Is IMAX killing cinema?
>>222131688not really but it's still a giant meme
>>222131688Why dont the regular theatres just zoom out
>>222131688>hollywood so desperate they are trying to convince people to pay twice for tickets just to watch movies in 4:3
>>222131855>Movies are now practically verticalBravo Nolon!
>>222131822
>>222131855I don't get it, they've convinced us that widescreen and more horizontal TVs/Screens are better... but people pay way more to watch a movie that's more vertical and square like on CRT TV's 30 years ago.Why don't we make more TV's in the 4:3 aspect if it's so much better?
>>222131855>>222132056You don't understand
>>222132111The point is you're paying to get an experience that you cant get at home
>>222131688I don't get why imax Is forced when most theaters can't even display them
>>222132257Behold
>desi sigma>pfp of Tommy Shelby
>>222131688Fixed
>>222132070>>222132227Why don't they just remove the black bars?
>>222132343Living satire
>>222131688No, what a stupid fucking thing to say. How many IMAX movies are there?
>>222132453It's about quality not quantity. If if they do increase the quantity then the rest are surely screwed. You can see that can't you?
>>222132297delet this
I saw the second and third Matrix movies in IMAX. The Dock battle was excellent, but most close up scenes where they show one or two people really sucked. For those who haven't seen any movies like that it isn't that great of an experience. I would rather stay at home and watch movies on my OLED.
I'm sure IMAX 70mm is a fun experience but basing your entire movie production process on it when it will only be there for a few weeks and then on widescreens afterward doesn't sound so forward-thinking.
>>222132227This is literally 4:3. What the fuck?
>>222132227>>222132761>>222132358Why don't they make 4:3 screens if the experience is so much better?
>>222131688so we're just reposting indians off twitter nowawesome!
>>222132761Just zoom out.
>>222132629>second and third Matrix movies Those weren't shot for imax. They were normal 35mm movies which remained in 2.39, with a crude early digital upscaling process to achieve a semi-usable 70mm print. I'm not surprised that they didn't look particularly good. You can't compare that to something shot on 15/70 like Odyssey. You can't even even compare it to something shot on modern large-sensor digital cameras like Project Hail Mary.
>>222132395>bro, zoom in>>222132814>Just zoom out.The duality of man.
>>222131688remember when that ugly chick killed Sydneys career with that interview? remember when that obese black woman killed Sydneys career by flipping off her ad? why has everyone forgotten about those people but right now today they still remember Sydneys allegedly dead career? :)
>>222131822In the case of the Odyssey I think it should have been shown in pillarboxed format in normal cinemas.
>Make movies exclusively for the IMAX format >Only like 30 screens in the entire world (a bunch of which were fucking torn down over the past decade)>Refuse to make more because it's expensive to make the projectors/cinemas >also refuse to allow cinemas to screen movies in the imax aspect ratio and just have black bars on the sides>95% of IMAX movies DON'T FUCKING RELEASE ON BLURAY WITH THE FULL ASPECT RATIO essentially making the definitive versions of those films lost media>This is okay because........???????????????????
Why not adjust the zoom and framing during filming so that the shot looks good on both IMAX and standard screens?
Cinema vs absolute cinema
>>222132897>95% of IMAX movies DON'T FUCKING RELEASE ON BLURAY WITH THE FULL ASPECT RATIO essentially making the definitive versions of those films lost media>This is okay because........???????????????????It's a business
>>222132832That's a big asshole
>>222132897Yeah, and it will only be in IMAX theaters for a limited time. Once those movies leave, all that effort put into making it look good specifically for IMAX is out the window.
>>222132227why cant they just do this and add more
That's one of the nice things about 3D, you can render it to look good on widescreens, then modify the shots and re-render it for the IMAX format.
>desi sigmaliteral Indian account
>why don't they just pillarboxThat's always an option. Obsession was in 1.5 and that worked fine.For Odyssey the filmmakers made a different creative decision which is that they wanted the image to fill as much of the screen as possible. They even sent out separate 1.85 and 2.39 DCPs. It makes sense given that they're going for an epic and immersive vibe.So far I've only seen it in 1.43. I'm tempted to rewatch in 2.39 to find out how much it compromises it. My best guess is that most of it will be fine but some especially vertical shots (cyclops, giants, horse) will feel cramped.
