The Curious Case of IMAX

PerroneFord

PerroneFord

Deals in Lead
I hope you will all indulge me for a moment, as I am not speaking to a particular film so much, but more to the layout of the films we watch.

In Ye olden days of cinema (the early 30s) the Academy seemed to settle on a screen layout of about 1.34:1. This was after a wild shootout of unstandardized film sizes and frame rates. As things progressed through the middle part of the century, films got wider and wider. Some even besting a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. By the last 60s and early 70s, things seemed to settle down quite a bit and the academy had settled on it's 1.85:1 ratio and anamorphic was running around 2:37:1. But then came IMAX. With it's 80ft tall screen and ... a 1.34 ratio?

The rise of popular IMAX theater was centered around mostly educational programming as things got very tricky when trying to push the format beyond 40-45 minutes or so. But the past few years have seen the rise of the DMR transfer, where tradionally filmed 35mm material is de-noised and re-matted for IMAX.

I don't think that there is much doubt that some of the most powerful displays of cinema in recent years have taken place in IMAX theatres. The Matrix when converted. The Dark Knight, and currently Avatar. But my question to you, my fellow filmmakers is this:

Do you find that the experience of watching major movies on a format similar to your 4:3 TV at home, to be cheapened in any way? Many here, myself included have tried to find ways to work toward producing something visual stunning that could fill an anamorphic frame. And yet, there I was last night totally immersed in a 4:3 frame and not thinking once about the fact I was not watching a widescreen presentation.

Would we be comfortable at this point in time producing material for 4:3 as cinematic?

I truly look forward to your responses on this, and I hope we can spawn some healthy discussion.
 
I don't find it cheapened at all, as IMAX is usually framed differently than regular 1.33. DP's tend to give a lot of headroom and frame more in the bottom 2/3 of the screen, as on a massive IMAX screen framing at the top would strain necks. The Matrix and most other films that were converted to IMAX were just letterboxed in the center, not reframed. The only exception was Apollo 13, but that was shot on Super35 which is shot 1.33 and then masked to 1.85. They just removed the masking for the IMAX version so again, no reframing of the image.
 
I don't find the format objectionable for narrative content.

Although I'm disappointed; I thought from the title that this thread had to do with IMAX equipment that ages backwards, or something...
 
I consider 4:3 to be a lesser format simply because most subjects- primarily landscapes- fit better wide. But, as with most of these types of discussions, what's actually being shown is far more important than anything else.
 
Cassius said:
I consider 4:3 to be a lesser format simply because most subjects- primarily landscapes- fit better wide.
Click to expand...

And curiously, you are utterly wowed by the landscapes on Pandora in Avatar. I really didn't even notice it. And that it what makes it such a boggle to me.
 
Whoa whoa whoa, where are you getting these facts Perrone? When I saw Avatar and Harry Potter in Imax 3d I never noticed anything wierd with the aspect ratio. I normally notice when a film has it's ends cut off because some shots may look strange, say a quick cut of a two shot of a conversation.

So I decided to look it up and on the imax website it clearly states in the FAQ:

Are Hollywood movies re-mastered for IMAX cropped or otherwise manipulated to fit the screen?
Per the filmmakers' request, IMAX maintains the original aspect ratio when converting a Hollywood film into The IMAX Experience. The result is often letterboxed so it doesn't fill the entire IMAX screen. While the aspect ratio was altered for a few early films (i.e. Star Wars), it hasn't been done for several years. Our current releases preserve the same aspect ratio it was shot in.
Click to expand...
Plus on Wiki (not the best source, but often accurate) it says the Imax aspect ratio is 1.44.

IMAX (15/70)

  • spherical lenses
  • 70 mm film, 15 perforations per frame
  • horizontal pulldown, from right to left (viewed from base side)
  • 24 frames per second
  • camera aperture: 70.41 mm (2.772″) by 52.63 mm (2.072″)
  • projection aperture: at least 20.3 mm (0.80″) less than camera aperture on the vertical axis and at least 0.016″ less on the horizontal axis
  • aspect ratio: 1.44:1
Click to expand...
So where's this 1.34 aspect ratio come from?

Either way, 1.34 bugs me, and I can't stand having so much room on the top and bottom. We don't view the world like that. We see things horizontally. It's easy to see something to the side, not to the top.

EDIT: Hmm, seems like the camera's shoot at 1.35 aspect ratio, but it's cut off a bit at the tops, and less at the sides into a 1.44 aspect ratio.
 
Last edited:
PerroneFord said:
Exactly. 4:3.
Click to expand...

But it's projected at 1.44... or am I missing something? Or is that what title safe does to a normal 4:3 ratio? I dunno, I'm no expert...

Either way, that doesn't disprove the fact that Avatar was NOT 1.34, or 1.44. Not sure why you're not addressing that.

