Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IMAX Boasts 26% More James Bond ‘Skyfall’

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » IMAX Boasts 26% More James Bond ‘Skyfall’ (Page 1)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: IMAX Boasts 26% More James Bond ‘Skyfall’

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004

posted 10-24-2012 01:44 PM

IMAX Boasts 26% More James Bond ‘Skyfall’

Source: deadline.com

quote:
The filmmakers worked with the IMAX team in the post-production process to increase the aspect ratio of the film and designed the IMAX presentation of Skyfall to allow audiences to see up to 26% more of the originally captured image. The technical term for the proportional relationship between an image’s width and its height is called aspect ratio. A film made for CinemaScope 2.41:1, the standard in the industry, is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures. Like with Skyfall, we provide filmmakers with the ability to optimize their film’s aspect ratio for an IMAX screen during production by shooting with the extremely high-resolution IMAX camera (capable of up to IMAX® 1.43:1—up to 40% more of the picture) or in post-production (capable of up to IMAX® 1.90:1—up to 26% more of the picture). So what does this mean for moviegoers? You get to see much more of the original image, resulting in a full panoramic view that makes you feel part of the action.

[ 10-24-2012, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-24-2012 06:47 PM

Cinemascope is 2.41:1 now? Why does it keep getting .01:1 wider every few years?

Anyway, I can't wait to be part of the action, fighting alongside James Bond and sharing a beer with him. Because Bond drinks beer.

| IP: Logged

Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 10-24-2012 06:49 PM

middle age spread.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-24-2012 08:22 PM

That's great, because every movie I've ever seen, I've wished there was more of the ground and sky showing. [Roll Eyes]

I think it's hilarious how every new innovation that comes along, they say it makes you "part of the action." I don't WANT to be part of the action, you morons....that's why I'm out here in the seats.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 10-26-2012 03:23 PM

It is just like old standard def TV only bigger! But still it is just what you watch on the old TV set honest just the best thing every standard def TV and square pictures.

A Giant step for man A Giant step backwards for Mankind!

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 10-26-2012 04:51 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
That's great, because every movie I've ever seen, I've wished there was more of the ground and sky showing.

Amen to that! All IMAX full frame does is screw up the composition of the image. [Mad]

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think it's hilarious how every new innovation that comes along, they say it makes you "part of the action." I don't WANT to be part of the action, you morons....that's why I'm out here in the seats.

The only new innovation that will EVER truly do that is the machine they built in the 1983 movie Brainstorm.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 10-26-2012 05:28 PM

2.20:1

Go 70mm or go home.

AJG

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-26-2012 05:29 PM

What? Now the boom mics at the top of the frame and gawkers behind the barracades on the set are now PART of the movie?

Used to be, we just cropped that shit out.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-27-2012 01:29 AM

quote: Brad Miller
The only new innovation that will EVER truly do that is the machine they built in the 1983 movie Brainstorm.

Yeah, I definitely wanted one of those. (There's a movie that would be ripe for a remake. It could actually work in Imax -- they could make the "playback" scenes fill the whole screen. Or in 3-D --- the "real life" scenes could be flat and the playbacks in 3-D.)

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 10-27-2012 12:33 PM

Now that I've seen Skyfall (best Bond movie since the Goldfinger/From Russia With Love era, by the way), I can concentrate on watching the frame composition when I QC my IMAX digital copy.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 10-27-2012 02:58 PM

I agree with Mike the studios would jump on the whole 3D thing (and unfortunately the full frame IMAX thing), but we humans see more WIDTH than HEIGHT. That's because our eyes are BESIDE each other, not one above the other. IMAX full screen ratio has always been dumb. 2.40 is the closest ratio to actual human vision.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-27-2012 04:06 PM

It's 2.41 now. 2.40 was just too narrow and restrictive.

quote: Brad Miller
we humans see more WIDTH than HEIGHT. That's because our eyes are BESIDE each other

Even with just one eyeball we see wider than we see tall. I mean that could be my caveman-like fore-brow limiting my height distance, but it seems to me that I still see wider when I close one eye.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 10-27-2012 06:25 PM

how can something be 'panoramic' when you're exposing more image vertically??

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-01-2012 09:42 AM

The article incorrectly states that CinemaScope is "is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures." This is not the case.

It also states that the scope aspect ratio is "the standard in the industry." Also inaccurate. It is one of two main standards, among several others.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 11-01-2012 10:37 AM

quote: Manny Knowles
The article incorrectly states that CinemaScope is "is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures." This is not the case.

Well, that's not quite true. When someone like a James Cameron shoots a movie with the Super 35 process, only part of the image the movie camera captures is used. Maybe a Cameron movie isn't shot with the spherical lens that makes a CinemaScope movie a CinemaScope movie, but then how many movies are shot with actual CinemaScope lenses any more? Plus, with digital cinematography, the camera captures far more image than the filmmaker will use, regardless of where they ultimately set the aspect ratio.

quote: Manny Knowles
It also states that the scope aspect ratio is "the standard in the industry." Also inaccurate. It is one of two main standards, among several others.

While it is one of two main standards, my theatre plays about 50% more 2.39:1 features as it does 1.85:1 features on any given week. I can't even remember a time when I had as many or more flat features than scope.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.