>desi sigmaIt’s not like we didn’t already know who was behind the threads
>took like ten posts for someone to comment on desi sigmaJeet board
>>222133005For you
>>222133104That's what they do. It's about the cameras used and the screen size it's show on
>>222133152>just re-render an entire movie broThat shit ain't cheap.
>>222133160>>222133433And yet the point remains valid.
>>222133104they do, all these comparisons are disengenious as fuck and they just crop screenshots to make imax look better.Honestly starts feeling like some astroturfed attempt by the studios and theatre chains to get people back into theatre to "experience the real deal".
>>222133570Tell me how to get the full IMAX experience at home
everything is a jewish trick >lets make 2 versions >one you cant see anything>the more expensive version allows you to actually see the movie
>>222132927we had this solved 70 years ago.
Thank you, Zack.
>>222133595>download the movie to your phone>700mb yify rip is the best one>put your cheap plastic earbuds knockoffs into your ears>crank the volume to max>tape your phone to our face>playe movie>shove a cactus up your ass>....?>profit
>>222132629It does mess up a lot of framing because they ARE framing for widescreen. Just like they'll film in 8k or whatever so they can zoom in for 4k. You're seeing from a distance and so much extra surroundings that any intimate scenes lose that intimacy, and any close-ups end up not close-ups, etc.
>>222131688Not for Nolan
>>222131761>>222132453>>222132699>IMAX accounts for 1 percent of screens but 20 percent of opening weekend grosses.
Before long they're going to convince people screen x isn't a complete meme.
>>222131688I am against IMAX because cinema should never be a square aspect ratio.
>>222133936I can see these being good for space, underwater, nature documentaries and action scenes but not sure about regular scenes like character dialogue
>>222131688imax is retarded
>>222134093I can see that too, but that's what Imax (real Imax domes) was for when I was a kid. Now they call them omnimax or some other stupid name. Lots of nature and science museums used to have them.
>>222133811Are you talking about Odyssey here? Did you see it in a 1.43 imax? Because I really can't agree. It's full of intimate shots and pretty extreme closeups, and they work well.Antinous' private conversation with Penelope comes to mind... it stays uncomfortably close-up on Pattinson for an extended time, bringing across how slimy and conniving he's being.And I was quite far back (row J).
>>222134291No, I wasn't talking specifically about the Odyssey, which seems to be the ONLY exception to my rule. Odyssey had several versions edited for different formats, like actually pushing into shots at different distances and all that so it worked on each aspect ratio. Versus framing for widescreen and then letting the extra uncropped footage act as the "imax release".
I'm not paying $30 to watch some stupid 80 nits screenbut I do like the "imax enhanced" streaming versions that show more image on my 16:9 OLED
quite ironic how we only have widescreen meme for pushing people to theaters and normies were utterly convinced that wider = better because you can see "more" by adding to the sides and then this suddenly flipped with a bit of imax marketing....(but it's good because our eyes don't see in widescreen)
>>222134726So you're saying you like paying for IMAX at home
>>222131688If you need an expensive gimmick in order to even watch your movie you made a shit movie
jokingly, and with a wink and a nod to Fritz Lang, I'll say that widescreen is only good for snakes, trains, and funerals
>>222135086disney plus has multiple versions of some moviesit doesn't cost extra
>>222135028You're genuinely a fucking idiot if you can't tell the difference between something shot full frame, and pan and scan.Why are you even on this board?
>>222131688nah, the filmmakers are doing just fine on that front on their ownIMAX is just a crutch to subsidize mediocre ticket sales
>>222135160you seem very angry and too retarded to understand hypotheticalsthey film for the format but they can choose the format which is what we are talking about
>>222131688>make joke>autist responds seriously>ruins the moodwhy are they like this?
>>222132784because in the 50s theaters switched to widescreen to differentiate themselves from tv, then tv switched to widescreen to better display film content, now theaters are doing this bullshit to differentiate themselves from tvs again
holodeck or bust