He DID change the aspect ratio for 3D, but not to 4:3. Here's more:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/30/cameron-says-avatar-wont-be-shown-the-same-size-everywhere/

I think I heard Dark Knight's Imax 3d scenes were shot with imax cameras, therefore the aspect ratio kept changing during the showing. But they didn't take the widescreen and chop off the ends.
 
PerroneFord said:
And curiously, you are utterly wowed by the landscapes on Pandora in Avatar. I really didn't even notice it. And that it what makes it such a boggle to me.
Click to expand...

All the scenery on Pandora is very "high" though. The trees are tall; the mountains float; the people are even tall. Might have had something to do with it.

- Mikko
 
Ok, 1.34, 1.35 or 1.44, it doesn't matter. The movie was shot at 1.78. And the Dark knight was shot at either 2:35 or 2:40. And yes, the IMAX sequences in Dark Knight were shot with IMAX cameras (some on a steadicam!).

My point was not to get bogged down in the minutiae of the actual original format, but to note the rather "narrow" aspect of the IMAX screen and wonder aloud if anyone felt it was taking cinematic film in the wrong direction.

I do think it's interesting to note that with IMAX releases going rather narrow, and Panavision fighting for more projects in anamorphic, we have two very powerful forces in cinema pulling in different directions. I applaud Nolan for showing the Dark Knight in IMAX without cutting the sides off. It was honestly barely noticeable on-screen, and wasn't jarring in the least.



Jon Starr said:
But it's projected at 1.44... or am I missing something? Or is that what title safe does to a normal 4:3 ratio? I dunno, I'm no expert...

Either way, that doesn't disprove the fact that Avatar was NOT 1.34, or 1.44. Not sure why you're not addressing that.

He DID change the aspect ratio for 3D, but not to 4:3. Here's more:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/30/cameron-says-avatar-wont-be-shown-the-same-size-everywhere/

I think I heard Dark Knight's Imax 3d scenes were shot with imax cameras, therefore the aspect ratio kept changing during the showing. But they didn't take the widescreen and chop off the ends.
Click to expand...
 
mikkowilson said:
All the scenery on Pandora is very "high" though. The trees are tall; the mountains float; the people are even tall. Might have had something to do with it.

- Mikko
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point. Na'vi are very vertical as well, and we spend a lot of time "looking up" in the movie. To the sky, to the tree tops, from the choices in cinematography where the camera is positioned about waist high to the Na'vi. The entire movie is quite vertical. BUT, had it been shot in scope, would it have felt like there was more of a vista? That was one of the things that was originally so great about shooting scope. The ability to take in a broad swath of beautiful scenery.
 
Funny thing about aspect ratios... we clamor for wider and wider, but other than the horizon, what do we see that benefits from that wide? People are tall and skinny, trees and buildings are tall and skinny, etc...

Film started out as 1.33, and all film formats (other than Super16) are still pretty much 1.33 (aka 4:3). Television started out as 4:3, because film was 4:3 -- that's the whole reason TV is the shape it is! Any film prior to about 1950 is all 4:3 -- go try to find the "widescreen" version of Citizen Kane or Wizard of Oz, they don't exist because it wasn't shot in widescreen in the first place.

Film is all 1.33, so how do we get 1.85 or 2.35/2.40 Super35? By letterboxing. Putting black bars on the film...

Film went to 1.85:1 because they were trying out new things to keep people coming to the theaters. They tried many things (3D, widescreen, "Sensurround", electric shocks in the chairs, anything) to keep the theater experience unique. The one thing that "stuck" was widescreen.

So now, HDTV is 16:9 because they're trying to match what the movies did (which is, again, what we had back in old days!) So now, the movies are trying to differentiate themselves with IMAX (huge screens... but yeah, home theaters are making huge screens) and surround sound (yep, home has that too) and ... yes, 3-D! Once again. But home TVs already have or are slated to be pushed to 3-D...

Interestingly enough, a new "growth market" for cinema theaters is to ... start showing broadcasts! Special-event broadcasts, like concerts or self-help seminars or the Super Bowl, or group-arranged movie-on-demand screenings... TV has been chasing the movies since its introduction, and now movie theaters are starting to move into the TV business... they've already had paid advertising for years and years. Funny...

Okay, back to aspect ratios -- Red is actually trying to implement a "new" standard aspect ratio, 2:1. Don't really understand why, but they seem hot on it, and they're even shaping their new sensors 2:1 so if someone shoots in a "standard" aspect ratio (such as 1.78, 1.85, or 2.40) they won't be using the full sensor. I don't know why Red thinks it's in their best interest to push a nonstandard aspect ratio, but they seem pretty interested in doing so.

