 05:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I decided to take a more thorough look into Interstellar's IMAX frames from 70 mm cells and screenshots of actual full frames on the web.

I no longer look at the headroom as a consequence of the scope composition. Many shots are too ambiguous and unless Nolan or Hoytema tell me, I can't know properly what was the intended composition.

If Nolan deems digital as inferior, then he only cared for the 15/70, 5/70 and 35 mm prints. I can't no longer delude myself into believing that he went to all the hassle to shoot in IMAX in three of his last four movies only to enhance the 35 mm theatrical presentation.

The upcoming Dunkirk is even more obvious, because Nolan and Hoytema have completely ditched 35 mm negative and shot only in IMAX and Super Panavision (5/65 mm).
So, why shoot just on 65 mm film formats and compose for a lesser film print aspect ratio?
I don't think their vision is for 35 mm screens.
If Tarantino shot Hateful Eight in Ultra Panavision it certainly wasn't for 35 mm screens.

Thus, I decided to ditch my scope screen to present Interstellar the proper way.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #351 of 385 Old 10-31-2016, 11:24 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,236
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4444 Post(s)
Liked: 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
So, why shoot just on 65 mm film formats and compose for a lesser film print aspect ratio?
I don't think their vision is for 35 mm screens.
If Tarantino shot Hateful Eight in Ultra Panavision it certainly wasn't for 35 mm screens.

Thus, I decided to ditch my scope screen to present Interstellar the proper way.
The only theaters that can project the movie with a variable ratio are IMAX, which accounts for less than 1% of all movie theaters worldwide. Everyone else will see it projected at a constant 2.40:1. If Nolan composed the film with critical picture information outside the 2.40:1 area, he would essentially be telling 99% of the audience: "F*** you! I don't care if you can't see all of my movie. You're worthless and you don't matter to me. Why don't you just go crawl in a hole and die?"

Not a wise business decision for someone who needs his movie to make at least $500 million just to break even.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #352 of 385 Old 10-31-2016, 12:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Can you imagine Nolan going through hard work with his crew in finding ways to shoot with the huge IMAX cameras as much as possible, then asking big money to render complex CGI at 5.6K for the full IMAX frame, checking IMAX theaters that they present the movie properly and in the end thinking: "Whatever! The 35 mm print is THE definitive version of this movie."

I can't think that way any longer.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #353 of 385 Old 11-01-2016, 03:16 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I found a detailed diagram on IMAX camera viewfinder guidelines.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAX viewfinder.jpg
Views:	95
Size:	144.8 KB
ID:	1746905  
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #354 of 385 Old 11-02-2016, 09:15 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,236
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4444 Post(s)
Liked: 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
Can you imagine Nolan going through hard work with his crew in finding ways to shoot with the huge IMAX cameras as much as possible, then asking big money to render complex CGI at 5.6K for the full IMAX frame, checking IMAX theaters that they present the movie properly and in the end thinking: "Whatever! The 35 mm print is THE definitive version of this movie."

I can't think that way any longer.
Watch Interstellar with the top and bottom of the frame matted to 2.40:1. I defy you to find one single frame in the entire movie where you notice something important being lost.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #355 of 385 Old 11-02-2016, 02:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 7,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1315 Post(s)
Liked: 1135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
I decided to take a more thorough look into Interstellar's IMAX frames from 70 mm cells and screenshots of actual full frames on the web.

I no longer look at the headroom as a consequence of the scope composition. Many shots are too ambiguous and unless Nolan or Hoytema tell me, I can't know properly what was the intended composition.

If Nolan deems digital as inferior, then he only cared for the 15/70, 5/70 and 35 mm prints. I can't no longer delude myself into believing that he went to all the hassle to shoot in IMAX in three of his last four movies only to enhance the 35 mm theatrical presentation.
From what I remember the last time I watched the movie, all IMAX shots were safe for 2.40. The added content, while enhancing the experience at the theater, certainly didn't add crucial information. I don't think he does it to "enhance the 35mm presentation", imo he does it to enhance the presentation period. When you see the image switching to the IMAX full resolution, the incredibly detailed picture makes you wish the entire film was shot with IMAX cameras. A 15/70 screen is certainly more immersive than 2.35/40 AR (Way more than this stupid 3D by the way). Yet he makes sure you can still appreciate the movie at a fixed ratio, he would a fool with little respect for his audience not to, and I don't think he's a fool.
Josh Z likes this.