Super16 film is actually probably the ideal ratio, as far as what humans consider beautiful. Super16 is about 1.65:1, and architecture and the study of "beauty" in nature has taught us that there exists a perfect proportion, the "golden ratio", which is a ratio of about 1.6x wider than it is tall. You'll see this proportion repeated throughout nature, through the ancient Greek architecture, in the faces of people considered "beautiful"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rectangle
 
PerroneFord said:
Do you find that the experience of watching major movies on a format similar to your 4:3 TV at home, to be cheapened in any way? Many here, myself included have tried to find ways to work toward producing something visual stunning that could fill an anamorphic frame. And yet, there I was last night totally immersed in a 4:3 frame and not thinking once about the fact I was not watching a widescreen presentation.

Would we be comfortable at this point in time producing material for 4:3 as cinematic?
Click to expand...


Peronne, you are looking at this through a very technical eye, not the eye of a typical movie goer who knows nothing about aspect ratios.

I doubt you will find any typical movie consumer who judges a movie/production by any of it's technical merits.

The exception to this is what some home HDTV owners want, they want the movie to fit their fancy new expensive screen correctly. Even so, some HDTV owners don't even notice stretched or letterboxed (either H or V) material.

About the historical evolution of aspect ratios, part of it would probably be practical considerations. A widescreen movie theater can seat more people across than a square screen one. In the early days of film, people had to go to a theater to see a movie. Also, a 4:3 TV takes up less space in a house, which is a consideration even today. IMO, the smaller 16:9 tvs actually dont provide as good a viewing experience as a similar sized 4:3 counterpart.
 
Last edited:
Cassius said:
I consider 4:3 to be a lesser format simply because most subjects- primarily landscapes- fit better wide.
Click to expand...

But do they? Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, the Muench family, Christopher Burkett, etc. all made their mark shooting some of the most astounding landscape photos ever using a 4x5 or 8x10 field view camera (a 1:1.25 ratio). When I was younger I was seriously into landscape photography and lugged around heavy field gear all over the planet. Learning how to frame the landscape in that format was part of the game. Granted, half of those photos were vertical, but there were very few that were wide that could not be framed to fill the frame in an aesthetic manner.

One could argue that motion picture cameras require panning/moving along a landscape, sure. But It requires tilting as well.

PerroneFord said:
My point was not to get bogged down in the minutiae of the actual original format, but to note the rather "narrow" aspect of the IMAX screen and wonder aloud if anyone felt it was taking cinematic film in the wrong direction..
Click to expand...

What I find most rewarding about IMAX has nothing to do with ratio, and everything to do with returning movies to a BIG screen. When I was a boy through the 70's and 80's big screens were the only way to see new big releases. But in the 90s they started to disappear in favor of these 16-multiplex theaters with 30' screens. So to me, it's wonderful to have IMAX fill a gap many in the industry thought was dead.

Barry_Green said:
Interestingly enough, a new "growth market" for cinema theaters is to ... start showing broadcasts! Special-event broadcasts, like concerts or self-help seminars or the Super Bowl..
Click to expand...
Yes, I see this as well. Back in 2004 a stage of the Tour de France was shown live at 5am In my town they filled the theater with fans.
 
snowleopard said:
What I find most rewarding about IMAX has nothing to do with ratio, and everything to do with returning movies to a BIG screen.
Click to expand...

Well, that's another comical aspect (aspect? pun?) to the whole aspect ratio thing.

Back in the old days, when we used to walk uphill both ways to school, movie theater screens used to actually get WIDER when showing a widescreen presentation. And that was the bizzomb. You'd sit down in Star Wars, and all the previews would be shown in 1.85:1, and then, before the main attraction, these curtains on the side of the theater would slide away, revealing the bigger/wider 2.40 screen.

But today, it's really pretty much the opposite. Now, the 1.85 screen is the big one, and when a 'scope film comes on, they actually bring curtains down from the top and up from the bottom to matte off the screen...
 
Barry_Green said:
But today, it's really pretty much the opposite. Now, the 1.85 screen is the big one, and when a 'scope film comes on, they actually bring curtains down from the top and up from the bottom to matte off the screen...
Click to expand...

WOW! Where are you watching your movies? I've never seen this.
 
The curtain-formatting trick is something I've seen at The Grove and The Cinerama Theaters (not the Dome, but the 'regular' theaters next door). Although I have never seen the bottom-up curtains, only the top-down ones.
 
In an earlier post in this thread, IMAX was characterized as being a "narrow" aspect ratio. My take on it is that it's really a "tall" aspect ratio. IMAX films are created to be projected on a very large screen, creating an environment that the audience is immersed in. It's been a while since I've seen an IMAX film, but as I recall the top & bottom of the screen usually has only peripheral information that you don't really need to look at directly. Occasionally there's something that you will look up or down at, and that's one of the things that helps give the format its "wow" factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top