__________
Nicolas.

"Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent."- Victor Hugo.

Last edited by Morpheo; 11-02-2016 at 02:39 PM.
Morpheo is offline  
post #356 of 385 Old 11-03-2016, 08:22 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Medium shots look fine, I know that. But all the shots with the camera attached at the Ranger spaceship are too cramped, i.e. when Cooper falls into the black hole we see in a little corner above the cockpit the outer cosmos looking like a wormhole, but it's very difficult to look at.
Another shot even received a tilt/scan, when Cooper and Murph are going to the coordinates, Cooper is drinking water and then the frame is tilted down to his hand pulling a blanket for Murph taking a nap. That's in 16:9! The 2.39 framing is even more cramped!

And without taking into consideration that all the exclusive Premieres were done at IMAX 15/70 theaters.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #357 of 385 Old 11-03-2016, 09:51 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,236
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4444 Post(s)
Liked: 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
I found a detailed diagram on IMAX camera viewfinder guidelines.
What this Viewfinder Framing Guide is explicitly saying is: "If you put something outside the highlighted area, it's going to get cut off on most screens. Don't put anything important there."



Quote:
Medium shots look fine, I know that. But all the shots with the camera attached at the Ranger spaceship are too cramped, i.e. when Cooper falls into the black hole we see in a little corner above the cockpit the outer cosmos looking like a wormhole, but it's very difficult to look at.
Another shot even received a tilt/scan, when Cooper and Murph are going to the coordinates, Cooper is drinking water and then the frame is tilted down to his hand pulling a blanket for Murph taking a nap. That's in 16:9! The 2.39 framing is even more cramped!
You are only judging these shots as "too cramped" because you're directly comparing them to the 16:9 version. If you only watched the 2.40:1 version without reference to the other, you wouldn't notice anything missing.

Even the 16:9 Blu-ray transfer is cropped down from the 1.44:1 camera negative. By your reasoning, the Blu-ray is also a horrible bastardization that's missing important stuff the director needs us to see to understand the story. If that were actually the case, Christopher Nolan would be a pretty lousy director.

I have a lot of issues with Christopher Nolan as a screenwriter and storyteller, but when it comes to technical matters like photography and framing a shot, the guy is not an idiot. He'd have to be a total idiot to frame his shots with critical picture information that 99% of theatrical viewers won't be able to see.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAX viewfinder.jpg
Views:	103
Size:	275.4 KB
ID:	1751425  

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.

Last edited by Josh Z; 11-03-2016 at 09:55 AM.
Josh Z is offline  
post #358 of 385 Old 11-03-2016, 10:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
That red contour you drew is completely wrong because it doesn't match the scope extraction. You drew the bottom at the HORIZON!

The 16:9 BD is a compromised version, I know, because I already wrote the example of the scene that was tilt/scanned in 16:9, while the full 1.44 was the intended composition. But cropping that scene even more down to scope makes it cramped.

Last edited by Optimus_Fine; 11-26-2016 at 11:35 AM.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
post #359 of 385 Old 11-03-2016, 10:55 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,236
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4444 Post(s)
Liked: 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimus_Fine View Post
The 16:9 BD is a compromised version, I know, because I already wrote the example of the scene that was tilt/scanned in 16:9, while the full 1.44 was the intended composition. But cropping that scene even more down to scope makes it cramped.
Christopher Nolan made the movie knowing that 99% of theaters would project it at 2.40:1 and that most viewers would see it that way. Do you actually believe that he framed his shots deliberately intending that the majority of viewers wouldn't be able to follow the action or enjoy his movie?

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #360 of 385 Old 11-03-2016, 11:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I already made my mind.
Optimus_Fine is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Tags
frontpage

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